Action Research Project (ARP)

Blog

---

---

portait w

---

Chapter 1- Introducing the Issue & Organising the Mentorship Pilot

Can Peer Mentoring Help to Support Contextual Admissions Students in the First Year of Study on the Spatial Practices Bachelor of Arts Degree Course?

This Action Research Project (ARP) will attempt to answer the above question and continue to develop strategies suggested in the Inclusive Practices (IP) module of the Postgraduate Certificate (PgCert) to help to improve the efficacy to which the University is able to support students who have gained a place through the Contextual Admissions (CA) route. I am particularly interested in supporting first years on the Spatial Practices course. Through my research I also want to investigate and challenge this statement:

‘while more disadvantaged young people are in higher education than ever before, the discrepancies between institutions and the numbers of those students leaving before completing their studies continues to grow.’

(Gilbert, 2019)

In Spatial Practices, around half of the hundred or so first years are CA students, yet there is little in the way of extra support for them, given demonstrable ongoing difficulties with study (Students, 2023). There is an annual recruitment drive at Central Saint Martins (CSM) targeted at admitting CA students who are likely to struggle and yet current support does not reflect the diversity and complexity of their needs. Access to the course is easier because of CA status, but progression may not be? 

How do Students Achieve Contextual Admissions Status?

There are four ways a student can be eligible for CA status when applying for a place at Central Saint Martins:

• ‘You have spent time in care.’
• ‘You have come through UAL’s Outreach insights programme.’ (This is a course run by CSM which involves new project work, portfolio construction and a guaranteed interview).
• ‘You come from an area in England in deciles 1-4 of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which measures deprivation in England.’
• ‘You’re from an area in the UK with low rate of participation in higher education.’

(UAL, 2024)

Context & Plan

Given the challenges inherent in the above criteria, it is a fair predictor, broadly speaking, that students who come to CSM through the CA route, are from disadvantaged backgrounds. ­We know that these students face significant difficulties in comparison with their more affluent counter parts (Students, 2023). This has been recently proven UK wide (Students, 2023), but It is important to briefly examine, to what extent this might be true at CSM before moving on to possible solutions.  

Bridging this gap, which is unfortunately continuing to widen (Students, 2023) may require myriad interventions and will not be solved immediately. It is hope that this ARP serves as the first cycle following one method to help combat the situation. If when reviewed, it is found to be useful, I look forward to re-adjusting and continuing onto additional research cycles with which to refine and implement the intervention. (McNiff, 2010)

Data from CSM Dashboards

Dashboards are data charts created by University of the Arts (UAL) which show information collated across the University. They have some useful categories with which to compare data. (UAL, 2025)

Attainment

Attainment on the dashboards is defined as the total number of students in each year group attaining a 1^st or a 2:1 grade (UAL, 2025). Whilst there is not a category dedicated to CA students, we can use other indicators of deprivation to gain an overall understanding of the trends affecting this group. One obvious comparison when reviewing the data is the discrepancy between home white students and home IMDQ1-2 students (UAL, 2025). IMDQ1-2 refers to those students found to live in an area within the lowest range in the Index of multiple deprivation quintile (IMDQ), a good indicator that these students are from disadvantaged backgrounds. Home white students have achieved 9% more 1^st/2:1 grades across the University than home IMDQ1-2 students (UAL, 2025). This percentage must be viewed in context to the number of students in each category. There are over three times the amount of home white students compared to home IMDQ1-2 students (UAL, 2025), meaning that many more home white students enjoy an environment which encourages and enables such high grades. There is a caveat to this which is that some home white students will also be from an area of London in IMDQ1-2, but I think the overall message still stands that those from disadvantaged backgrounds perform worse. This becomes starker when comparing home black students, being ten times less in number than their white counterparts and achieving 15% less attainment across all year groups (UAL, 2025).

