Final Stars Assessment Proposal

Running head: SUCCEEDING TOGETHER 1
Succeeding Together: STARS Assessment Proposal
Shá Norman and Jesus Gomez
Loyola University Chicago

SUCCEEDING TOGETHER 2
Table of Contents
Program Context……………………………………………………………………………… 3
Conceptual Framework...……………………………………………………………………... 5
Program Stakeholders………………………………………………………………………… 8
Logic Model………..………………………………………………..……………………....... 8
Assessment Purpose and Approach.…………………………………………………………..11
Quantitative Assessment Design...……………………………………………………………15
Survey Instrument……………..……………………………………………………...17
Survey Administration………..……………………………………………………....18
Quantitative Analytic Plan…….……………………………………………………...19
Qualitative Assessment Design..……………………………………………………………...21
Proposed Protocol……………..……………………………………………………....24
Qualitative Analytical Plan..…..……………………………………………………....26
Evaluation Report……...…………………………………………………………………….. 28
Bias and Limitations…...…………………………………………………………………….. 28
Budget……………. …...…………………………………………………………………….. 29
Timeline and Next Steps.…………………………………………………………………….. 29
References …………………………………………………………………………………….31
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………….33
Appendix A: Logic Model…………………………………………………………….33
Appendix B: S.T.A.R.S. Participant/Mentor Agreement Form……...………………. 34
Appendix C: Spring 2017 STARS Peer Mentor Training Schedule…...…………….. 36
Appendix D: Autumn 2017 Quarter STARS Peer Mentor Meeting
Schedule/Agenda……………………...……………………………………..………...37
Appendix E: Peer Mentor Expectations……………………………………………….38
Appendix F: Peer Mentor Accountability Form …………………………………….. 40
Appendix G: Peer Mentor Academic Expectations………………………...…………41
Appendix H: STARS Mentee Survey………………...……………………………… 42
Appendix I: Survey Map…………………...………………………………………… 51
Appendix J: Consent/Audio Consent to Participate in the STARS Program
Interview at DePaul...…………………………………………………………………57
Appendix K: Interview Participant Demographics ………….………………………..59
Appendix L: Interview Protocol Script…………...…………………………………...60
Appendix L: Participation Email Template …………………………………………...65
Appendix M: PowerPoint Presentation…….……………………………………….... 66
Program Overview
Founded in 1898 as St. Vincent’s College, DePaul University (DePaul) is a private
institution located in Chicago, Illinois and the largest catholic university in the United States
(Key Facts and Rankings, n.d.). Spanning across the Windy City and beyond, DePaul is
comprised of three different campuses, including Lincoln Park, Loop, and the Suburban campus,
(Campus, n.d.), the combination of which serve 23,110 students (15,407 undergraduates and
7,703 graduate students) throughout 10 colleges and schools (Key Facts and Rankings).
DePaul’s mission focuses on “teaching, researching, and public learning” and “places highest
priority on programs of instruction and learning,” as “all curricula emphasize skills and attitudes
that educate students to be lifelong, independent learners” (Missions Statement, n.d.).
Housed within DePaul’s Division of Student Affairs is the Office of Multicultural
Student Success (OMSS), whose mission is to successfully support students of color, low-
income and first-generation students through programming and advising (Office of Multicultural
Student Success, n.d.). Staffed by only eight individuals, the OMSS focuses on retention,
persistence, and the success of students of color, low-income and first-generation students
(Office of Multicultural Student Success). Among a variety of initiatives is OMSS’ Students
Together Are Reaching Success (STARS) program, a peer mentoring program that provides
mentoring, advocacy, advising, academic support, and referral services to particular DePaul
student populations (Peer Support, n.d.). Overseeing the STARS program is Andrea Bangura,
Assistant Director of the OMSS, alongside a graduate assistant. For the 2017-2018 academic
school year, Andrea has hired 37 paid peer mentors to enact the STARS curriculum, all of whom
are former STAR mentees (A. Bangura, personal communications, September 21, 2017). Along
with the OMSS, STARS has been a part of DePaul’s history for 30 years. Looking at these two
entities in the context of one another, it becomes clear that OMSS is positioned as a resource for
particular DePaul populations aimed at fulfilling the larger university’s mission, whereby OMSS
provides supportive programming geared towards accelerating underrepresented students so that
they too can be “lifelong, independent learners.”
Fifteen years ago, DePaul’s administration tasked the OMSS to lead the efforts in
improving retention, persistence and graduation rates for three specific student populations: Pell
grant eligible students, first generation students, and students of color (A. Bangura, personal
communications, September 21, 2017). From these three populations, STARS participants are
between the ages of 17 to 24 years old. With the help of the Admissions Office, which provides
OMSS with student demographic data, Andrea and STARS peer mentors are able to do targeted
outreach to incoming students in those three demographic areas. To provide an idea of
population size, there were 1,701 eligible DePaul student mentees who met the participant
criteria for the 2017-2018 academic year. As such, the 37 peer mentors get assigned between 45
to 70 student mentees to outreach for two quarters (i.e., fall and winter), and are supported by the
STARS director via bi-monthly supervision. Interestingly, Andrea noted that the duration of the
program has evolved from three quarters to two, which she attributed to notably decreased
mentee participation during the spring quarter.
As opposed to an opt-in program, STARS is an opt-out program, which means that all
1,701 eligible students for the 2017-2018 academic school year are automatically contacted by
OMSS and receive an email from a designated peer mentor with an invitation to the program’s
kickoff event. Mentees are matched with a mentor based on their academic college, unlike
previous years where students were matched based on their race and/or gender; as Andrea states,
“that’s not necessarily something students want to be paired with another student based on, so we
match based on academic college because it provides a nice groundwork for a similar experience
that a student might have and a connecting point that is not necessarily socio-cultural identity
based”. The STARS kickoff event hosts anywhere from 400 to 500 students, and provides
opportunity for mentees to meet their mentor for the first time, wherein mentors go over a
participation agreement form addressing expectations of both the mentor and mentee role.
Following this kickoff event, a mentee can expect to meet with their mentor bimonthly
for support check-ins and updates regarding first year-pertinent notifications (i.e., FAFSA
updates, OMSS programming updates). Beyond face-to-face meetings between mentee and
mentor, the STARS program also includes electronic grade and university account tracking,
wherein mentors can link and/or flag their mentee for “immediate intervention” from the STARS
director, Andrea. The philosophy around this wrap-around approach highlights STARS and
OMSS’ mission of supporting underrepresented student communities and providing them with
supplemental tools to boost their success at DePaul.
Conceptual Framework
“Almost all of my entire operating budget is to pay my student leaders, because I know that it
has much more of an impact than an extra couple of pizzas at a program.”
-A. Bangura, personal communication, September 21, 2017
Pizzolato (2003) argues that high-risk college students are those most likely to withdraw
from college due to the characteristics associated with their educational circumstances;
specifically, she writes, “Personal characteristics are identified here as those things that place the
student in a population (e.g. first-generation students or student with low socioeconomic status)
without a long or necessarily successful history in higher education” (p.799). DePaul
University’s OMSS office seeks to disrupt the systems and patterns of withdrawals of these high-
risk students, namely between the first and second year, within low SES, first generation college
students, and students of color populations, all of whom are targeted for supportive intervention
in this predominantly white catholic institution. To address the graduation rate discrepancy that
is juxtaposed to their majority peers, the OMSS office began the STARS program to support
these underrepresented student groups.
The Social Change Model (SCM) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) are the theoretical
frameworks of the foundation of the OMSS office and the STARS program. The SCM seeks to
develop student growth personally and interpersonally with groups and community (Komives et
al., 2011). By increasing their level of self-knowledge and their capacity for working
collaboratively with others, the group is able to work towards a common goal (Komives et al.,
2015). There are seven critical values of SCM: consciousness of self, congruence, commitment,
collaboration, common purpose, controversy of civility, and citizenship, all of which speak to
this intersectionality of self and group and its importance in the formation of one’s critical
consciousness that STARS seeks to foster in its mentees (Komives et al., 2015).
CRT centers on race, whereby examining systems of oppression and the marginalization
of people of color in every facet of society (Ledesma & Calderón, 2015). Looking at CRT in the
context of higher education, we see how CRT also allows students, teachers and practitioners to
take part in dialogue that could lead to and involve action directly on educational institutions or
in communities; in the case of STARS, CRT comes through in the development of students’
salient identities as well as their enhanced engagement with campus resources, directly
impacting the utilization of university services by mentees. As such, CRT is an effective
framework to analyze students of color in higher education and the challenges they face, and
makes sense as a theoretical foundation that the STARS program was conceptualized within.
Being a predominately white catholic institution, DePaul has gaps in racial and ethnic
representation and resources. By establishing an OMSS office and a STARS program, DePaul
University is challenging the institutional systems that favor the racial majority of its student
population, specifically as they pertain to the retention and graduation rates of students of color,
first generation student and low SES students. The following description provided by the
STARS Program Director speaks directly to their conscious choice of utilizing SCM and the
program’s vision for how the model will touch the larger student communities on campus:
In STARS, we utilize the Social Change Model. For one, because it’s easy for students
to conceptualize. It’s not, sort of, very nebulous or sort of high. So we teach our STARS
all about that we are going to work with each of them as an individual; and then their job
is to work with their students on an individual level to develop all these skills. And then
the goal is that they will take that information to change the groups that they belong in,
and then those groups will then work to change sort of larger systems and communities.
So we do utilize that framework in the conversations that we have with students (A.
Bangura, personal communication, September 21, 2017).
There are six components that make up the theoretical model for student attrition and
persistence (i.e., pre-entry attributes, student goals and commitment, institutional experiences
and peer group, integration academically and socially, external goals and commitment, and
outcomes of going to institution or university) (Metz, 2004-2005). Again, the STARS Program
Director spoke in depth about how they view Tinto’s theoretical work, and specifically how they
purposefully work to incorporate Student Departure Theory into their programming:
Internally, we rely heavily on Tinto’s work. We do problematize a lot of Tinto’s work

