What is it? Mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising all involve a relationship between two individuals where a more experienced person provides support, advice and/or information to a less experienced individual. This normally includes some combination of psychological/emotional support, course/career support, academic skills support, and acting as a role model.

Evidence? There is evidence from the UK to suggest that programmes involving mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising are associated with better outcomes for students in terms of attainment and retention/completion. However, the research is not ‘causal’; in other words, it can’t tell us definitively that the programmes are effective. There is some mixed evidence of causal impact from other countries.

Should HEPs run mentoring/counselling/coaching/advising programmes to support student success? The existing evidence suggests that mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising approaches differ substantially from programme to programme, for example in terms of focus/goals, intensity, duration and the target population. Given these are intensive interventions, both in terms of staff and student time, there is a strong case for seeking more information on the efficacy versus other less intensive approaches. TASO recommends that HE providers seek to measure the effect of these programmes, and identify the most effective features, at a local level.

Mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising all involve a relationship between two individuals where a more experienced person provides support, advice and/or information to a less experienced individual, including some combination of (Crisp et al, 2017):

  • Psychological or emotional support (e.g. to help students feel a sense of belonging in HE)
  • Course and career support (e.g. to help students progress on course)
  • Academic knowledge support (e.g. to support academic skills development)
  • Acting as a role model

About half of the evidence used to inform this page is based on mentoring programmes and most of these are focused on a model of ‘peer mentoring’ – i.e. where students are mentored by fellow students. A small number of studies focus on programmes where more experienced graduates are drawn from the workforce to act as mentors. Four studies relate to counselling, six to coaching and two to advising. However, there is a substantial degree of overlap between the definitions of mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising used in these studies.

Beyond these differences, programmes vary greatly depending on their design features. For instance, they can be online or in-person, long or short term, planned or spontaneous.

The information on this page only focuses on formal programmes run by HE providers post-entry into HE, as opposed to informal relationships.

Most of the evidence on mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising in HE is focused on support for first year students, particularly at the point of induction. The advice on this page also draws on a small number of studies focused on certain disadvantaged or underrepresented groups, including:

  • BAME students
  • Mature students
  • Students from lower-socioeconomic status groups

Two studies explicitly focus on students who do not meet any demographic criteria but who have been identified as at risk of failing their course based on their academic performance.

There is some evidence from the UK to suggest that mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising programmes are associated with positive effects on students. This evidence is mainly drawn from quantitative studies comparing participant groups with non-participant groups, to show that individuals who take part in the programmes have better outcomes. Nearly all these studies suggest a positive impact on attainment, retention/completion or other outcomes (such as intention to remain on-course). Notably, in a UK study Kerrigan and Manktelow (2021) have found empirical evidence that participation in a blended peer mentoring programme is positively correlated with improved student outcomes (i.e., higher grade-based assessment scores, lower module failure rates, higher final degree classification, higher graduate progression rates), holding constant other key factors known to influence student success (i.e., gender, ethnicity, disability, age, subject area, pre-entry qualifications).

However, three papers find mixed results: one UK study of peer mentoring suggested an effect on attainment for first year participants but not on third years (Fox et al., 2010). A second, US, study evaluated the link between synchronous one-on-one academic coaching with programme completion in fully online graduate courses, using a quasi-experimental design. It indicates that although coaching is helpful for students who decide to engage in it due to self-selection or faculty encouragement/requirement, there is insufficient evidence to require participation for students who are not originally interested (Lehan et al., 2020).

Finally, a study from Australia suggests that, although peer mentoring was associated with a positive increase in some attitudes toward HE (such as concerns about belonging), it was correlated with a decline in others (such as perceiving study as a good preparation for work) (O’Brien, 2012).

We must be careful about how we interpret the evidence mentioned above. The methods used can only tell us that there seems to be a positive association or correlation between participation in such programmes and student outcomes – they cannot tell us definitively that the activities are having an impact. In other words, they cannot provide ‘causal evidence’. This is because the students who take part in these programmes are likely to be systematically different from those who don’t – for example, even if the students are demographically similar, they are likely to have different levels of motivation. So, when we compare their outcomes with those of other students, we risk overestimating the efficacy of programmes.

