An Innovative Near-Peer Mentoring Model for Undergraduate and Secondary Students: STEM Focus

Abstract

This study examined a novel mentoring model, near-peer mentorship, that supports the development of mentee and mentor, incorporates established principles of mentoring, and offers unique opportunities to integrate research and teaching in a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) internship. Using qualitative methods, this model was examined from the perspectives of near-peer mentors and student mentees during a science education internship at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Results revealed that this mentorship model contributed to personal, educational, and professional growth for near-peer mentors and increased the interest and engagement of students studying STEM. We discuss implications, limitations, and future directions.

Full text

An Innovative Near-Peer Mentoring Model
for Undergraduate and Secondary Students: STEM Focus
Laura S. Tenenbaum &Margery K. Anderson &
Marti Jett &Debra L. Yourick
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This study examined a novel mentoring model, near-peer mentorship, that supports
the development of mentee and mentor, incorporates established principles of mentoring, and
offers unique opportunities to integrate research and teaching in a science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) internship. Using qualitative methods, this model
was examined from the perspectives of near-peer mentors and student mentees during a
science education internship at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Results revealed
InnovHighEduc
DOI 10.1007/s10755-014-9286-3
Laura S. Tenenbaum received the B.A. from Emory University and the Doctorate in School Psychology from
Georgia State University. She is a National Research Council Fellow at the Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research; and her special interests include Army outreach youth science education program evaluation, devel-
opment, and expansion. Email contact: laura.s.tenenbaum.ctr@mail.mil
Margery Anderson received the M.Ed. from the University of Cincinnati and the Ph.D. from the University of
Kentucky. She is currently a senior National Research Council Fellow at the Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research and contributes to the Army Educational Outreach Programs. Her work focuses on the creation of
effective internship programs, on the expansion of access to undergraduate internships in research institutes, and
on mentoring.
Marti Jett obtained her Doctorate in Biochemistry from the Georgetown University School of Medicine. She is
Director of the Integrative Systems Biology Program (US Army CEHR) and the Army’s Chief Scientist for
Systems Biology, and she serves as an adjunct Professor at the Howard University Graduate School and
Georgetown University. Her work focuses on implementing the near-peer mentoring philosophy with students
at all levels.
Debra L. Yourick received the B.A. from Kalamazoo College and the M.S. and Ph.D. in pharmacology and
toxicology from the University of Kansas. She has taken on executive level positions at the Walter Reed Army
Institute of Research while continuing to contribute to the scientific mission. She specializes in disease models,
biochemistry/ signal transduction, neurophysiology and neuropathology; and she has created, with others, multi-
layered research and outreach programs as well as engaged in extensive mentoring of students. Email contact:
debra.l.yourick.civ@mail.mil
L. S. Tenenbaum (*):M. K. Anderson :D. L. Yourick
Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA
e-mail: laura.s.tenenbaum.ctr@mail.mil
D. L. Yourick
e-mail: debra.l.yourick.civ@mail.mil
M. Jett
Integrative Systems Biology Program, United States Army Centers for Environmental Health Research
(CEHR), Fort Detrick, 441 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000, USA

that this mentorship model contributed to personal, educational, and professional growth for
near-peer mentors and increased the interest and engagement of students studying STEM. We
discuss implications, limitations, and future directions.
Keywords mentoring .STEM .educational models .undergraduate internship .undergraduate
research
Mentorship has long been established as a successful educational model to encourage the
development of early career scientists (Barondess, 1995;Loue,2011; Thiry, Laursen, &
Hunter, 2011). In this article we explain a new form of mentorship that affords significant
benefits for both the mentee and mentor; incorporates established principles of mentoring; and
offers novel opportunities for integrating research and teaching in the science, technology,
engineering, and mathematical (STEM) disciplines. This innovative approach is termed near-
peer mentorship. Our study analyzed the benefits and challenges associated with this model as
reported by near-peer mentors and student mentees.