because he was not very inclusive of marginalized communities in his early work, but I
think his later stuff; we use a lot around engagement theory and involvement theory, to
sort of frame, or making sure we are creating things, that students are staying on campus
and getting involved. It’s one of the reasons why we pay our mentors. I know that not
every institution has the ability to provide monetary payment for student leaders. But for
us, it’s really important that we recognize our students; there is a financial disparity
between them and some of their majority peers. And if we know that students who are
involved in our programs, who are on campus more hours, who can become student
leaders, are more likely to graduate and be successful and sort of learn all of those soft
skills that get talked about. For us for our students, there has to be some monetized
incentives, otherwise they are going to go get a job somewhere else and work thirty hours
a week, and then they are not going to be as academically successful because, you know
supervisors are off campus are not going to be as accommodating for their academic
schedule. So, it’s part of the reason that almost everything about our programs is web-
based and electronic-based (A. Bangura, personal communication, September 21, 2017).
Program Stakeholders
At the center of the STARS program are the key stakeholders around whom retention and
persistence intervention are conceptualized - the mentees. The first-generation students, low
SES students, and students of color are the program’s primary stakeholders, who begin as
program participants and, upon program completion, then become mentors and leaders at DePaul
University. Additional stakeholders of the STARS program include the OMSS office staff and
directors who advocate for and provide intentional interventions rooted in student development
and leadership theory, as well as other faculty who engage STARS students. In fact, the Social
Change Model speaks to this latter group, as it argues that all student affairs professionals, in
addition to the greater society, are stakeholders. Through empowering and embedding supports
around students with marginalized identities and backgrounds, the OMSS office at DePaul
influences student autonomy and self-purpose; those influencing groups and the great
community.
Logic Model
A logic model is a perfect tool to use alongside a program assessment and is described as
“a systematic and visual way to present and share your understanding of the relationships among
the resources you have to operate your program, the activities you plan, and the changes or
results you hope to achieve” (Kellogg Foundation, 2004, p.1). A logic model is used to map a
program in order to link planned programming with the desired outcomes; as stated by the
Kellogg Foundation, “mapping a proposed program helps you visualize and understand how
human and financial investments can contribute to achieving your intended program goals and
can lead to program improvements (Kellogg Foundation, 2004, p.3). Because of the
comprehensive nature of the logic model as an assessment tool, we applied its use for this
assessment for the STARS program (Appendix A).
The DePaul STARS program ultimately focuses on the goals of retention, persistence,
and the graduation of it participants (i.e., mentees). These goals can be achieved when the
program’s desired outcomes (short-term and medium-term) come to fruition and are successfully
in conversation with one another. If mentees can maintain a healthy relationship with their
mentors, better connect with campus resources and purposefully participate in campus
programming (i.e., desired outcomes), the higher the probability that they will be embedded in
their academic studies, which sets them up for successfully completing their program and
moving forward to their second, third and fourth years at the university (i.e. program goals).
Our logic model is framed by the situation described by the STARS Program Director,
Andrea, which centers on enhancing mentees’ annual assessments. By reviewing the subsequent
inputs, outputs, and intended outcomes, we strive to highlight necessary elements needed to
successfully enact the program curriculum while simultaneously incorporating program
improvement. As outlined in our Appendix (1A), one significant input of the STARS logic
model are the 400 to 500 mentees who end up participating in the program, comprised of
students who demonstrate financial need (i.e., Pell grants), first generation students and students
of color (Taking a step back, this input could be conceptualized as the 400 to 500 DePaul
students who met these required eligibility areas and were initially outreached but opted out).
An additional input noted in our logic model are the 37 paid mentors, all of whom are former
participants of the STARS program; this input category is significant to the success of the
program, as being a former mentee gives mentors invaluable insight that they can pass along to
their mentees. Beyond mentors and mentees, additional inputs are the Assistant Director in the
OMSS/Program Director of STARS, Andrea Bangura, along with the graduate assistant who
assists in program coordination and implementation. Both Andrea and the graduate assistants
make sure the program runs smoothly for both mentors and mentees. Apart from participants
and program staff, there are various tools and/or resources that STARS utilizes, including
BlueStar, an online platform which allows Andrea to view academic and financial statuses of the
mentees. This particular input provides an avenue for additional support and intervention to the
mentees, and therefore contributes to the overall impact of the program. Beyond this tool,
knowledge of campus resources as well as knowledge of identities come into play as important
inputs, as they serve as critical content that is communicated via and incorporated into the
channels like BlueStar and face-to-face meetings between staff and mentees. This input speaks
directly to earlier mention of theoretical frameworks, like SCM and CRT, wherein programming
intentionally approaches material in a particular lens to account for issues like race, etc.
Likewise, the foundations of the program (i.e., money and space) are anchor inputs, including
DePaul’s university budget dedicated towards OMSS (funding source and quantity unknown),
and more specifically STARS, as well as the physical space of the OMSS office.
Alongside these program inputs, our logic model outlines the subsequent program
outputs. The major outputs include the initial invitations sent to the 1,701 eligible students, the
participation agreement forms that are signed by the 400 to 500 students, and the continuous bi-
monthly meetings held between mentor and mentees throughout the duration of the program,
including the Study Jams (participants must attend two per semester). Additional outputs include
two large group events held in the fall and winter, as well as the hiring and training events held
in the spring for new mentors. Beyond meetings and/or events, important outputs also included
in our logic model, and at the center of Andrea’s situation regarding program improvement, are
the annual assessments for mentors and mentees, wherein the assessments for mentees are being
highlighted as an area for further development.
Looking beyond the abovementioned outputs, the desired outcomes of our logic model
include short, medium, and long term results. In regards to the short-term outcomes, which
would occur right after the STARS Kickoff event, participating students should be able to better
understand the purpose of their STARS mentor, the benefits of participating in the STARS
program, and their responsibilities as a mentee. Beyond short-term, there are medium-term
outcomes that take place in the fall and winter quarters, which focus on mentees understanding
the importance of academic success, engagement and positive relationships with DePaul faculty
and staff, enrolling in 16 credit hours, and how their salient identities have shaped their
experience. Lastly, the long-term outcome are that participants in STARS will successfully
persist into their second year, individually navigate DePaul’s resources, and continue to develop
their understanding of their salient identities. Again, this logic model that will inform the
STARS assessment of mentees, seeks to understand if the learning and developmental outcomes
of its target populations are being met, which is critical to the successful longevity of the
program.
Assessment Purpose and Approach
So we try to be very strategic because we know we typically have to sing for our supper,
in that all of our programmatic outcomes roll up to all of our departmental learning
outcomes, which roll up to all of the division of student affairs mission and learning
outcomes, which roll up to whatever strategic plan. So we do not create outcomes that do
not have specific connections to the top of the university. Because we need to be able to
make a direct correlation and connection for folks (A. Bangura, personal communication,
September 21, 2017).
Per the above description, STARS leadership is strategic and intentional in how they
approach program assessment. Because their specific program outcomes are tightly connected to
other elements of the larger university (i.e., “departmental learning outcomes,” “student affairs
learning outcomes”), administration has to consider program assessment on both a micro and
macro level, whereby evaluating and weighing student experiences (micro) as well as assessing
whether program processes and curriculum are set up in a way to achieve desired program, and
university, outcomes (macro). This comprehensive approach to assessment requires purposeful
and careful consideration from all administrative inputs.
One way that STARS obtains feedback from participants is via the online platform
mentioned earlier, BlueStar, which is a subset of StarFish. Again, once a student signs the
STARS participation agreement and are paired with a mentor, both mentee and mentor are
assigned to BlueStar, where program staff can track student class enrollment numbers of 16
credits per quarter, academic progress, GPAs and notes made by mentors regarding their
mentees’ financial aid or other specific questions posed by the mentee. This system also tracks
the number of interventions individual students have received, as well as what roadblocks or
barriers they are encountering. STARS program leadership, Andrea Bangura and her graduate
assistant are notified when any mentee is flagged for immediate interventions. Beyond this
function, mentors are also asked to write reflections once per week after staff meetings in the
form of qualitative assessments. These mentor reflections end up informing day to day program
structures, areas of their own professional development, and identifying and addressing gaps to
ensure mentors have the structures they need to be positive supports for their mentees. The
majority of the assessments are used primarily for funding purposes via annual reports,
demonstrating program impact. As noted above in regards to our logic model, STARS program
leadership has identified an area within their program assessment that requires attention, as stated
in the following quote:
Where we do have a gap is that we do not do a whole lot of qualitative assessment