There is some stronger evidence of impact from studies in other countries. Multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been run in the US. One tested the effect of coaching for first-year college students and found that recipients were more likely to persist to the second year than non-recipients, with the strongest effect on male students (Bettinger & Baker, 2011). Another one found that college students who received academic coaching either online or in-person had increases in their metacognitive skills over the course of the intervention. Yet, researchers could not identify a statistically significant difference with the control group (Howlett et al., 2021).

Some studies using quasi-experimental methods also find a positive impact. A quasi-experimental study from the US evaluated the effectiveness of the Academic Coaching for Excellence programme for academically at-risk undergraduate students (n=1434), using archive data to look at retention and academic achievement. It concluded that, in this mid-sized urban research institution, students who participated in academic coaching had experienced significant Grade Point Average increases and higher retention rates in the semester following the intervention compared to those who did not participate in the programme (Capstick et al., 2019). Elsewhere, a study using a difference-in-differences in Germany identifies a large positive impact of a mentoring programme on attainment, corresponding to a decrease of failure rates by 15.4 percentage points (Sandner, 2015).

However, some other studies find mixed results. One RCT in Canada found that first years who were randomly assigned a student support programme including mentoring did not perform better than their peers who did not receive the support. However, when this programme was combined with financial support, there was a significant impact on attainment (Angrist et al., 2009).

Another study from the US tested the effect of a light-touch advising programme in which whole maths classes were randomly assigned to receive support. It found an effect on uptake of student support and withdrawal rates but not on pass rates (except for part-time students) (Butcher & Visher, 2013).  A quasi-experimental study in the US found that an advice intervention for low-performing students did not have an impact on attainment for first years but did for other year groups (Bowman et al., 2020).

Finally, a quasi-experimental study from the US examined the effect of a college peer mentoring programme on academic performance, looking at students registered with the Office of Disability Services (n=287) and comparing those who chose to participate in a peer mentoring programme with those who did not want to. It used matching and regression adjustment to limit selection bias, and found no significant differences between the intervention and comparison group students for either outcome (Lombardi and al., 2020).

The design of these studies could be used to inspire similar work in a UK context.

 

The existing evidence suggests that mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising approaches differ substantially from programme to programme, for example in terms of focus/goals, intensity, duration and the target population (Gershenfield, 2014).

It is also important to note that factors such as race, ethnicity and existing aspirations seem to play an important role in how students experience these programmes (Crisp et al., 2017). Therefore, evidence of a positive impact in one study is helpful but we shouldn’t assume that a programme can be generalised to other contexts or with other populations.

As online education becomes increasingly popular, online mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising programmes should also be investigated further, not only in comparison with in-person equivalents (Tinoco-Giraldo et al., 2020).

We recommend that HE providers seek to identify the most effective features of mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising at an individual programme-level.

For instance, in its evaluation of a college mentoring programme, Sanders (2015) argues that its high-quality features (i.e. graduate mentors, a low mentor-to-mentee ratio and compulsory, pre-scheduled, face-to-face appointments) explain the large effects found compared to similar studies.

All the existing causal evidence on mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising for student success is from the USA. The UK-based evidence suggests that students who participate in these programmes tend to have better outcomes in terms of attainment, retention/completion or other outcomes such as intention to remain on-course.

However, we cannot say whether this is because the programmes are effective, or because only the most motivated and/or supported students tend to attend. In fact, one study in the US showed that, among students offered mentoring, those with higher levels of parental education were more likely to meet their mentor frequently and seek their support (Hu & Ma, 2010). This casts some doubt on findings that more intense engagement leads to better outcomes (Rodrigues Ott et al, 2019), as those students who are likely to achieve better outcomes could also have higher engagement.

We are also lacking a large enough evidence-base to make claims about the relative efficacy of the different approaches (e.g., mentoring versus coaching) or different modes of delivery (e.g., in-person versus e-mentoring).

A recent review highlights several areas where we need more evidence on mentoring (Crisp, 2017):

  • Specific activities or approaches which are most effective and how this might differ for different student groups.
  • Factors that affect whether mentors and students can form a meaningful connection (e.g., more information on the importance of shared ethnic background or gender).
  • How institutional/departmental context shapes the mentoring relationship.