The Model
The near-peer mentorship model was first implemented at the Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research (WRAIR) (Jett, Anderson, & Yourick, 2005) and has since been adopted by 10 other
United States Army research centers and one Navy research center. A near-peer mentor is
defined as an undergraduate or post-baccalaureate student who completes a summer teaching
internship in addition to a research internship. The research internship is completed at the
WRAIR or a university laboratory during the academic year. During the summer, the under-
graduate or post-baccalaureate students apply to participate in the WRAIR teaching laboratory.
As near-peer mentors the college level students are instructors in the “Gains in the Education
of Mathematics and Science”(GEMS) program for middle and high school students. The
GEMS program is part of a continuum of science education outreach programs hosted by the
WRAIR.
The continuum of WRAIR outreach programs begins with the multileveled summer GEMS
program (grades 5-12, one week). As the GEMS students mature, they can transition into an
advanced program (grades 11-12, 10 weeks) that places them in a WRAIR research laboratory.
Undergraduates who major in the STEM disciplines can apply to the WRAIR College Qualified
Leaders program. This college program provides internships ranging from 12 weeks to 3 years, and
it has two related paths for academically qualified students. They can apply for a research internship
in a specific field, or they can apply for a near-peer mentorship in the teaching laboratory. The two
paths are not mutually exclusive. Internal documents at the WRAIR indicate that approximately
55% of the near-peer mentors have completed a previous WRAIR internship. As a final point, the
internship continuum can be entered at any level. Students from middle school to post-baccalaureate
studies can apply for an internship without previous participation in an earlier program. However,
each level is designed to build upon previous experiences and prepares the student for the next stage.
As near-peer mentors, the college level students act as GEMS lab instructors, subject matter
experts, role models for academic success, curriculum designers, lab safety officers, techni-
cians in WRAIR research labs; and some have authored both educational and research
publications (e.g., Hammamieh et al., 2005). The mentors introduce inquiry-based STEM
modules to the GEMS students, offer educational and career guidance, build supportive
relationships with their mentees, and encourage students to pursue their goals. Prior to teaching
InnovHighEduc

they receive two-weeks of pedagogical training from a secondary STEM instructor and a
medical educator.
The near-peer mentorship model and the more familiar undergraduate research model share
an emphasis on scientific learning, preparation for STEM careers, and professional growth and
development (Adedokun et al., 2012; Landrum & Nelson, 2002; Thomas & Gillespie, 2008;
Thurgood, Ordowich, & Brown, 2010). While there is a wealth of literature reviewing
mentorship in science education (Allen, Eby, O’Brien, Lentz, 2008;Loue,2011), near-peer
mentorship is an interdisciplinary approach that incorporates the strengths of established
STEM mentorship models (Terrion & Leonard, 2007) and enhances the learning experience
of all participants. One distinction from the traditional model is that, while undergraduate near-
peer mentors are instructed by experienced scientists rather than being instructed in a specific
protocol, their instruction is dedicated to developing investigations for the GEMS students.
The near-peer mentors then apply their new knowledge and abilities in the teaching laboratory
by mentoring the younger students. The classical undergraduate research experience model
typically involves only one mentoring relationship, with the undergraduate as the mentee and
the expert as mentor (Dolan & Johnson, 2009; Russell, Hancock, & McCullough, 2007). In
this model, the undergraduate typically gains laboratory experience but limited or no teaching
experience (Landrum & Nelson, 2002). The near-peer mentorship model diverges from the
traditional model by equally emphasizing the undergraduate’s ability to share knowledge with
their ability to acquire knowledge.
The second distinguishing factor of this model is that the participants are not selected from
highly-benefited populations, but rather from less-benefited populations (Chemers,
Zurbriggen, Syed, Goza, & Bearman, 2011). The near-peer mentors and the GEMS students
they instruct are from urban community and schools with limited resources. Participant
selection is based on interest, enthusiasm, willingness to learn, zip codes throughout the
metropolitan area, and a brief essay. As a result, more than 50% of WRAIR-GEMS students
and their near-peer mentors are from populations underrepresented in the STEM disciplines.
A third point of divergence from the typical undergraduate research experience is that the
near-peer mentorship model emphasizes the personal growth and development of participants
by encouraging them to explore topics of personal interest through research, teaching, and
mentorship. The research assistant experience generally offers less opportunity for interns to
explore personal interests (Sadler & McKinney, 2010).