with our STARS participants, partly because of capacity. Typically, when we
thought about it, the easiest way to do that is through surveys, but we do not have
great survey response in general at DePaul or out of our office. So we try to stray
away from that a bit. If we are looking at ways you all (Jesus and Shá) can be helpful,
is to find a creative way that either does not use survey or finding a way that makes it
easy to distribute a survey to gauge engagement impact of the program through
qualitative analysis with participants…I think some things that would be real
beneficial are one, what is the value that our student participants see in their program
participation? Are they able to connect their experiences with their mentors to their
success in their first year here? Are they pulling some of that language that we utilize
and/or metrics that we share with them…Something that sort of assesses how students
are feeling and connecting their experience to specific outcomes. Are students
experiences in the program impacting their desire to stay connected to our
department? Because we do try to pipeline, and STARS is sort of that first avenue
that we do that (A. Bangura, personal communication, September 21, 2017).
The description above mainly focuses on the need for a qualitative survey, but for the purpose of
our assessment we will do both, quantitative and qualitative to find out if mentees are meeting
there short-term and medium-term learning and developmental outcomes stated in our Logic
Model (Appendix A). This mixed methods approach will garner a lot better results than if we
focused on one, qualitative or quantitative approach. For example, our mixed method approach
will start with a quantitative survey for a rich descriptive analysis, followed up by qualitative
semi-structured interviews that allows us to use the participants’ voices to inform our
quantitative findings, adding a lot more valuable detail for overall program improvement.
As a result of our goal for program improvement, our proposed mixed methods,
qualitative and quantitative approach, is formative, which Henning and Roberts (2016) describe
as continual responses that allow a program to make changes and improvements prior to its
conclusion. Again, the focus in our formative approach is for program improvement, which will
allow us to find out if mentees are meeting all, some, or none of the STARS learning and
developmental outcomes. Since we seek to assess the mentees right after the STARS program,
this assessment will be cross-sectional in nature, which focuses on a single point in time versus a
longitudinal that seeks to follow participants over a longer period in time (Davidson, 2017).
Beyond feasibility, we believe it would be most rationale to begin with a cross-sectional
approach because it allows us to get the immediate picture of mentees’ experience, short-term
and medium term learning and development. After successfully implementing an assessment
cycle for this formative cross-sectional approach, it would then make sense and be exciting to
perform a longitudinal assessment for even richer details of mentees’ experience two, three, or
more years beyond their initial STARS’ program.
Our proposed mixed methods approach seeks to answer the following assessment
questions:
1. How does the STARS program help with first year transition into DePaul University and
retention, persistence, and academic success?
2. How does the STARS program help create positive relationships between mentees and
mentors, student affairs staff and professors?
3. How does the STARS program help mentees in their development of their salient
identities?
As stated above, the data generated from the above assessment questions would allow the
STARS program to better identify areas of improvement. Given that there is an existing process,
albeit a little more informal, for obtaining feedback from mentors, the STARS staff would be
able to compare the data from previous years through current and moving forward; on the other
hand, they would need to wait several years to do so with mentee feedback due to not having any
currently established assessment and evaluation processes in place for this particular input entity.
As a result and stated above, this is a prime opportunity to begin an assessment cycle for a
mentee assessment. Tying our assessment purpose back to our logic model, it becomes clear that
obtaining student learning and developmental metrics from as many inputs as possible would
position this program to adapt according to current needs and ultimately maximize its impact.
Quantitative Assessment Design
“We are a success based office.”
-Andrea Bangura, personal communications, September 21, 2017
For the quantitative portion of this assessment, we will propose a cross-sectional
descriptive assessment design in the format of a survey. This will allow us to get a sense of what
is happening at the completion of the STARS program in the context of student learning and
development experiences. In contrast to a correlational assessment design, the descriptive design
does not focus on the “why,” or the relational aspects of program variables, but rather looks to
highlight the “what” of a program, or the happenings that occur as a result of programming
(Henning & Roberts, 2016). While the “why” is an important assessment end goal, getting a
better grasp on the want is an important first step in the STARS program understanding its
impact of student learning and development. The goal of utilizing a descriptive study for our
assessment lies in the direct output of our survey, which is information that will inform whether
short-term and medium-term student learning and development outcomes are being met. To
compliment the utility of a descriptive design for our particular assessment, we will be focusing
our assessment on a singular point in time (i.e., upon mentees’ completion of the STARS
program), whereby making our descriptive designed quantitative assessment cross-sectional in
nature (Davidson, 2017). Because the STARS program has around 400 to 500 student mentees,
the best quantitative approach to administer the cross-sectional design is in the format of a
survey.
Given the existing resources available for our survey, we will not be utilizing a
comparison group, but rather focusing on the responses of STARS mentees in order to inform
programming decisions. Although it would be impressive to conduct a comparison group for the
quantitative portion of our assessment, it is highly unfeasible at this point due to programmatic
resource constraints, namely limited STARS staff with available capacity to take the lead on
such a project. However, moving forward, it would be additionally beneficial for DePaul
University’s (DePaul) Office of Multicultural Student Success (OMSS) to build upon our
recommendation and conduct the survey described here alongside a cross-sectional survey for
non-STARS students. As a result, this comparison group would allow DePaul administrators to
explore key differences or similarities between STARS and non-STARS participants and analyze
larger picture questions around program efficacy.
To reiterate our assessment question, we are wanting to investigate whether STARS
students achieved the program’s short-term and medium-term outcomes immediately upon
completing the program’s curriculum (i.e., after the program’s two-quarter duration). Our
survey-based descriptive design will inquire with mentees via nominal, ordinal and ratio-based
questions around frequency of certain occurrences (e.g., engaging with student affairs
professionals/professors/staff), opinions around quality of relationships established, number of
quarter hours completed and capability and level of self-reflection. Due to the quantity of
mentees being surveyed and, again, the capacity of the relatively limited program staff, the
quantitative nature of mentee responses will allow OMSS and STARS staff to realistically
interpret survey results and understand perspectives of mentee experiences in the context of the
program’s student learning and development outcomes based on finite categorical and Likert
scales.
Survey Instrument
The survey items proposed for the quantitative assessment address the student learning
and developmental outcomes for STARS. A variety of survey questions are utilized to capture
the broad experiences of STARS mentees on the campus of DePaul, to evaluate the success of
the program. The proposed 37 questions on the survey should take approximately ten minutes to
complete. The proposed assessment covers the following areas: Participant experiences with the
STARS Kickoff, Instructors and Student Affairs professionals at DePaul, and STARS Mentor
and OMSS office as well as how participants have navigated their identities at DePaul. In
addition the survey asks for self-identifying demographics, including age, race, gender, on- or
off-campus living, major and interest in focus group participation. In addition to the data
collected on the survey itself, we are proposing that OMSS incorporates the following
institutional data: participant GPAs per quarter, credit hours enrolled and completed per quarter,
number of times participants had a meeting with their mentors (BlueStar Report), and number of
times participant had a one on one intervention with Andrea Bangura, the Assistant Director of
OMSS.
The survey begins by asking about short-term learning outcomes focused on the STARS
Kickoff event. The survey then flows into items about engagement with STARS Mentor and
DePaul Instructors. Next, we ask participants to rate themselves in their ability to locate, explain
and articulate a broad area of things including enrolling in classes at DePaul, the importance of
maintaining positive relationships with OMSS office and DePaul instructors, and the saliency of
their identities. Next, we focus on their interactions with STARS mentors around academic
success tasks and other learning outcomes. Finally, we ask participants to tell us a little more
about themselves.
Survey Administration
To ensure we have a survey that flows well and is easy to understand, we will pilot the
survey with one or two STARS participants. This will allow us to make sure the survey is
relevant for the mentees, from top to bottom. The survey will be administered online. The
limited budget for the STARS program is mostly allocated to payment of STARS mentors, staff
and program materials leaving minimal funds to conduct a survey for nearly 400 students.
Utilizing an online platform minimizes cost of assessment. There could be incentives offered at
Study Jams for completing the survey, such as four (4) $5 dollar gift cards. We also believe
having a sense of community, ownership and validation will foster a sense of responsivity to
improving the program for those who will follow in their footsteps and participate in the STARS
program. Lastly, as mentioned previously, the survey will take under ten minutes to complete.
Mentees will receive an email asking them to participant in an online survey to learn
about their personal experiences in DePaul’s STARS program to better understand first year
students and improve the program. The link to the survey will be embedded in the email making
it easier to access. To establish the importance of their participation in the survey, Andrea
Bangura the Assistant Director of the OMSS office and program director of STARS will send
out the email Monday, April 2nd. A reminder email will be sent out on Monday, April 9th and
16th. The OMSS office offers the Study Jams program every Monday and Tuesday night, 5pm-
7pm. This program should be familiar to STARS participants as it is highly encouraged that
STARS mentor attend with their mentees. The Study Jams program continues through the spring
quarter. By setting up a table with laptops or iPads, this is a good avenue to encourage former
STARS participants to complete the survey. The online survey will close on Friday, April 20th.
Quantitative Analytic Plan
Our statistical analyses will utilize both descriptive and inferential methods. According
to Henning and Roberts (2016), descriptive statistics use mathematical approaches to organize
data gathered from an assessment. In contrast, inferential statistics are mathematical approaches
using probabilities and details from a small sample to formulate conclusions of an entire
population. Both methods will allow us to highlight the summation of and relationship between
our survey variables. Beyond examining totals around our survey questions (i.e., how many
STARS mentees have met with at least one OMSS staff - as asked in relation to our medium-
term outcome five), we will also draw upon cross tabulations (descriptive statistics) to examine
categorical variables as well as the Pearson Correlation (inferential statistics) to determine if
there are any statistically significant relationships between particular variable partnerships.
Our initial analyses will look at basic demographics and frequency distributions, as we
seek to display the frequencies in the particular response categories and display these via bar
graphs in our final report. As referenced above, an example bar graph could display the total
number of STARS mentees who met with at least one OMSS staff while in the program. Our
descriptive statistical analysis will be formatted as cross tabulations. For example, we seek to
analyze salient identities by gender. Per our medium-term outcome three, we are inquiring about
whether STARS mentees are able to speak to their salient identities in a more advanced way after
participating in the STARS program. Because gender is a nominal (categorical) variable, the
appropriate analysis here would involve a bivariate cross-tabulation to examine salient identity
by gender. Similarly, we would also like to utilize a cross tabulation to examine the same
variable relating to salient identities by race, another nominal (categorical) variable. Another
example is examining interactions with mentors around academic success task by race and
gender, which allows us to inquire even deeper into the STARS’ program focus on academic
success. To display these cross-tabulation analyses in our final report, we would utilize tables to
display our statistical results (one for gender and one for race), with both tables displayed on one
page and in the same format for continuity and cohesiveness.
For our inferential statistical analysis, we would use the Pearson Correlation. One
example, per our assessment question on positive relationships, could look at whether a positive
relationship exists between STARS’ mentees developing positive relationships with Student
Affairs professionals (i.e., OMSS, financial aid, housing staff, academic advising, and other
student services) and developing positive relationships with DePaul instructors. Here, we would
hypothesize a strong correlation (.60-.79), which would be displayed via a table to illustrate the
strength and statistical significance (Davidson, 2017). Another example can look at whether a
positive relationship exist between STARS’ mentees meeting at least one OMSS staff and
learning more about how their salient identities shaped their experience at DePaul. Similarly we
expect a strong correlation and would use a table to display the results. Lastly, because the
nature of our survey and assessment questions involve cross-sectional and non-comparison group
designs, we will not be analyzing survey data over time or in relation to a control group/sample.
While the above layout of tables and graphs would effectively highlight the statistically
salient points of our survey, it is also important to recognize the limitations that would
simultaneously exist in our quantitative approach. First, as inherent with descriptive studies, our
questions do not necessarily speak to the “why” of our survey content. This limitation relates to
what we are asking, which focuses on survey items that measure the extent to which students are
meeting outcomes. In this sense, while our survey results give us a great head start of fully
understanding whether the STARS program is effectively achieving their desired short and
medium-term outcomes, the quantitative analysis is limited in its depth. Luckily, however, this
limitation can be swiftly addressed via the qualitative portion of our project, which will nicely
complement the quantitative side of our inquiry. Second, the validity of our results relates to the
response rate of the STARS mentees, who may or may not take the time to complete our
survey. If they are experiencing “survey fatigue” and choose not to respond, we would be
missing out on potential responses and therefore data. This limitation could be addressed with
adapting the delivery of the survey to ensure an increased likelihood of completion, such as
adding incentives. Given the limited resources of the OMSS, incentives could be as reasonable
as four (4) $5 gift cards to coffee shops or sandwich shops that can be raffled at the Study Jam
sessions mentioned above.
Qualitative Assessment Design
There are five approaches to qualitative design: narratives, phenomenology, grounded
theory, ethnography, and case studies (Henning & Roberts, 2016). Of the five, the two most
compatible with answering our assessment questions are narrative and phenomenology. Henning
and Roberts (2016) define narrative approaches as capturing the representation of individuals
through the many forms of stories; written reflections, spoken words and visuals (i.e.,
photography). On the other hand, the phenomenology approach focuses on “common and
unique experiences . . . to create an understanding of the universal essence of that experience”
(Henning and Roberts, 2016, p. 153). In this sense, it would not be the best fit for our
assessment, which is seeking more concrete portrayals of student experience and less
philosophical conceptualization of the program. By using the narrative approach, more