Given that these can be intensive interventions both in terms of staff and student time, we should expect mentoring/counselling/coaching/advising to have a bigger impact than less intensive outreach approaches. Only one study  compares the impact of mentoring with other approaches. It finds that mentoring appears to have a bigger positive impact on retention and graduation than financial support. However, this is focused on programmes involving faculty members as mentors rather than peer-mentoring (Sneyers & Dewitt, 2018). More evidence on the relative scale of the impact of these programmes versus other approaches would help HE providers understand how best to structure their overall student support offering.

 

TASO’s advice on the efficacy of mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising for student success is based on evidence from seven causal research studies. The studies use experimental or quasi-experimental techniques to assess the impact of this kind of support on attainment or retention/completion. The studies took place in the US, Germany, Canada and Australia.

This advice is also supported by 21 empirical studies which use data to show that participation in mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising programmes seems to be associated with positive student outcomes, either in terms of attainment, retention/completion or other outcomes such as intention to remain on-course. Nine of these studies took place in the UK, including two evaluation reports shared confidentially with TASO. The advice is supported by four reviews.

We have focused on evidence produced in the last 10 years and, in the case of UK-based evidence, since the student finance reforms were introduced in 2012. Older evidence has been included if it is exceptionally relevant.

The key references are given below.

Causal studies on the impact of mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising

Angrist, J., Lang, D., & Oreopoulos, P. (2009). Incentives and Services for College Achievement: Evidence from a Randomized Trial. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 136-63. doi: 10.1257/app.1.1.136

Bettinger, E., & Baker, R. (2011). The Effects of Student Coaching in College: An Evaluation of a Randomized Experiment in Student Mentoring. NBER Working Paper No. 16881. National Bureau of Economic Research. Linked here. 

Bowman, N. A., Jang, N., Kivlighan, D. M., Schneider, N., & Ye, X. (2020). The Impact of a Goal-Setting Intervention for Engineering Students on Academic Probation. Research in Higher Education, 61(1), 142-166. doi: 10.1007/s11162-019-09555-x

Butcher, K. F., & Visher, M. G. (2013). The Impact of a Classroom-Based Guidance Program on Student Performance in Community College Math Classes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 298-323. doi: 10.3102/0162373713485813

Capstick, M. K., Harrell-Williams, L. M., Cockrum, C. D., & West, S. L. (2019). Exploring the effectiveness of academic coaching for academically at-risk college students. Innovative Higher Education, 44(3), 219-231. doi: 10.1007/s10755-019-9459-1

Howlett, M. A., McWilliams, M. A., Rademacher, K., O’Neill, J. C., Maitland, T. L., Abels, K., … & Panter, A. T. (2021). Investigating the effects of academic coaching on college students’ metacognition. Innovative Higher Education, 46(2), 189-204. doi: 10.1007/s10755-020-09533-7

Lombardi, A., Rifenbark, G. G., Monahan, J., Tarconish, E., & Rhoads, C. (2020). Aided by Extant Data: The Effect of Peer Mentoring on Achievement for College Students with Disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 33(2), 143-154. Linked here.

Sandner, M. (2015). The Effects of High-Quality Student Mentoring. Economics letters, 136, 227-232. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2015.09.043

Empirical studies on the impact of mentoring, counselling, coaching and advising

Abt Associates. (2019). Interim Report on the Impact of Success Boston’s Coaching for Completion. Linked here.

Collings, R., Swanson, V., & Watkins, R. (2014). The Impact of Peer Mentoring on Levels of Student Wellbeing, Integration and Retention: a Controlled Comparative Evaluation of Residential Students in UK Higher Education. Higher Education, 68(6), 927-942. doi: 10.1007/s10734-014-9752-y

Collings, R., Swanson, V., & Watkins, R. (2016). Peer Mentoring During the Transition to University: Assessing the Usage of a Formal Scheme within the UK. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 1995-2010. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1007939

Evans, W. N., Kearney, M. S., Perry, B. C., & Sullivan, J. X. (2017). Increasing community college completion rates among low-income students: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial evaluation of a case management intervention (No. w24150). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.1002/pam.22256

Fostier, M., & Carey, W. (2007, June). Exploration, experience and evaluation: Peer Assisted Study Scheme (PASS), sharing the experience of The University of Manchester. Science, Learning and Teaching Conference. Linked here.