While research has documented the positive educational, personal, and professional bene-
fits associated with serving as an undergraduate research assistant (Thurgood, Ordowich, &
Brown, 2010), less is known about models incorporating near-peer mentorship. Given the
differences between the near-peer mentorship model and established novice and scientist
mentoring programs, the near-peer mentor model warrants additional inquiry and exploration
to examine outcomes and associated benefits.
The Study
This study explored the experiences of near-peer mentors participating in the 2012
summer program. Near-peer mentors reported on their development as professionals,
teachers, and scientists as well as changes in their self-confidence and self-efficacy.
High school students were also asked to provide feedback about their leaders as a
complement to the near-peer mentor comments. A qualitative approach was used to
gain an understanding of near-peer mentor and student perceptions in their own words
(Deaton & Deaton, 2012).
InnovHighEduc

Program and Context
During summer GEMS, middle and high school students participate in an inquiry-based
laboratory experience for five days at the beginning, intermediate, or advanced level. The
GEMS program follows the community of practice model, providing a pathway from science
novice on the periphery to an active member of a science-oriented group (Thiry & Laursen,
2011). Near-peer mentors are considered part of the learning continuum. The mentors assume
different roles and levels of responsibility depending on their background.
Research scientists, in conjunction with near-peer mentors, design age-appropriate
laboratory protocols related to current research. The multi-day investigations require
students to gain new skills, collect data, mathematically organize the data, analyze
results, and form conclusions. Modules range from 30 minutes to five days in length
and involve hands-on learning experiences with no more than 15 minutes of formal
lecture. These research-based modules are designed to give students the opportunity to
participate in scientific experiments; gain hands-on experience with lab materials,
tools, and techniques; explore novel ways of thinking; and make new connections
between STEM and their own learning and interests. Each module is delivered by one
lead near-peer mentor and one supporting mentor. Those not scheduled as lead or
support mentors help students and provide assistance as needed. An educational
mentor is on site and conducts daily observations. GEMS students are divided into
smaller groups (10 students with two mentors) allowing several modules to be
conducted simultaneously as students gather around a single lab table.
Near-peer mentors are responsible for developing an original laboratory protocol,
which involves conceptualizing, designing, and implementing an experiment; analyz-
ing the results; and creating a poster for presenting results during closing ceremonies
to an audience of peers, guests, and WRAIR scientists. The mentors are given the
opportunity to select topics in their areas of interest and receive supervision from lead
scientists throughout project development. Examples of near-peer mentor projects
during the 2012 GEMS program included using an oscilloscope application on an
iPad to record neuronal responses during mechanical stimulation of insect limbs, an
assessment of the evolutionary adaptation of Pseudomonas fluorescens in response to
Tetrahymena thermophilia predation, antibiotics from fungi applied to soil bacteria,
and exploring sustainable energy.
The 2012 program was conducted in a fully equipped teaching laboratory at the
WRAIR. The program had frequent military-affiliated speakers to lead short, informa-
tive discussions. During training, mentors were prepared to act as subject matter
experts and to provide guidance to students with respect to course selection and
educational services. The WRAIR GEMS program has trained 240 undergraduate
and graduate students to be near-peer mentors, and they have taught 4,448 students
over 11 years.
Participants, Training, and Activities
During the 2012 program, 11 near-peer mentors were selected based on their applications,
research background, experience with youth, and interviews. They ranged in age from 18 to 25
(M= 21) and were either undergraduate (n= 7) or post-baccalaureate (n= 4) students living in
the National Capitol Region (Washington D.C., Southern Maryland, Northern Virginia,
Northern West Virginia). Reflecting the diversity of the area (Hill, Shaw, Taylor, & Hallar,
2011), the six males and five females had African American (n= 4), Caucasian (n= 4), Asian
InnovHighEduc

Pacific (n= 1) and Latino (n= 2) heritage. The educational stipend ranged from approximately
$5,000 to $8,000 for a 12-week period.
A total of 475 middle and high school students participated in the GEMS program in 2012.