specifically student narratives, we are able to further answer our assessment questions, is the
STARS program at DePaul University helping first year students with transition, retention, and
persistence and becoming academically successful? Specifically, the narrative approach will
allow us to hear directly from the mentees, giving us more information to fill in gaps or add
richer details to the already completed survey. In addition, the qualitative portion of the
assessment seeks to answer how STARS is impacting their target population (first years, students
of color, low SES background and/or first generation college students), through peer to peer
mentorship. Overall in the proposed qualitative assessment, we seek to understand how STARS
participants are experiencing the program and whether they achieved the program’s short-term
and medium-term outcomes, both of which speak to their overall learning and developmental
goals. As such, we believe the narrative format best aligns with our assessment structure and
goals.
Moreover, there are three ways to collect qualitative data: interviews, focus groups and
observation (Henning & Roberts, 2016). Because observation does not include direct inquiry
with participants, we will not be going into further detail about its use; as such the following
discussion will center upon interview and focus groups. Interviews allow the assessor “to
understand participants’ feelings, intentions, meanings, subcontexts, or thoughts on a topic,
situation, or idea” (Henning and Roberts, 2016, p.169). Focus groups are interviews with more
than one person, wherein “the participants interact and build on the responses of others to
provide information that could not be obtained in individual interviews” (Henning and Roberts,
2016, p. 177). For the purpose of our proposed qualitative assessment of the STARS program,
we are using the interview method of data collection. With a learning outcome focused around
salient identities and the qualitative assessment focus of understanding the experiences of
participants have with their peer mentor; we believe creating a safe space for their individual
truths, is the best way to honor and highlight their experiences with STARS and DePaul.
Utilizing interviews instead of focus groups allows assessors to access a more detailed account
and a rich picture of each participant's experience. More specifically, we will utilize a semi-
structured interview format, which Adams (2010) defines as a blend of open- and closed- ended
questions paired with follow up or probing questions (i.e., “why and how”). By implementing
semi-structured interviews, we hope to capture common and relevant themes across individual
student experiences. Again, while these semi-structured interviews will open a space for
singular accounts of students’ experiences (as opposed to focus groups that could capture
multiple accounts at once), we seek to draw out common themes by interviewing a relatively
large number of students. A limitation of conducting semi-structured interviews could be the
amount of time they will take. However, because the program is truly interested in learning
about student experiences as it relates to their learning and development, the opportunity cost of
the time spent would be well worth the investment. If the program wished to continue
qualitative assessments after the initial assessment, we recommend using focus groups to obtain
more complex analysis and enriched conclusions around mentee experiences.
Our semi-structured interview will be implemented post-survey, as we will be referencing
and drawing on both questions and answers from the quantitative portion of our assessment
project. Along these lines, our qualitative semi-structured interview will be used to complement
our quantitative survey. As such, our qualitative approach will let us get to the “why” of our
assessment questions, something the survey did not. Specifically, we want to get a richer picture
and details from mentees regarding their mentee/mentor relationship, academic experience,
campus engagement, and salient identities. At the end of the day, we want to understand what
kind of impact the STARS program is or is not having for our mentees’ learning and
development. In doing so, the STARS program can adequately make the proper improvements
for future mentees. Ideally, it would be most helpful to interview all STARS mentees; however,
due to resource constraints and a small staff size, we are seeking to interview between 8 to 10
mentees. Aiming to get around 60 quantitative surveys returned to us, between 8 to 10 in-person
interviews would yield approximately a 16% sample, which would allow us to make appropriate
inferences about other mentees’ experiences while in STARS. In order to select the 8 to 10 in-
person interviewees, there is a question on the quantitative assessment survey that asks if they
would be willing to participate in an interview. Out of the 400 current STARS participants, we
do not anticipant complications in identifying a minimum of 8 students to participate in the
qualitative assessment interviews.
Proposed Protocol
Our protocol instrument is split into three sections - pre-interview, interview, and wrap-
up - with the majority of our content stemming from questions asked in the interview portion.
The five subsections of our interview portion mirror the major topics of our quantitative survey,
and include: Overall experience with STARS, Mentee/Mentor Communication, Academic
Experience, Campus Engagement and Salient Identities. Due to a variety of topics covered, the
length of our interview is set to last approximately one hour, which is communicated to the
mentees upon interview orientation and during Consent Form review/collection. We will test the
questions included on our qualitative survey with one mentee selected to participate in our pilot
(to be run one week prior to our interviews), as to ensure appropriate interview length, clear and
concise questions and overall flow of our instrument.

In terms of implementation procedures, OMSS staff will reserve private meeting spaces
on campus and coordinate scheduling interviews with the two designated interviewers. The
STARS Program Director (who is also the Assistant Director of the OMSS office) and the
program’s graduate assistant will lead and facilitate the individual mentees’ interviews over the
course of one week. Ideally, these interviews will be spaced out four per day (two interviews per
staff each day) and will begin a few weeks into spring quarter (around the end of March). This
particular timing will account for students’ transitions back to campus after the winter quarter
has ended and be a great segue into their final quarter of their first year. During the interviews,
OMSS staff will provide an assortment of candy and light refreshments, as to make the interview
space and process feel comfortable to the mentees.
Per our Audio Consent forms that are reviewed and signed prior to the interview
beginning, we will be seeking to record our sessions when possible. However, regardless of
whether interviewees decline/accept the audio recording option, the interviewers will be taking
notes of all shared information. While taking notes can potentially be distracting to the
interviewee and may cause the facilitator to miss some information being explained, we believe
the availability of notes will be beneficial as supplemental resources for content analysis. To
combat this drawback, the interviewer will be utilizing a laptop for quicker note recording and
will be coached on maintaining positive non-verbal communication with the interviewee
throughout the process (i.e., eye contact, head nodding, etc.). It will also be helpful for
interviewers to utilize summarized/paraphrased feedback to ensure interviewees’ responses are
accurately understood (i.e., “So what I hear you say is…,” or “So it sounds like…”), as well as
intermittent affirmations to validate interviewees responses (i.e., “That must have been difficult
or I can imagine that was challenging”). The use of these verbal check-ins should foster a safe
space for the interviewee and hopefully encourage a fruitful dialogue between the parties.
Qualitative Analytic Plan
Our proposed qualitative analytics plan begins with attribute coding, which “identifies the
information source in terms of the characteristics of the respondent and the site and the
circumstances of data collection” (Rogers and Goodrick, 2010, p. 438). For example, a form of
attribute coding would be identifying the information of STARS participants in terms of their
demographics. By having interviewees fill out the Descriptive Demographic Information form
(Appendix K) prior to the interview, we are able to identify comparative groups based on
participants’ demographic attributes. The form asks for the following demographics:
College/Major, Age, Gender, Race and Ethnic Heritage, and a list of student and campus
activities they may be involved in, if any. Participants are paired with their mentor based on
demographics, particularly school and major, which may attribute to how they experience the
STARS program. The categories and subcategories identified in the demographic form
(Appendix K) will be best managed and analyzed via descriptive coding. Rogers and Goodrick
(2010) write, “descriptive coding assists you in managing the volume of data by making it easier
to retrieve and aggregate data relating to a particular issue” (p. 440). In this sense, the
complimentary nature of attribute coding and descriptive coding will allow the STARS staff to
code the data received from these qualitative interviews. Using attribute and descriptive coding
will allow STARS staff to understand how STARS participants’ salient identities affect their
experiences at in the program and at DePaul. How do students who are in the program because
they are students of color experience the program and does that differ from students who are in
the STARS program because they are first generation? How does that differ from students who
are students of color, from a low SES background and are first generation college students? Is
STARS supporting all of these identities through the same intervention programming?
An inductive approach will guide the qualitative analyses, which means we will seek to
find themes and theories as dimensions emerge without doing so in advance (Henning &
Roberts, 2016). Using open coding as a comparative analysis, we can sort patterns, categories
and subcategories that emerge. Utilizing construct maps gives visualization of reoccurring and
emerging themes. Serial tagging will be used to tag an interview transcript completely, which
will be done one at time (Rogers & Goodrick, 2010). This is a useful tool in order to make
meaning of the STARS mentees’ complete experience with the program. Adjustments to codes
and systematic review are important in reflecting on what has and has not been coded, in
ensuring no critical codes or themes have been missed (Rogers & Goodrick, 2010).
Using word repetition and cutting/sorting techniques will also be useful in analyzing the
data because it will allow us to find sub-themes or find important quotes (Davidson, 2017). In
contrast, we do not believe member checking should be employed in the analysis of this data.
Member checking occurs when those stakeholders who have participated in the assessment of the
program aid in checking the interpretations of the codes (Rogers & Goodrick, 2010). In the case
of the proposed assessment, member checking would add an additional step for the program
director and graduate assistant conducting the qualitative interviews; we do not believe this step
is needed in assessing the program. Due to there being more than one coder or rater, inter-rater
reliability is useful in agreeing on what codes will be used. A triangulation process of multiple
sources of data should be utilized to combine findings from quantitative surveys and qualitative
interviews. The quantitative survey will answer the research question of does the STARS
program at DePaul University help first year students with transition, retention, persistence and
becoming academically successful, and the proposed qualitative assessment will answer how.
Evaluation Report
The proposed evaluation report for the assessment will include a number of ways to
display the findings of the quantitative and qualitative inquiry. It will begin with the background
on the STARS program and why the assessment was initiated and administered. Charts will
show direct findings from the quantitative surveys. Visualization is a theme present in the
analysis portion of the qualitative assessment process and is useful in reporting the findings by
integrating a construct map into the reports. A key element to presenting the qualitative findings
is the use of direct quotes. By identifying emerging themes, we will create theme headers and
pull direct quotes from STARS interview participants that address the assessment questions and
shine light on the voices of the students.
Bias & Limitations
Because the writers of this assessment have themselves been participants of similar first-
year support programs at different institutions, and also have similar demographic identities as
the STARS mentees, our own personal biases may present themselves. Being first generation
college graduates, students of color and having a low SES upbringing means we are
demographically compatible with most of the STARS participants. While the writers of this
assessment are not directly completing these interviews and/or analyzing their data, guidance
provided from the writers to the staff could potentially be laden with preferences and/or beliefs
around student experiences. In order to address this potential bias, continual self-reflection and
checking from the writers will be crucial.