Attainment rates of different student groups taken from UAL Dashboards

Retention Outcomes

Retention refers to students who have continued onto the next year of study after passing. Interestingly, home IMDQ1-2 students had the highest percentage of people repeating the year than any other group except home B.A.M.E which was 0.5% higher (UAL, 2025). They had double the number of repeating students compared to home white students. For whatever reason, many more home IMDQ1-2 and home B.A.M.E students, relative to the number of people in their group, have not passed the year (UAL, 2025). This puts significant mental and financial strain on the individual, extending a degree from three years to four or potentially more.

Contextual Admissions Data

I collected data specific to CA students studying on the Spatial Practices Bachelor of Arts degree (BA) between the years of 2021- 2024. Unfortunately, it wasn’t particularly useful due to the number of students repeating which means a potential completion date of 2025, of which there is none as yet. This is frustrating since it was a lengthy process involving a number of meetings with the Head of Programme Administration, Alice Anderson and Tom Walker on the Data Compliance Team at UAL. Students had to be anonymised before I was able to access information. The data did reveal however that around a third of all CA students in this year group have had to resubmit one or more modules over the course of study. This seems like a high number and I would be interested in comparing this to non-CA students in the same year group. Anecdotally this correlates with Alice Anderson’s account of encountering the same students re-submitting and repeating year on year. This could suggest that they are bouncing around the system internally, a high proportion being from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Whilst not extensive, I think the above data is sufficient to identify a problem with the progression and performance of CA students, raising it is a worthwhile issue to pursue. I would like to examine the data from the end of this year in order to compare results with the wider UAL dashboards.

I think my motivations for the ARP are sound, given guidance by Jean McNiff for new action researchers:

‘look at the deep underlying structure of our values and intentions in living our lives’

(McNiff, 2010)

I responded intuitively to questions of fairness upon uncovering information in an article which posited that whilst there are larger numbers of disadvantaged young people in education, many leave before completing their studies (Gilbert, 2019). The effect this information had on me, coupled with similar struggles reflected in students I encounter who have come through a CA route, was enough motivation for me to want explore these themes. They correlate with a more cynical view I have of universities as a business, the machine needing the dollar sign above students heads to keep itself moving; smiles to the camera flash, whilst secretly failing its most vulnerable.

Sustained engagement from students tends to lead to better performance. Because of this, I’m leaning towards an intervention which maintains regular contact with the course and encourages accountability whilst also fostering a sense of belonging/personal connection to peers and staff. I’m interested in deconstructing hierarchical structures as Freire would have (Freire, 2005) in favour of a student-centred initiative. Peer coaching or peer mentoring therefore are my initial proposals for action.

Accessing an Expert

In trying to bring the ARP into focus I approached Paul Glennon who is head of Outreach and Access across all UAL colleges. Paul’s aim is to ‘help students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and under-represented groups on their journey towards Higher Education in Art, Design and Communication’ (Glennon, 2003) . He runs the Insights Programme which is a free, multi-disciplined, pre-university course designed to help build a portfolio of work, eligible to those students who traditionally have less access to University. Interestingly I found out that he was also personally responsible for coining the term ‘Contextual Admissions’ (Glennon, 2024) and implementing the protocol during the admissions process (Glennon, 2024) which highlight such students for special consideration. Before this, UAL did not have a dedicated and strategic support mechanism for such students.

Summary of Meeting with Paul Glennon:

Intersections of disadvantage have a multiplying effect, i.e. being a black student and from a lower economic area make it doubly hard to succeed.

This raises interesting questions about whether to target CA students for extra support once at University since students start with such significantly different learning practices and standards. I have heard conflicting positions on this. On the one hand, Paul later in the interview says: ‘control groups in widening access are problematic because every student matters’ (Glennon, 2024), suggesting that we not distinguish between students when providing support. The approach in context of this ARP might reveal some rich comparative findings, whilst my tutor on the PgCert, Lindsay Jordon, on the other hand supports the ‘equality vs equity’ model, which sees the need to target those most effected by inequality with the greatest amount of help (David Takeuchi, 2018).

Difficulties with the relationship between mentor and mentee.