The student group was 34% African American, 29% Asian Pacific, 7% Latino, 18% Cauca-
sian, 8% multiracial, and 4% unknown.
Four leaders were continuously involved in the WRAIR GEMS program as men-
tors, trainers, and supervisors. The neuropharmacologist, educational psychologist,
chemist, and physiologist/medical educator, plus guest scientists provided two weeks
of training in pedagogy, lesson planning, laboratory protocols, and WRAIR affiliated
research. The pedagogical training included the six strands of science learning for
informal environments endorsed by the National Research Council (National Research
Council, 2009).
Under the supervision of the leaders and volunteer scientists, the mentors created lab
investigations that incorporated research, mentor interests, innovative teaching strategies,
and elements of the STEM standards used by states in the National Capitol Region. Each
mentor was responsible for the development and delivery of a particular module. The leaders
approved all modules prior to implementation.
Measures
We used two surveys for this study. A GEMS student survey was administered to
advanced students (grades 11 and 12). An open response question asked students to
complete the prompt, “the best part of having near-peer mentors was …,because….”
Of the 70 students who completed the survey, 59 completed this prompt. No identi-
fying information was gathered during survey administration.
The second survey was designed for the near-peer mentors. The mentor survey
contained 20 free-response questions that investigated near-peer mentor perceptions of
their participation in the program, peers, STEM learning, teaching skills, and personal
and professional development. The questions were developed through a review of
previous mentor reflections, observation of the 2012 summer program, and a review
of the current literature on measurement of mentorship and internship experiences
(e.g., Bulte, Betts, Garner, & Durning, 2007; Sadler & McKinney, 2010;). Surveys
were distributed and returned via email to an external evaluator.
Data Analysis
We converted the written survey responses into Word files that were then entered into
ATLAS/Ti 7.0, a qualitative data analysis research program (Atlas.ti, Qualitative Data
Analysis and Research Program, 2013). Category codes and sub-codes were developed
using a deductive-inductive process (Nastasi & Schensul, 2005). Through a literature
review, we identified common categories in mentoring studies, which formed the
outline of the first coding hierarchy. After independently reading the responses, we
identified themes based on the comments as compared to published findings and
current learning theories. The iterative process of reviewing the literature and the
data continued until 100% consensus was reached for all data sets and definitions.
We report our results in two sections: near-peer mentor survey results and GEMS student
survey results. Data analysis revealed that a coding hierarchy that addressed the near-peer
mentor experience within the GEMS program contained two primary themes, growth and
maturation and perceptions of near-peer mentorship.
InnovHighEduc

Results
Growth and Maturation
The primary code, growth and maturation, described ways in which near-peer mentors
reported their development as professionals, teachers, and scientists. The near-peer mentors
wrote about learning the skills necessary for professional success. These skills included
adaptability to change, professional attire, timeliness, being responsible, workplace perfor-
mance, and content knowledge. The mentors wrote about meeting professional expectations
53 times. One mentor described dawning professionalism as, “Ilearnedthat…accountability
is a very important factor because others do count on you to do whatever part you’re assigned
to make the program run smoothly.”Respondents frequently mentioned the importance of
learning to be adaptable to a fast-paced environment. One commented, “I learned that nothing
is set in stone; there is no such thing as being over prepared.”Another said that “things rarely
go according to plan. However, that doesn’t mean that you won’t be successful. It just means
that you’re going to have to be ready and flexible.”Finally, mentors wrote about increased
knowledge with one reflecting that “It forced me to become adaptable and to learn materials
much further and deeply to prepare for an assault of questions. That’swhatIloved.”
Maturation in oral and written language skills was mentioned seven times by the mentors.
One leader stated, “I’m definitely benefitting from improving my ability to communicate
concepts to a broader audience than my biologist peers.”Another wrote about the improved
ability to convey information in that “I’ve been able to further develop my ability to
communicate fairly complex ideas.”
Near-peer mentors wrote about how the internship contributed to career development 21
times. One explained that the experience solidified an interest in education while another said
that the GEMS experience had piqued an interest in microbiology. Program involvement
helped to develop a new interest in another mentor who wrote, “As I pursue other career goals,
I would also like to be connected to science education especially to young women pursuing
science.”Linked to career development were fourteen responses that related to enhanced
employability. The mentors spoke of gaining authentic experiences before graduate school.