Additionally, an important limitation to recognize regarding the mix-method approach
selected here is having minimal understanding of campus culture at DePaul University. Another
limitation may be that there is some movement going on at the OMSS office with the merger of
another department into the OMSS office. This transition of space could affect the STARS
program, participants, and program administrations’ ability to fully invest themselves in the
qualitative portion of this assessment. Again, self-reflection, supervision and time management
will be important factors to consider in these cases, and will support the OMSS staff as they
navigate this informative process for the betterment of the STARS program. Lastly, STARS is
directed by Andrea with the help of a graduate assistant and with only a two person staff, it
might take a while for the assessment results to be completed.
Budget
The STARS program has limited funds and prefers to direct the bulk of those resources to
paying the STARS mentees. DePaul University and the OMSS office already owns survey
platforms that can be utilized in distributing the survey (i.e., Survey Monkey). The gift cards
that will be raffled off four $5 gift cards, totaling $20. The graduate assistant will be paid their
regular stipend and time spent during the qualitative interviews and analysis will go toward their
weekly hour requirement. Those who participate in the qualitative assessment will receive a $15
gift certificate to Target, totaling $120-180 for a total budget of $200.
Timeline and Next Steps
The timeline for the proposed assessment will begin upon the completion of the STARS
program. An email will be sent out from Program Director Andrea Bangura, on Monday, April
2nd asking STARS participants to complete the quantitative assessment online survey.
Subsequently, follow up reminder emails will be sent out to STARS participants on Monday,
April 9th and 16th. The online survey will close on Friday, April 20th. The email asking the
identified 8-12 students needed for the qualitative interviews, will be sent out on April 25th with
a whenisgood survey to set up the best time for the interview. The interviews will be held over
the course of the remaining weeks until there are no new findings. The report will be prepared
during the summer. Andrea will use the assessment to determine what areas of success for the
STARS program and areas of improvement to better service STARS participants. The
assessment will provide information for program evaluation. The proposed changes from the
evaluation will be implemented with the new STARS mentors upon their arrival in preparing for
the new school year and Kick-Off event. Because this is the first year of the proposed assessment
format, we suggest implementing the assessment process again in the spring of 2019.
References
Campuses (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.depaul.edu/about/campuses/Pages/default.aspx
Davidson, L. Assessment within Student Affairs [PowerPoint slides].
Davidson, L. Using Descriptive + Inferential Statistics in Assessment [PowerPoint slides].
Henning, G.W., & Roberts, D. (2016) Student affairs assessment: Theory to practice. Sterling,
VA: Stylus.
Key Facts & Rankings (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.depaul.edu/about/Pages/rankings.aspx
Komives, S.R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Wagner, W., Slack, C., & Associates. (2011).
Handbook for student leadership development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Ledesma, M. C., & Calderón, D. (2015). Critical race theory in education: A review of past
literature and a look to the future. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 206-222.
Metz, G. (2004-2005). Challenge and Changes to Tinto’s Persistence Theory: Historical Review.
J. College Student Retention, 6(2), 191-207.
Mission Statement (n.d.). Retrieved from https://offices.depaul.edu/mission-and
values/about/Pages/MissionStatement.aspx
Office of Multicultural Student Success (n.d.). Retrieved from https://offices.depaul.edu/student-
affairs/about/departments/Pages/omss.aspx#
Peer Support (n.d.). Retrieved from https://offices.depaul.edu/student-affairs/support-
services/Pages/peer-support.aspx
Rogers, P. J., & Goodrick, D. (2010). Qualitative data analysis. In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, &
K. E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (3rd ed.) (pp. 429 -
453). San Francisco, CA: Jossey - Bass.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation,
and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI.

Appendix A
Logic Model
Appendix B
S.T.A.R.S. Participant/Mentor Agreement 2017-2018
In an effort to show active participation and support of the S.T.A.R.S. program, this
agreement has been constructed between the participant
______________________________ and peer mentor
___________________________ of the Office of Multicultural Student Success to allow both parties some
responsibility within their S.T.A.R.S. experience while at DePaul University.
Participant - Upon entering this agreement I assert certain responsibilities as a participant:
A. Commit to being an active S.T.A.R.S. participant for the Fall and Winter quarters of the
2017-2018 academic year.
B. When contacted by OMSS or my peer mentor I will make every effort to respect the time
and effort of the other group by returning phone calls and emails. If an academic
intervention is necessary with OMSS, I will schedule this appointment accordingly when
contacted.
C. I will keep scheduled meetings and will RSVP for S.T.A.R.S. programs and will notify the
OMSS office in advance if I need to cancel or miss an appointment or event.
D. I will notify OMSS or my peer mentor of any changes to my email address, home address, or
telephone number so that I may be contacted easily.
E. I will meet with my peer mentor at least once every two weeks for 30 minutes or longer to
discuss my academic strategies and any other issues we choose to talk about.
F. I will seek out the assistance of my peer mentor and/or a tutor to help make a successful
transition to DePaul. I will allow my academic progress to be tracked each quarter by an
OMSS professional staff member so that I may be contacted proactively to receive academic
support.
Peer Mentor - Upon entering this agreement I assert certain responsibilities as your mentor:
A. I commit to being your Peer Mentor for the Fall and Winter quarters of the 2017-2018
academic year.
B. I will contact you once a week to see how you are progressing and will meet with you in
person for at least 30 minutes every two weeks.
C. I will return your phone calls and emails and help to maintain communication between the
two of us.
D. As your Peer Mentor, I will notify you of all upcoming events and programs available
through S.T.A.R.S. with ample notice.
E. When we have scheduled meeting dates, I will keep those appointments unless I give you
prior notice and I will give you my full attention at those meetings.
F. I will direct you to campus resources and Multicultural Student Success staff when needed.
G. I will help you to find a tutor in any subject you may need assistance with.
Both the Peer Mentor and the Participant acknowledge this agreement, and recognize that these
responsibilities will help enable us to have a positive S.T.A.R.S. experience and academic year.
______________________________________
Signature of S.T.A.R.S. Participant Date
___________________________________________
Signature of Peer Mentor Date
Appendix C
Spring 2017 STARS Peer Mentor Training

Schedule
Date Location Training Topic
March 31 LPSC 220 Overview and Expectations
April 7 LPSC 220 Accountability/Mentorship
April 14 No Meeting-DPU Closed Good Friday
April 21 LPSC 220 Best Practices
April 28 Munroe 114-116 STARS Challenge
May 5 Munroe 114-116 SRV Training
May 12 LPSC 220 Social Justice
May 19 Munroe 114-116 Critical Resources
May 26 Vincent DePaul Lawn PreFest BBQ
June 2 LPSC 325 Wrapping up and Prepping
Mandatory Dates:
Saturday, May 6, 2017 8am-2pm

Vincentian Service Day
LP Campus
New hires only:

Saturday, May 13, 2017 9am-3pm
OMSS Leadership Summit
Study Jams
Starting week 3-10, M-W
5-7pm
Must attend one
Appendix D
Autumn 2017 Quarter STARS Peer Mentor

Meeting Schedule/Agenda
Date Location Meeting Type
September 8 LPSC 220 Checking in and Social Media
September 15 LPSC 220 Bluestar Training
September 22 LPSC 220 Financial Aid
September 29 LPSC 220 Social
October 6 Munroe Hall 114/115/116 Meet Me at the Mission
BYE: President’s Diversity Brunch

October 13 No Meeting
and One on Ones
Counseling Services (Mentees
October 20 LPSC 220
invited to attend)
October 27 No Meeting BYE: Peer Mentor Summit
November 3 Munroe Hall 114/115/116 OMSS Updates
Stress Management (Mentees

November 10 LPSC 220
invited to attend)
Required Events:
STARS Kick-Off: September 5, 2017 (4:30-7pm)
OMSS - Community FEST: September 7, 2017 (3:30-7:30pm)
Fall Involvement Fair: September 8, 2017 (1-4pm at Lincoln Park
VinnyFest: Friday, September 22, 2017 2-4pm, LP Quad
OMSS President’s Diversity Brunch: October 14, 2017 (9-11am)
At least one Study Jam per quarter: M-W 5-7pm weeks 3-10 in JTRL Learning Commons
At least one WE/MOC/PATHS event per quarter
Appendix E
Peer Mentor Expectations
I _________________________________________, accept the invitation to serve as a Peer

Mentor for the Office of Multicultural Student Success at DePaul University for the Spring 2017,
Fall 2017 and Winter 2018 quarters. As a Peer Mentor I understand that I will undergo training
during the Spring 2017 quarter and serve as a guide for first year students (mentees) for the Fall
2017 and Winter 2018 quarters, where I will assist mentees in navigating the DePaul Community
and serve as a resource in the following areas: Academic Enhancement, Cultural Exploration,
Transitional Adjustment, Leadership Development, and Service Learning. As part of this
process, I understand that I am committing to my own holistic development, as a Peer Mentor
and beyond, in order to bring the most to the mentor/mentee relationship.
In this capacity, I am aware that the Peer Mentor program is a voluntary, comprehensive, first
year retention program, designed to target 1st generation, students of color in their transition to
DePaul University and to higher education. I understand that I am expected to work in my
capacity as a Peer Mentor for 10 hours per week for which I will receive a stipend of $2750 to be
dispersed bi-weekly. I understand that although OMSS has a target population, the Peer Mentor
program is open to all first year students at DePaul University. I further understand that by
committing to serve as a Peer Mentor I must:
□ Work effectively with all my mentees (refer to mentor/mentee agreement)

□ Meet consistently with mentees once every other week
□ Check-in with mentees via phone or e-mail the week that you are not scheduled to meet (off
week)
□ Submit online BlueStar reports that log the interactions with each assigned mentee
□ Attend mandatory weekly meeting on:
o Fridays 1 pm – 3 pm
□ Actively engage and participate in the mandatory meetings
□ 100% attendance and punctuality is mandatory (In an event of an extreme emergency I
understand that I must contact my supervisor via phone or in person).
□ Keep supervisor informed of any and all critical issues and report them immediately
□ Meet with supervisor individually at least once every quarter to discuss personal/professional
goals and challenges
□ Assess the needs of mentees and provide them with the tools necessary to achieve their goals
□ Attend OMSS Study Jams with mentees as required each quarter (at least 1 each quarter).
□ Attend all required OMSS events and programs (this may include some evenings and weekends)
□ Participate in required trainings and orientations
□ Check email address provided at least 2 times a day and respond promptly (if needed) to all
OMSS communications (within 24 hours)
□ Agree to uphold the confidentiality of directory information as defined by the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (Buckley Amendment), private student information (i.e. grades
and midterm progress reports), and sensitive student information (i.e. financial and personal) that
you may come in contact with during your employment in the office of Multicultural Student
Affairs as agreed to on the confidentiality agreement
□ Assist OMSS Staff in recruiting mentees and future peer mentors
□ Respect, understand, and appreciate diversity and issues of social justice
□ Carry yourself in a dignified and professional manner that exemplifies a person with integrity and
serve as a positive role model at all times (refer to DePaul University’s Student Code of
Conduct).
I understand that if I fail to meet the terms of this agreement it could result in possible termination of my
role as a Peer Mentor.
I have read and understand the above terms and conditions of this agreement and by
affixing my signature do agree to these terms and conditions.
________________________________________ _________________________
Peer Mentor Signature Date
________________________________________ _________________________
OMSS Staff Supervisor Signature Date
Appendix F
Peer Mentor Accountability Form
I, _________________________________________, hold myself accountable to the