Fox, A., Stevenson, L., Connelly, P., Duff, A., & Dunlop, A. (2010). Peer-mentoring undergraduate accounting students: The Influence on Approaches to Learning and Academic Performance. Active learning in higher education, 11(2), 145-156. doi: 10.1177/1469787410365650

Hryciw, D. H., Tangalakis, K., Supple, B., & Best, G. (2013). Evaluation of a Peer Mentoring Program for a Mature Cohort of First-Year Undergraduate Paramedic Students. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(1), 80-84. doi: 10.1152/advan.00129.2012.

Hu, S., & Ma, Y. (2010). Mentoring and Student Persistence in College: A Study of the Washington State Achievers Program. Innovative Higher Education, 35(5), 329-341. doi: 10.1007/s10755-010-9147-7

Kerrigan, M., & Manktelow, A. (2021). Extra-curricular activities in higher education: enhancing the student experience. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 23(1), 123-147. doi: 10.5456/WPLL.23.1.123

Kinkel, D. H. (2011). Engaging Students in Career Planning and Preparation through Ementoring. Journal of Natural Resources & Life Sciences Education, 40(1), 150-159. doi: 10.4195/jnrlse.2010.0020u

Kot, F. C. (2014). The Impact of Centralized Advising on First-Year Academic Performance and Second-Year Enrollment Behavior. Research in Higher Education, 55(6), 527–563. doi: 10.1007/s11162-013-9325-4

Lehan, T., Shriner, M., & Shriner, B. (2020). It’s Complicated: The Relationship between Participation in Academic Coaching and Programme Completion in Online Graduate Students. Online Learning, 24(3), 19-34. Linked here. 

McDuff, N., Tatam, J., Beacock, O., & Ross, F. (2018). Closing the Attainment Gap for Students from Black and Minority Ethnic Backgrounds through Institutional Change. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 20(1), 79-101. doi: 10.5456/WPLL.20.1.79

O’Brien, M., Llamas, M., & Stevens, E. (2012). Lessons learned from four years of peer mentoring in a tiered group program within education. Journal of the Australian & New Zealand Student Services Association, 40(1), 7-15. Linked here. 

Richardson, M. J., & Tate, S. (2013). Improving the Transition to University: Introducing Student Voices into the Formal Induction Process for New Geography Undergraduates. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37(4), 611-618. doi: 10.1080/03098265.2013.769092

Rodriguez Ott, N., Staklis, S., & Boyette, J. (2019). The Effectiveness of Student Coaching in Community Colleges. Community College. Journal of Research and Practice, 1-14. doi: 10.1080/10668926.2019.1621786

Scrivener, S., Weiss, M. J., Ratledge, A., Rudd, T., Sommo, C., & Fresques, H. (2015). Doubling Graduation Rates: Three‐Year Effects of CUNY’s Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) for Developmental Education Students. SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2571456. Linked here. 

Tovar, E. (2014). The Role of Faculty, Counsellors, and Support Programs on Latino/a Community College Students’ Success and Intent to Persist. Community College Review, 43(1), 46–71. doi: 10.1177/0091552114553788

Reviews

Crisp, G., Baker, V. L., Griffin, K. A., Lunsford, L. G., & Pifer, M. J. (2017). Mentoring Undergraduate Students. ASHE Higher Education Report, 43(1), 7–103. doi: 10.1002/aehe.20117

Gershenfeld, S. (2014). A Review of Undergraduate Mentoring Programs. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 365–391. doi: 10.3102/0034654313520512

Sneyers, E., & Witte, K. D. (2017). Interventions in Higher Education and their Effect on Student Success: a Meta-Analysis. Educational Review, 70(2), 208–228. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2017.1300874

Tinoco-Giraldo, H., Torrecilla Sanchez, E. M., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2020). E-mentoring in higher education: a structured literature review and implications for future research. Sustainability, 12(11), 4344. doi: 10.3390/su12114344