One near-peer mentor combined communication skills with career and employability:
I’ve also been able to further develop my ability to communicate fairly complex ideas
with middle and high school students. This skill will definitely be useful in the future, as
I will need to communicate my ideas to the broader public.
All of the mentors wrote about how assuming the responsibilities of teaching and mentoring
helped them mature. On 20 occasions they wrote of delivering lessons. One shared a single
word that influenced his teaching:
Patience. Sometimes it can be very trying to work with a student who is not cooperative.
Most of the time it just takes time and repetition to get them to work with you, but that
can be very difficult if the student does not want to participate.
Fourteen of the written comments discussed working with a diverse population of students.
One stated, “Each age group needs specific amounts of guidance and supervision. One must be
capable and willing to read and adjust to every student’s needs.”Near-peer mentors also
described the challenge of working with students of varying ability levels. “It is difficult to find
a balance between teaching those that know a lot and those that are very unfamiliar with a
topic.”As opposed to challenging students, some respondents wrote of inspiring students:
InnovHighEduc

One of the defining moments of this program for me was when I met a girl who was
diagnosed with a rare disease. Despite her situation, she was optimistic and aspired to go
into the field of medicine. Although she was faced with this illness, she was more
inspired than other students and displayed a passion for the sciences that you don’tseein
many students. I was humbled by her drive and optimism.
Eighteen times mentors commented on the challenging but rewarding process of
preparing lessons. One respondent said, “Though there was a lot of stress in devel-
oping and teaching science modules, watching the kids learn and have fun while
doing it was very rewarding.”Several near-peer mentors discussed how important
they felt it was to have the freedom and opportunity to develop mini-projects in their
areas of interest. One stated, “I really enjoyed the ability to work without constraints
and teach what I love.”
One respondent stated that teaching “has greatly increased my confidence of speaking in
front of people, and it has helped me develop a better way of explaining and thinking about
topics.”Another 45 comments echoed this mentor’s observation that teaching “brought me out
quite a bit, forced me to develop my writing and study skills.”The interlacing of teaching
experience with confidence and communication further extended to practicing laboratory
skills. One near-peer mentor stated that his participation in GEMS “has helped me become
more confident in laboratory skills, especially the ones that I taught multiple times.”
Perceptions of Near-Peer Mentorship
This theme included the mentors’reflections on the benefits and challenges of their
experiences in terms of their relationships with others. Respondents wrote about the
benefits of working with other near-peer mentors on 22 occasions. Overall, they
appreciated the support they received from one another, the specific tips that were
offered, and the way they learned from the examples of others. Seeing another mentor
as a model, one wrote, “I admired her consistency. I think that is a very underap-
preciated trait that simply needs to be better emphasized. So she inspired me to be
more consistent, dependable, and adaptable.”The mentors mentioned incorporating
teaching strategies they had observed, such as using real life examples. Another
mentor reported a growing camaraderie:
I had a great relationship with the other mentors. It’s always a group struggle and a group
effort to get everything done and done well. We talk over lunch, hang out outside of
work, and talk about each other’s pasts and futures.
One of the most frequently mentioned advantages reported by the mentors (21 comments)
was working with GEMS students. One mentor described the experience of contributing to
student learning by saying, “The feeling of a child finally getting a concept after failed attempts
is really awesome. The light bulb finally turns on followed by a jubilant ‘OOOHHH’brings a
smile to our faces every time.”They wrote of their excitement in “seeing the student grow
throughout the week”and that when “students are able to informally ask questions about
college life, I could see many of them suddenly excited and motivated.”Another mentor
shared this experience:
One instance that stood out to me was when one advanced student asked for my help on
an outside project. I got to work with him one-on-one during breaks or at the end of the
day, and it really made an impact on me to see that he was understanding what I was
teaching and that he could use the knowledge I gave him outside of GEMS.