commitments outlined in the Peer Mentor Expectations Form. I understand the purpose of this
form is to ensure that our commitments are indeed fulfilled for the Spring 2017, Fall 2017 and
Winter 2018 quarters, for my own development and that of my mentees.
Upon the understanding of each statement, please initial on the blank line:
_______ If I fail to meet ANY of the Peer Mentor Expectations, I understand that a letter serving
as an incident report will be put in my employee file. I will receive a copy of any letters added to
my file.
_______ If I obtain three of these letters within the length of my contract, without regard to the
particular quarter, I understand that I will have a meeting with the Peer Mentor Program
Coordinator. This meeting will be to discuss the reasons for my inability to meet all the Peer
Mentor expectations and to develop strategies for me to better do my job.
_______ I am aware that, following the meeting, I will be on probation for an amount of time to
be determined by the Peer Mentor Program Coordinator. If I receive one more letter during
probation, due to my inability to meet all Peer Mentor expectations, it will result in a hearing for
dismissal with the Peer Mentor Program Coordinator.
_________________________________________ ____________________________
Signature Date
Appendix G
Peer Mentor Academic Expectations
I, _________________________________________, understand that as a Peer Mentor I have a

responsibility to maintain academic excellence at DePaul University for the Spring 2017, Fall
2017 and Winter 2018 quarters while serving as a mentor. These expectations are to be met
because I am a student leader on campus and serve as an example to other students. The OMSS
office staff has the right to review my academic standing and consult with any professors
necessary in order to better assist me, as a Peer Mentor.
Upon the understanding of each statement, please initial on the blank line:
_______ I understand that as a Peer Mentor I must maintain a Grade Point Average of a 2.5 or
above to meet the requirements of the program. I will allow my academic progress to be tracked
each quarter by an OMSS professional staff member so that I may be contacted proactively to
receive academic support. If I enter the position with less than a 2.5 average, I will be held to a
record of consistent GPA improvement each quarter that I serve as a Peer Mentor.
_______ I understand that if in any quarter my Grade Point Average falls under the expected 2.5
during the length of my time as a STARS Peer Mentor, I will have a meeting with the Peer
Mentor Program Coordinator. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss my academic
situation and to develop a plan of action that will raise my Grade Point Average significantly for
the following quarter.
_______ I am aware that, following the meeting, I will be on probation for ONE entire quarter
until the developed plan of action is met.
_______ I understand that if I do not meet the plan of action set forth by the Peer Mentor
Program Coordinator and myself, it will result in a hearing for dismissal with the Coordinator.
______________________________________________________________________
Signature Date
APPENDIX H
STARS Mentee Survey
STARS is a peer mentorship transition and retention program for first-year students of
color, first- generation students and students with financial need. The STARS program, with the
Office of Multicultural Student Success, seeks to provide success-based programing that address
the holistic needs of each STARS participant. Your honest feedback is important in
understanding your experiences and in improving the STARS program.
The responses to the survey below will be kept confidential and will take approximately
eight to ten minutes to complete.
If any questions or concerns arise during the completion of the survey, please contact
Andrea Bangura, the Assistant Director of OMSS, at Abangura1@depaul.edu.
First, we’d like to know about your experience at the STARS Kickoff.
1. How did you initially find out about the STARS program? (Choose all that apply):
__ Email
__ DePaul’s Website
__ Social Media (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
__ DePaul Faculty/Admin
__ DePaul Student
__ Other (please specify):________________
2. Did you attend the STARS Kickoff Event?

__ Yes
__ No
3. At the STARS Kickoff, my mentor and I signed the program Participation Agreement?
__ Yes
__ No
4. After the STARS Kickoff, I could explain the purpose of my STARS mentor?
__ Not at all __ Very little __ Somewhat __ Quite a bit
5. After the STARS Kickoff, I could explain my responsibilities as a mentee?

6. After the STARS Kickoff, I could describe the benefits of participating in the STARS
program?
Next, we’d like to know about your relationships with your course instructor.
7. How many times have you met with any DePaul instructor outside of class since starting at
DePaul?
__ 0 Times
__ 1-2 Times
__ 3-5 Times
__ 6-8 Times
__ 9-11 Times
__ 12-14 Times
__ 15 or More Times
The next set of questions (8-19) ask you to rate yourself on your ability to do the following
before and after participating in STARS.
After participating in STARS, I

Before participating in STARS, I could…
can…
Not at Very Not Very Quite
Somewhat Quite a bit Somewhat
all little at all little a bit
Explain why getting to know
my DePaul Instructors was
important to me.
DePaul Student Affairs
professionals (i.e. OMSS,
Financial aid, housing staff,
academic advising, and other
student services) is important
to me.
Explain why enrolling in 16
credit hours per Quarter at
DePaul is important to my
academic success.
Explain generally what the idea
of salient identities are.
Describe to others which
identities (race, gender, sexual
orientation, etc.) of mine were
most salient to me.
Explain how my identities
shape my experiences
(interaction with faculty, staff,
and peers) at DePaul.
Locate counseling support
services.
Locate academic support
services.
Locate financial aid services.
Locate career center services.
Locate other mentoring-related

services.

the OMSS staff is important to
me.
Question 20 focuses on your interaction with your mentor about different behaviors.
Thinking back over your first two quarters at DePaul, how much did your STARS mentor
talk with you about the following:
Task Not at all Very little Somewhat Quite a bit
Avoid distractions while I

study
Choose a place to study
Develop an action plan
Develop goals
Take course notes
Organize my course
information
Read for better

understanding of the
material
Review my course notes
Study with others
Manage my time
effectively
Track my grades
Identify ways to
memorize/recall
information
21. Next, Question 21 ask how many time you talked about your identities with your
STARS mentor?
Never Once a month Twice a Weekly Multiple times per

Identities
month week
Race
Ethnicity
Gender
Sexual orientation
First generation status
Social class
22. I feel like I have developed positive relationships with at least one DePaul instructors during
my time in the STARS program.
23. I feel like I have developed positive relationships with at least one DePaul Student Affairs
professionals (i.e. OMSS, financial aid, housing staff, academic advising, and other student
services) during my time in the STARS program.
24. Before participating in STARS, how many credit hours did you plan on enrolling in each
Quarter?
__ 0
__ 1-4
__ 5-8
__ 9-12
__ 12-15
__ 16
__ 17 or more
25. After participating in STARS, how many credit hours do you plan on enrolling in each
Quarter?
__ 0
__ 1-4
__ 5-8
__ 9-12
__ 12-15
__ 16
__ 17 or more
26. Because of my participation in STARS, I understand how important enrolling in 16 credit

hours per Quarter will benefit me at DePaul.
27. After participating in STARS, I learned more about how my identities shape my personal
experiences at DePaul.
28. Next, Question 28 ask how much you learned about programs offered by OMSS that
could assist you at DePaul.
Program Not at all Very little Somewhat Quite a bit
Multicultural
Student Support
First Generation
Student Support
Study Jams
Empowerment
Programming
Book Loan
Program
Parents and Family

Outreach and
Empowerment
Program
29. While in STARS I have met with at least one OMSS staff in addition to my mentor.
__ Yes
__ No
Finally, we’d like to know more about you.
30. Did you attend another college/university before coming to DePaul?

__ Yes
__ No
31. What is your Age?

__ Under 18 years
__ 18-19 years old
__ 20-21 years old
__ 22-23 years old
__ 24 years or older
32. My gender identity (select all that apply):

__ Woman
__ Man
__ Transwoman
__ Transman
__ Genderqueer
__ Other: ____________
__ Prefer not to say
33. My racial/ethnic identity (select all that apply):

__ Black or African
__ White (non-hispanic)
__ Latinx or Hispanic
__ Asian
__ Asian American
__ Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian
__ Middle Eastern or North African
__ American Indian or Alaskan Native
__ Other: __________
34. Do you live on campus?

__ Yes
__ No
35. Would you be willing to participate in a focus group?

__ Yes
__ No
36. Please share your email address if you are willing to participate.
______________________________________
37. What is your Major:

__ Accountancy
__ Acting
__ Actuarial Science (Business)
__ Actuarial Science (CSH)
__ African and Black Diaspora Studies
__ Allied Health Technologies
__ American Studies
__ Animation (BA)
__ Animation (BFA)
__ Anthropology
__ Applied Behavioral Sciences (For Adult Students)
__ Arabic Studies
__ Art
__ Art, Media, and Design (BA)
__ Art, Media, and Design (BFA)
__ Biochemistry
__ Biological Sciences
__ Business Administration (BA For Adult Students)
__ Business Administration (BSB)

__ Catholic Studies
__ Chemistry (BA)
__ Chemistry (BS)
__ Chinese Studies
__ Communication and Media
__ Communication and Technology
__ Communication Studies
__ Composition
__ Computer Science
__ Costume Design
__ Costume Technology
__ Criminology
__ Cyber-Physical Systems Engineering
__ Cybersecurity
__ Data Science (BA)
__ Data Science (BS)
__ Decision Analytics (For Adult Students)
__ Dramaturgy/Criticism
__ Early Childhood Education
__ Economics (Business)
__ Economics (LAS)
__ Elementary Education
__ English
__ Environmental Science
__ Environmental Studies
__ Exercise Science
__ Film and Television (BA)
__ Film and Television (BFA)
__ Finance
__ French
__ Game Design
__ Game Programming
__ Geography
__ German
__ Graphic Design
__ Health Sciences
__ History of Art and Architecture
__ History
__ Hospitality Leadership
__ Information Systems
__ Information Technology
__ Interactive and Social Media
__ International Studies
__ Islamic World Studies
__ Italian
__ Japanese Studies
__ Jazz Studies
__ Journalism
__ Latin American and Latino Studies
__ Leadership Studies (For Adult Students)
__ Lighting Design
__ Management
__ Management Information Systems
__ Marketing
__ Mathematical Sciences (BA)
__ Mathematical Sciences (BS)
__ Mathematics and Computer Science
__ Media and Cinema Studies
__ Middle Grades Education
__ Music
__ Music Education
__ Music Performance
__ Network Engineering and Security
__ Neuroscience
__ Organizational Communication
__ Peace, Justice and Conflict Studies
__ Performing Arts Management
__ Philosophy
__ Physical Education
__ Physics
__ Playwriting
__ Political Science
__ Psychology (BA)
__ Psychology (BS)
__ Public Policy
__ Public Relations and Advertising
__ Real Estate
__ Religious Studies
__ Scene Design
__ Secondary Education
__ Sociology
__ Sound Design
__ Sound Recording Technology
__ Spanish
__ Special Education
__ Stage Management
__ Theatre Arts
__ Theatre Management
__ Theatre Technology
__ Women's and Gender Studies
__ World Language Education
__ Writing, Rhetoric and Discourse