InnovHighEduc

The near-peer mentors discussed learning from their students eight times. One described it
as “I feel that I impacted someone at the beginning level that was an aspiring microbiologist. I
gave her some equipment to pursue her passion. But it also inspired me to work harder.”
Comments on challenges centered on navigating a working relationship with one another.
Respondents reflected on this idea 12 times. One mentor discussed some difficult dynamics
with other near-peer mentors, saying, “What I didn’t like was being underestimated, being
taken advantage of a bit by my peers, and maybe the way certain modules were undertaken.”
Another wrote about shifting dynamics throughout the summer by stating, “Other near-peer
mentors do their own thing. In my opinion, the dynamics between near peers worsened as the
GEMS program progressed because there was a lack of support between the mentors.”A
mentor reflected on what needed to be done when some co-workers were not upholding their
responsibilities and wrote, “I learned that, although this is a professional setting, coworkers
might need a reminder to clean up after themselves and to keep up with their regular duties.”
One mentor decided that learning to work with more challenging co-workers was part of a
professional experience and commented, “I’velearnedtodealwithdifficultco-workerrela-
tions. Obviously you are not always going to be best friends with your co-workers, so learning
to work through differences in opinions has been a vital lesson.”
GEMS Students
The responses of 59 advanced GEMS students who completed the open response prompt (the
best part of having near-peer mentors was …, because….) were divided into two categories,
namely rapport and guidance.Rapport described the relationship that developed between the
students and near-peer mentors, and it was mentioned on 45 occasions. The advanced GEMS
students frequently talked about being able to connect to near-peer mentors in a way that they
could not with teachers or older mentors. Examples of student responses included “you feel
comfortable around them, you can relate, and you can ask them for guidance,”“it’s easier to
communicate with them than it is with an older mentor,”and “the ability to talk to someone
older but who’s not SO much older as to not [be able] to have relevant discussions [with] me.”
The GEMS students also expressed the ways in which they perceived the mentors. One student
commented, “They are smart and funny.”Another said, “They were really cool and fun to
learn from. They’re all super amazing and easy to talk to.”
The idea of mentors being guides for learning was mentioned 20 times in the survey
responses. One student described the teaching style of near-peer mentors: “Although they were
rigorous in the material, they made it fun.”Another student explained, “They taught us in a
way that was very understandable because they had just recently learned the subject matter
themselves.”Examples from other students included, “They were able to explain [things] to
me better than a normal teacher would since they were closer to my age,”“They make things
extremely easy to understand, and they know how to get through to/or appeal to teenagers
more,”and “They were young enough to relate to, and they knew how to teach kids our age.”
Discussion
Our study examined a novel near-peer mentoring model using qualitative research methods to
explore the perspectives of near-peer mentors (undergraduates and post-baccalaureates) and
student (grades 6-12) mentees during a summer science education internship. Our findings
offer three contributions to the literature on mentoring. First, the near-peer mentorship model
offers personal, educational, and professional benefits for near-peer mentors and increases the
InnovHighEduc

interest and engagement of high school students studying the STEM disciplines. This suggests
that it is a valid model and has the potential to offer support to young scientists on a broader
scale. Secondly, this model is effective in reinforcing the pipeline of scientific learning by
providing a continuum of learning opportunities for future STEM professionals as it bridges
the gap between pre-college internships and undergraduate internships for those beginning
their professional career. Finally, this study supports past findings that internship experiences
foster professional skills and confidence in developing scientists.
The findings of this study suggest that the near-peer mentorship model is an effective
approach to science education and mentorship. Participants reported that they appreciated the
unique aspects of the combined approach, and they expressed interest in continued participa-
tion in both STEM and STEM education. Given these positive results, the near-peer mentor-
ship model may have potential to expand beyond the WRAIR program and to impact a broader
scale of scientific learners.
The participants frequently discussed being able to do something (e.g., develop a module,
teach a large group of students, or make an impact on young scientists) that they never thought
they would be able to do at the start of their internship. They commented on how this increased
awareness of their own potential and gave them the confidence to explore educational and
career options of interest to them that they might not have otherwise considered. While all
near-peers reported a continued and increased interest in pursuing STEM careers following
their participation in this summer internship, it is telling that gains in professionalism and
confidence in general resonated so strongly with them. Assuming the role of STEM instructor
reinforced their commitment to STEM as a field of study. This finding suggests that the near-
peer mentor model can help provide undergraduates with the professionalism and self-efficacy
that is essential to continuing their pursuit of their educational and career goals.
A crucial advantage of this model is that it provides a continuum of training for those
interested in pursuing STEM education and careers. This model offers the opportunity for
middle and high school students interested in science to explore their interests while also
providing college and post-baccalaureate scientists the chance to advance their skills and
further their training. This continuum of learning fosters the development of young scientists
and engineers, keeping them within the field at a time when STEM professionals are in high
demand (National Research Council, 2012). In addition, it provides an introduction to STEM
education when there is a shortage of STEM teachers in K-12 schools (Tobias & Baffert,
2012). While science and engineering jobs are increasingly being sent overseas, the near-peer
mentorship model encourages students of various ages to remain within the STEM pipeline,
develop their expertise, and pursue careers in science and technology during a time when there
are employment opportunities (National Research Council, 2012). Upon completing the
internship, many near-peer mentors have gained the requisite skills to qualify for work at
other research facilities (Feldon, et al., 2011).
Career advancement is a key outgrowth of the near-peer mentors’participation in the
program. They reported being able to gain experiences in a professional environment, develop
important professional skills, cultivate their professional interests, and advance their scientific
careers. In general, near-peer mentors felt that their role had prepared them in a way that made
them more desirable candidates for higher education and STEM related careers. They also
recognized the professional connections that were cultivated during the summer internship. In
addition to recommendation letters from the WRAIR, the mentors had made connections with
potential employers, links to research labs at their respective universities, and like-minded
colleagues and mentors. Follow-up data from the near-peer mentors who participated in the
GEMS program in the summer of 2012 revealed that all who sought continued education or
employment in STEM fields were able to secure their desired positions.
InnovHighEduc

One of the primary goals of the near-peer mentor model is to provide scientific learners at
different levels with the opportunity to continue their training and pursue their interests. Findings
from this study suggest that the near-peer mentor model through the WRAIR GEMS program has
been successful in achieving the goal of keeping students within the pipeline of STEM.
Limitations and Future Research
Limitations of this study include the inability to generalize results to a broader population as
the sample included near-peer mentors and students from only one GEMS site. Additionally,
this research only provided a snapshot of the near-peer mentor experience; and little is known
about the long-term professional and educational trajectories of these participants.
With regard to future directions for research, we recommend examination of this model at
other Army research sites. It would also be of interest to determine if the near-peer mentorship
model can be effectively incorporated into more established scientific training programs such
as undergraduate research assistantships. Many young scientists serve as undergraduate
research assistants during their academic careers (Thurgood, Ordowich, & Brown, 2010),
and incorporating novel models of mentorship and training like near-peer mentorship has the
potential to afford significant educational, professional, and personal benefits for participants.
A final recommendation involves examining the long-term outcomes associated with near-
peer mentor participation in the GEMS summer internship. It would be interesting to learn
about how their participation influenced near-peers over time with regard to continued
education, professional goals, and personal growth.
Conclusions
Overall, our findings suggest that the near-peer mentorship model helps to prepare early career
scientists for their futures while giving them the opportunity to do the same for younger
students. The model has potential to expand to broader settings in order to provide more young
scientists with a STEM internship.
Acknowledgement This material has been reviewed by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. There is
no objection to its presentation and/or publication. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private
views of the authors, and are not to be construed as official, or as reflecting true views of the Department of the
Army or the Department of Defense.
This project was conducted under U.S. Army Research Office Youth Science Cooperative Outreach Agree-
ment and under a determination by the IRB of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, of non-human
subjects research.
References
Adedokun, O. A., Zhang, D., Parker, L. C., Bessenbacher, A., Childress, A., & Burgess, W. D. (2012).
Understanding how undergraduate research experiences influence student aspirations for research careers
and graduate education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(1), 82.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., O’Brien, K. E., & Lentz, E. (2008). The state of mentoring research: A qualitative review
of current research methods and future research implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 343–357.