__ Other: _____________
__ Undecided
Thank you for participating in this survey. Your feedback is important to the success of STARS
and the OMSS office.
APPENDIX I
Survey Map
Logic Model Outcome Survey Survey Item Response Response Options
Component Item # Type
STARS General N/A 1 How did you initially find out Radio Button Email
about the STARS program? Nominal DePaul’s Website
(Choose all that apply) (categorical) Social Media
(Youtube, Facebook,
Twitter, etc.)
DePaul
Faculty/Admin
DePaul Student
Other (please
specify):_________
STARS Kickoff STOC 1 2 Did you attend the STARS Radio Button Yes
Kickoff Event? Nominal No
(categorical)
STOC 1 3 At the STARS Kickoff, my Radio Button Yes

mentor and I signed the Nominal No
program Participation (categorical)
Agreement.
After the kickoff, STOC 1 4 After the STARS Kickoff, I Radio Not at all
participants should be able could explain the purpose of Button Very little
to explain the purpose of my STARS mentor? Ordinal Somewhat
their STARS mentor. (Likert) Quite a bit
participants should be able could explain my Button Very little
to explain their responsibilities as a mentee? Ordinal Somewhat
responsibilities as a (Likert) Quite a bit
mentee.
participants should be able could describe the benefits of Button Very little
to describe the benefits of participating in the STARS Ordinal Somewhat
participating in the program? (Likert) Quite a bit
STARS program.
STARS participants will MTOC 1 7 How many times have you Radio 0 Times
be able to explain why it met with any DePaul Button
is important to maintain instructor outside of class (Ordinal) 1-2 Times
positive relationships since starting at DePaul
with DePaul faculty and 3-5 Times
staff.
6-8 Times
9-11 Times
12-14 Times
15 or More Times
MTOC 1 8a Before participating in Radio Not at all

STARS I could, explain why Button Very little
getting to know my DePaul Ordinal Somewhat
Instructors was important to (Likert) Quite a bit
8b me.
After participating in STARS
I can, explain why getting to
know my DePaul Instructors
is important to me.

getting to know DePaul Ordinal Somewhat
Student Affairs professionals (Likert) Quite a bit
(i.e. OMSS, financial aid,
housing staff, academic
9b advising, and other student
services) is important to me.
know DePaul Student Affairs
professionals (i.e. OMSS,
financial aid, housing staff,
academic advising and other
student services) is important
to me.
MTOC 1 22 I feel like I have developed Radio Not at all

positive relationships with at Button Very little
least one DePaul Instructors Ordinal Somewhat
during my time in the (Likert) Quite a bit
STARS program.
MTOC 1 23 I feel like I have developed Radio Not at all

positive relationships with at Button Very little
least one DePaul Student Ordinal Somewhat
Affairs professionals (i.e. (Likert) Quite a bit
OMSS, financial aid, housing
staff, academic advising, and
other student services) during
my time in the STARS
program.
STARS participants will MTOC 2 24 Before participating in Radio Button 0

be able to explain why STARS how many credit Nominal
enrollment of 16 credit hours did you plan on (ordinal) 1-4
hours per semester is enrolling in each Quarter? 5-8
important in pursuing
undergraduate degree 9-12
completion at DePaul 12-15
16
17 or more
MTOC 2 25 After participating in STARS Radio Button 0

how many credit hours do Nominal
you plan on enrolling in each (ordinal) 1-4
Quarter? 5-8
9-12
12-15
16
17 or more
MTOC 2 26 Because of my participation Radio Not at all

in STARS, I understand how Button Very little
important enrolling in 16 Ordinal Somewhat
credit hours per Quarter will (Likert) Quite a bit
benefit me at DePaul.

enrolling in 16 credit hours Ordinal Somewhat
per Quarter at DePaul is (Likert) Quite a bit
10b important to my academic
success.
I can, explain why enrolling
in 16 credit hours per Quarter
at DePaul is important to my
academic success.
After participating in MTOC 3 21 How many times have you Radio Never
STARS, students should be talked about your identities Button Once a month
able to articulate what with your STARS mentor? (Ordinal) Twice a month
identities are most salient (Six identities listed) Weekly
to them. Multiple times per
week

STARS I could, explain Button Very little
generally what the idea of Ordinal Somewhat
11b salient identities are. (Likert) Quite a bit
I can, explain generally what
the idea of salient identities
are.

STARS I could, describe Button Very little
which identities (race, Ordinal Somewhat
gender, sexual orientation, (Likert) Quite a bit
12b etc.) of mine were most
salient to me.

I can, describe which
identities (race, gender,
sexual orientation, etc.) of
mine were most salient to me
After participating in MTOC 4 13a Before participating in Radio Not at all

STARS, students should be STARS I could, explain how Button Very little
able to articulate how their my identities shape my Ordinal Somewhat
identities affect their 13b experiences (interactions with (Likert) Quite a bit
learning experiences at
DePaul.
faculty, staff, and peers) at

DePaul.

I can, explain how my
identities shape my
experiences (interactions with
faculty, staff, and peers) at
DePaul.
MTOC 4 27 After participating in Radio Not at all

STARS, I learned more about Button Very little
how my identities shape my Ordinal Somewhat
experiences at DePaul. (Likert) Quite a bit
After participating in MTOC 5 14a Before participating in Radio Not at all

STARS, students should STARS I could, locate Button Very little
be able to explain how 14b counseling support services Ordinal Somewhat
engaging with OMSS After participating in STARS (Likert) Quite a bit
office programs and I can, locate counseling
services will benefit their support services
pursuit of
undergraduate degree
completion at DePaul.

STARS I could, locate Button Very little
15b academic support services Ordinal Somewhat
After participating in STARS (Likert) Quite a bit
I could, locate academic
support services

STARS I could, locate Button Very little
16b financial aid services Ordinal Somewhat
I could, financial aid services

STARS I could, locate career Button Very little
17b center services Ordinal Somewhat
I could, locate career center
services

STARS I could, mentoring- Button Very little
18b related services Ordinal Somewhat
I could, mentoring-related
services

getting to know the OMSS Ordinal Somewhat
19b staff is important to me. (Likert) Quite a bit

know the OMSS staff is
important to me.
MTOC 5 28 How much you learned about Radio Not at all

programs offered by OMSS Button Very little
that could assist you at Ordinal Somewhat
DePaul (6 OMSS programs (Likert) Quite a bit
are listed)
MTOC 5 29 Through STARS I have met Radio Button Yes

with at least one OMSS staff Nominal No
in addition to my mentor. (categorical)
After participating in MTOC 6 20 Thinking back over your first Radio Not at all
STARS, students should be two quarters at DePaul, how Button Very little
able to explain academic much did your STARS Ordinal Somewhat
strategies that will benefit mentor talk with you about (Likert) Quite a bit
their degree completion at the following: (12 different
DePaul strategies are listed)
Demographics 30 Did you attend another Radio Button Yes

college/university before Nominal No
coming to DePaul? (categorical)
N/A 31 What is your Age? Radio Button Under 18 years

Ratio 18-19 years old
(continuous) 20-21 years old
22-23 years old
24 years or older
N/A 32 My gender identity Radio Button Woman

Nominal Man
(categorical) Transwoman
Transman
Genderqueer
Other:_____
Prefer not to say
N/A 33 My racial/ethnic identity Radio Button Black or African

Nominal White (non-hispanic)
(categorical) Latinx or Hispanic
Asian
Asian American
Pacific Islander or
Native Hawaiian
Middle Eastern or
North African
American Indian or
Alaskan Native
Other:________
Prefer not to say
Demographic Continued N/A 34 Do you live on campus? Radio Button Yes

Nominal No
(categorical)
N/A 35 Would you be willing to Radio Button Yes

participate in a focus group? Nominal No
(categorical)
N/A 36 Please share your email Open ended

address if you are willingly to
participate.
N/A 37 What is your Major Radio Button (List all DePaul

Nominal University Majors)
(categorical) Other:_______
Undecided
Prefer not to say
APPENDIX J
Consent/Audio Consent to Participate in the STARS Program Interview at
DePaul
Project Title: STARS

Interviewer: ________________________________
Introduction:
You are being asked to take part in a interview to help inform the higher education faculty about
your experience with the STARS program.
Please read this form carefully and ask any questions you may have before deciding whether to
participate in this focus group.
Purpose:
The purpose of the interview is to gather information about students’ experiences with their
STARS mentor and the STARS program.
Procedures:
If you agree to participate in the interview, you will be asked to respond to a series of questions
that will last for approximately 60 minutes. We will ask if you agree to let us audio record. You
are encouraged to respond openly and honestly to the questions asked of you, although you
should only respond to questions when you feel comfortable doing so.
Risks/Benefits:
There are no known risks involved in participating in this study. Benefits may include
improvements of STARS program for future DePaul students.
Confidentiality:
Your name will not be associated with your responses in the interview reports. We will compile
a report of basic themes and share it with you prior to finalizing it. The information gathered in
today’s interview will only be shared with members of the higher education faculty.
Voluntary Participation:
Participation in this interview is voluntary. Even if you decide to participate, you are free to
withdraw from participation at any time without penalty.
Contacts and Questions:

If you have questions about the interview you can contact Andrea Bangura at
abangur1@depaul.edu or 773-325-7325).
Statement of Consent:
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understood the information provided
above, have had an opportunity to ask questions, and agree to participate in this interview. You
will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.
____________________________________________
Participant’s Signature
Date ____________
____________________________________________
Interviewer’s Signature
Date ______________
APPENDIX K
Interview Participant Demographics
Demographic information is requested for data analyses purposes only.
Date: Time: Place:
Tell us your College and Major(s): Age:

examples: College of Education- Early __ Under 18 years old
Childhood Education __ 18-24 years old
College of Science & Health - __ 25-34 years old
Environmental Science __ 35-44 years old
__ 45-54 years old
College: _______________________ __ 55-64 years old
Major: ________________________ __ 65-74 years old
__ 75 years or older
Gender: Racial/Ethnic Heritage:

__ Woman __ American Indian or Alaska Native
__ Man __ Asian
__ Transwoman __ Black or African American
__ Transman __ Hispanic, Latinx, or Spanish origin
__ Genderqueer __ Middle Eastern or North African
__ Not listed: ___________________ __ Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
__ Prefer not to say __ White
__ Not listed: __________________________
List Student Groups or Campus Activities you are involved in (if any):
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
APPENDIX L
Interview Protocol Script
1. Pre-Interview
a. Welcome: Hello (name of interviewee). My name is (name of interviewer).
Thank you so much for participating in the interview today. We have water and
an assortment of candy available; please help yourself if you would like any.
i. Audio Recording Consent/Demographic Form: In order to make sure
no details are missed, I will be audio recording our interview. I will also
take some notes, but my main focus will be on our conversation. As I
stated in the email, our conversation is confidential and will not be shared
with anyone outside of this room. Is it okay with you if we proceed with
the recording? If so, can I please have your signed consent form? In
addition, can you also please complete this short demographic form?
ii. Staff Direction: Check that consent and demographic forms are filled out.
If they are not, have the interviewee fill them out. Confirm submission of
signed consent before beginning. If mentee does not agree to recording
consent, staff must verify with them that no recording will take place and
will only utilize hand-written notes.
b. Purpose: Let’s move onto the purpose of this interview, which is to get a better
understanding of your experience during the STARS program. As you probably
remember, you and other STARS mentees filled out surveys (insert when surveys
were completed); these provided us with a lot of great insight; however, there is
only so much we can gather from a survey, as it does not always give us the full
picture. Now through these interviews, we hope to bring everything full circle,
and improve the STARS program for the future mentees. Our most important
goal for STARS mentees is to provide personal and academic support in
navigating and completing their first year at DePaul. With your participation
today, we will be able to better accomplish our goal.
c. Format: Now, let’s talk about what to expect during the interview. This
interview should last approximately an hour. I have a list of questions that will
help get the ball rolling, but what I am most interested in is hearing about your
perspective, wherever that takes us. My goal is to hear your STARS mentee
story. There are no wrong or right answers because this is your story. What I ask
is you keep it 100% truthful and honest, whether what you have to share is good
or challenging. Likewise, my goal is to be mutually honest with you. Remember,
our goal is to utilize these surveys and interviews to improve the program for our
future mentees!
2. Interview
a. Early Experiences with the STARS Program
i. Let’s get started. First, I want to hear about your early experience in the
STARS Program.
1. How did you hear about the STARS program?
a. Probe: Talk about what made you decide to join the
STARS program? Were you in a program similar to
STARS in high school?
2. Did you feel like you understood the STARS program after the
kickoff event?
a. Probe: Was there anything on the participant/mentor form
that stood out to you?
3. What challenges did you face during your first term at DePaul?
a. Probe: What in particular made these experiences difficult?
4. What early benefits did you experience upon enrolling in STARS?
a. Probe: What about these experience felt beneficial to you?
Staff directions: provide paraphrased/summarized feedback to ensure accurate

understanding on interview content (i.e., “So what I hear you say…,” or “So it sounds
like…”).
b. Mentor/Mentee Communication
i. An important aspect of the STARS program is a mentee’s relationship
with their mentor. As such, the next handful of questions dive into your
experience with your mentor.
1. How did you actually interact with your STARS mentor?
a. Probe: Did you interact with them/did they interact with
you as outlined in your agreement (staff direction: give a
few examples from the agreement)? What was the most
helpful form of communication (i.e., email, in-person,
telephone, social media, or other)?
2. Did your mentor connect you with staff in the OMSS office?
a. Probe: How comfortable did you feel in reaching out to
staff in the OMSS as a result of your mentor?
3. If you could change one thing about your relationship with your
mentor, what would it be?
a. Probe: How would that have made your experience more
successful?
Staff directions: provide paraphrased/summarized feedback to insure accurate

like…”).
c. Academic Experience
i. Now we are going to shift gears and I will be asking you questions around
your experience related to your DePaul classes while in the STARS
program.
1. How did your experience in your Depaul classes change over the
course of the STARS program?
a. Probe: What types of things were introduced/reinforced to
you by your mentor? Did those have any impact on your
academic experience?
2. Did the STARS’ programing encourage you to interact with
DePaul faculty/staff? If so, how?
a. Probe: Was there anything in particular from the STARS
program that impacted how/how often you interacted with
DePaul faculty/staff?
3. What are the things you feel most prepared you for going into your
second years at DePaul.
a. Probe: What in STARS helped you feel that way?
4. What areas do you feel least prepared about going into your
second year?
a. How could STARS better prepare students in these areas you
talked about?
like…”).
d. Campus Engagement
i. Along the same lines, we are interested in hearing your thoughts on your
interaction with various offices on campus, such as financial aid,
academic, OMSS, or other offices, during and possibly after the STARS
program.
1. How did your knowledge of the different resources in place at
DePaul to assist you as a student evolve while in STARS?
a. Probe: What specific resources did you become familiar
with while in STARS? Did you find yourself better
equipped in accessing resources at the end of Winter
quarter?
2. During your first year, did you get involved on campus?
a. Probe: What component of the STARS programming

supported your campus involvement? If not, what could the
STARS program have done to better support you
participation in campus activities.
3. Was there any piece of getting involved on campus that you felt
was unaddressed by the STARS program?
a. Probe: Were there particular physical spaces you felt more
comfortable than others? Which ones and why?

like…”).
e. Salient Identities
i. Beyond your classes and getting involved on campus, a hugely important
part of the STARS curriculum involves helping students understand their
various identities and their experiences of these identities at DePaul
1. Prior to being a STARS mentee,which of your identities did you
understand as the most important?
a. Probe: In what context did you find yourself aware of these
particular identities, and what did that look like when you
were aware of them?
2. While in the STARS program did your concept of these identities
change/grow in any ways?
a. Probe: Did you develop new insight into your salient
identities as a result of being a mentee? If so when and
how?
3. Are there questions that remain for you as they relate to your
salient identities?
a. Probe: Would you be interested in having follow up
meetings with peers around these questions?
like…”).
3. Wrap-up
a. As a mentee, do you feel like you engaged with programming differently towards
the end of the program than in the beginning? If so, how?
i. Probe: How did your STARS experience evolve in the winter quarter?
b. Overall, what is something that would’ve enhanced your experience in the

STARS program?
i. Probe: Was there anything you found unnecessary and/or lacking while in
the program? What would’ve you liked to have seen/experienced?
c. Any other miscellaneous comments to share

i. As we come to the end of our interview, I want to leave some space for
any additional details about your STARS experience that you did not get
to talk about in the previous questions. Is there anything additional you’d
like to address?
d. Thank you and Reiterate Confidentiality
i. Thank you for your willingness to share and for all your wonderful
insight! As I mentioned earlier, what was discussed today will remain
strictly confidential. I cannot thank you enough for your participation, as it
will help make sure that the STAR program continues to improve for
future mentees! Thank you!
APPENDIX M
Participation Email Template
Hello (name of mentee),
My name is (name of interviewer and title). I am also an evaluator for the STARS’ assessment.
You are receiving this email for two reasons. First, you indicated on the survey you would
participate in an interview to talk about your experiences as a mentee in the STARS program.
Second, your STARS mentor recommended you as a wonderful candidate for this portion of our
program evaluation. We would love for you to share your experience with us, as it will allow us
to improve the experiences of future mentees. The interview should take approximately an hour
and will be completed with a STARS staff member. Anything you share with us be confidential.
We will be scheduling these in person interviews for the week of (date). Would any of the three
following options work for you:
-(option one: day/time and location)
-(option two: day/time and location)
-(option three: day/time and location)
If you are interested, please respond to this email by (day/time). We look forward to hearing
from you!
Best,
(name of interviewer)
APPENDIX N
PowerPoint Presentation

Final Stars Assessment Proposal

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Final Stars Assessment Proposal

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Running head: SUCCEEDING TOGETHER 1

Succeeding Together: STARS Assessment Proposal

Shá Norman and Jesus Gomez

Loyola University Chicago

Founded in 1898 as St. Vincent’s College, DePaul University (DePaul) is a private

that educate students to be lifelong, independent learners” (Missions Statement, n.d.).

Housed within DePaul’s Division of Student Affairs is the Office of Multicultural

(Office of Multicultural Student Success). Among a variety of initiatives is OMSS’ Students

provides supportive programming geared towards accelerating underrepresented students so that

they too can be “lifelong, independent learners.”

outreach to incoming students in those three demographic areas. To provide an idea of

mentee participation during the spring quarter.

supplemental tools to boost their success at DePaul.

has much more of an impact than an extra couple of pizzas at a program.”

-A. Bangura, personal communication, September 21, 2017

without a long or necessarily successful history in higher education” (p.799). DePaul

these underrepresented student groups.

impacting the utilization of university services by mentees. As such, CRT is an effective

purposefully work to incorporate Student Departure Theory into their programming:

Internally, we rely heavily on Tinto’s work. We do problematize a lot of Tinto’s work

assessment for the STARS program (Appendix A).

successfully enact the program curriculum while simultaneously incorporating program

highlighted as an area for further development.

Assessment Purpose and Approach

university, outcomes (macro). This comprehensive approach to assessment requires purposeful

and careful consideration from all administrative inputs.

in the following quote:

Where we do have a gap is that we do not do a whole lot of qualitative assessment

Beyond feasibility, we believe it would be most rationale to begin with a cross-sectional

more years beyond their initial STARS’ program.

retention, persistence, and academic success?

mentors, student affairs staff and professors?

Quantitative Assessment Design

“We are a success based office.”

-Andrea Bangura, personal communications, September 21, 2017

For the quantitative portion of this assessment, we will propose a cross-sectional

development experiences. In contrast to a correlational assessment design, the descriptive design

program), whereby making our descriptive designed quantitative assessment cross-sectional in

larger picture questions around program efficacy.

To reiterate our assessment question, we are wanting to investigate whether STARS

professionals/professors/staff), opinions around quality of relationships established, number of

Quantitative Analytic Plan

categorical variables as well as the Pearson Correlation (inferential statistics) to determine if

page and in the same format for continuity and cohesiveness.

sessions mentioned above.

Qualitative Assessment Design

There are five approaches to qualitative design: narratives, phenomenology, grounded

unique experiences . . . to create an understanding of the universal essence of that experience”

philosophical conceptualization of the program. By using the narrative approach, more

understand participants’ feelings, intentions, meanings, subcontexts, or thoughts on a topic,

large number of students. A limitation of conducting semi-structured interviews could be the

more complex analysis and enriched conclusions around mentee experiences.

Our semi-structured interview will be implemented post-survey, as we will be referencing

do not anticipant complications in identifying a minimum of 8 students to participate in the

qualitative assessment interviews.

and include: Overall experience with STARS, Mentee/Mentor Communication, Academic

concise questions and overall flow of our instrument.

space and process feel comfortable to the mentees.

will be coached on maintaining positive non-verbal communication with the interviewee

interviewers to utilize summarized/paraphrased feedback to ensure interviewees’ responses are

Qualitative Analytic Plan

shine light on the voices of the students.

Bias & Limitations