Atlas.ti, Qualitative Data Analysis and Research Program (2013). [Software]. Retrieved from http://www.atlasti.
com/index.html
InnovHighEduc

Barondess, J. A. (1995). A brief history of mentoring. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological
Association, 106,1–24.
Bulte, C., Betts, A., Garner, K., & Durning, S. (2007). Student teaching: Views of student near-peer teachers and
learners. Medical Teacher, 29,583–590.
Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and
identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues,
67,469–491. doi:10.1111/j .15 40- 456 0.2 011.01710.x
Deaton, C. C., & Deaton, B. (2012). Using mentoring to foster professional development among undergraduate
instructional leaders. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42,58–62.
Dolan, E., & Johnson, D. (2009). Toward a holistic view of undergraduate research experiences: An exploratory
study of impact on graduate/postdoctoral mentors. Journal of Science Education Technology, 18,487–500.
Feldon, D. F., Peugh, J., Timmerman, B. E., Maher, M. A., Hurst, M., Strickland, D., & Stiegelmeyer, C. (2011).
Graduate students’teaching experiences improve their methodological research skills. Science, 333, 1037–
1039. doi:10.1126/science.1204109
Hammamieh, R., Anderson, M., Carr, K., Tran, C. N., Yourick, D. L., & Jett, M. (2005). Students investigating
the antiproliferative effects of synthesized drugs on mouse mammary tumor cells. Cell Biology Education, 4,
221–233. doi:10.1187/cbe.04-100053
Hill, P. L., Shaw, R. A., Taylor, J. R., & Hallar, B. L. (2011). Advancing diversity in STEM. Innovative Higher
Education, 36,19–27. doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9154-8
Jett, M., Anderson, M., & Yourick, D. (2005). Near peer mentoring: A step-wise means of engaging young
students in science. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology Journal, 19,A1396–A1396.
Landrum, R. E., & Nelson, L. R. (2002). The undergraduate research assistantship: An analysis of the benefits.
Teaching of Psychology, 29,15–19.
Loue, D. (2011). Mentoring, process and models. In S. W. Sussman & R. M. Piscitelli (Eds.), Mentoring Health
Science Professionals (pp. 47–65). New York, NY: Springer.
Nastasi, B. K., & Schensul, S. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention
research. Journal of School Psychology, 43,177–195. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.04.003
National Research Council. (2009). Theoretical perspectives. In Committee on Learning Science in Informal
Environments (Ed.), Learning science in informal environments, people, places, and pursuits (pp. 27–53).
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). Assuring the U.S. Department of Defense a strong science, technology,
engineering and mathematics workforce. Council Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Workforce Needs for the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Defense Industrial Base;
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; Board on Higher Education and Workforce; Policy and
Global Affairs; National Academy of Engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences.
Science, 316,549–549.
Sadler, T. D., & McKinney, L. (2010). Scientific research for undergraduate students: A review of the literature.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 39,43–49.
Terrion, J. L., & Leonard, D. (2007). A taxonomy of the characteristics of student peer mentors in higher
education: Findings from a literature review. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15,149–164.
Thiry, H., & Laursen, S. L. (2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate
researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20,
771–784. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9271-2
Thiry, H., Laursen, S. L., & Hunter, A. (2011). What experiences help students become scientists? A comparative
study of research and other sources of personal and professional gains for STEM undergraduates. The
Journal of Higher Education, 82,357–388.
Thomas, E., & Gillespie, D. (2008). Weaving together undergraduate research, mentoring of junior faculty, and
assessment: The case of an interdisciplinary program. Innovative Higher Education, 33,29–38. doi:10.1007/
s10755-007-9060-x
Thurgood, L., Ordowich, C., & Brown, P. (2010). Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) in the
Directorate for Engineering (ENG): Follow-up of FY 2006 Student Participants. Technical Report to the
National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA: SRI International.
Tobias, S., & Baffert, A. (2012). Empowering science teachers. Science, 336(6081), 519–519. doi:10.1126/
science.1223116
InnovHighEduc