The efficacy of this kind of intervention is closely connected to the inter-relational success of the pairing (Glennon, 2024). People who do not work effectively together will benefit less from the scheme. It might be beneficial for mentees to be able to choose mentors or go through a partnering process which attempts to connect people from similar backgrounds. The mentors will also need to be trained in setting up rules of engagement which must include professional codes of behaviour from both parties.

Including students in the process to identify key areas of support.

Talking with second year students could be beneficial because they have had time to reflect on their experiences of first year and so be able to home in on key topics for improvement (Glennon, 2024). These can then be tested with the first-year mentees. 

Deciding on an Action

After some reflection, I decided to pursue a mentorship pilot scheme as the main action as part of the ARP. This would pair selected second-year mentors with first year mentees over a period of a month.

After advertising across first and second year stages, a shortlist of applicants was compiled. Triple the amount of mentees applied compared to mentors. This could be due to the different ways the pilot was advertised, first years benefitting from an in person appeal from myself with accompanying image slides [Appendix A], whilst second years were sent an email. Short contract times working as an Hourly Paid Lecturer (HPL), one day per week at CSM has limited various aspects of the ARP, non-standardised advertising of the project being one of them. The difference in interest might also be due to perceptions of value where mentees imagine the potential benefits of the scheme more easily than mentors. This is speculation only at this point.

Final list of Mentorship Pairings

Only three people put themselves forward to act as mentors, meaning there was no selection process for this group. Nine potential mentees applied, the final three of which was made by pairing two CA and one non CA student with mentors. I selected more CA students for pairing as I want to see whether there are any emerging support needs specific to this group and use the single non CA student as a control group with which to compare. I understand however that the project is too small to assess this in any meaningful way.

Selecting students in a minority group CA does require consent, given that there is preference involved in their selection. This was obtained from each participating member via a consent form [Appendix B].

Reflecting on Applicants

There was a good mixture of students who applied having arrived at CSM through different routes. Interestingly, only a single applicant in first year was from the IMD Q1-2 category, disappointing since mentorship schemes could potentially benefit students from disadvantaged backgrounds the most (Ohidey, 2020). These students may not be aware of the benefits or could view the scheme as extra work. Investigating the barriers here would be beneficial if the project were to be fully implemented and may need some additional strategies to attract those most in need of support. This could be done during inductions when introducing students to resources like Academic Support and using initiatives like a welcome event (which encourages interaction across the different year groups of the BA) to reinforce the value of mentorship.

I am undecided as to whether mentees should choose mentors in the future. Participating with students in helping to answer this question would be helpful. One potential issue here is too many mentees choosing fewer of the more desirable mentors, where information shared during the selection process is used to create the perception of hierarchies. A potential benefit would be to choose a mentor that shares interests, life experiences or comes from a similar background to the mentee. It might be, that relationships which stem from a place of commonality which turn out to best the most effective ones.

Final Pairings  

Unfortunately mentor (c) of pair (3) could not commit to the pilot and withdrew. This means that mentees are made up solely of mentees from (CA) routes into CSM. I don’t think this is particularly significant given that the pilot is too small to derive any meaningful comparative data between (CA) and non (CA) mentees. Pairs 1 & 2 continued with the pilot.

Meetings were to be conducted over three months and before the December break.

Once mentor training has been completed, I wanted to step back and allow for participants to conduct sessions as they choose. Either side of the general frameworks to be implemented, they are free to explore how and where sessions are to be held and build a relationship undisturbed from my involvement. I will make clear however, that I am on hand for emergencies or to help tackle challenges which they feel unequipped to deal with. The key mentoring sessions have a three-week gap between them in order to allow time for mentees to explore challenges defined in the first session and discuss progress and next steps in the second session.

Pre-task

There was a pre-task [Appendix C] set for both mentors and mentees to assess their expectations of the pilot before the first session. This was intended as a priming exercise, encouraging both parties to think about what they might like to get out of the arrangement.   

Model for Sessions

The model [Appendix D] to be given to mentors in order to help facilitate the running of the sessions has been adapted from one recommended me, which itself is an amalgamation of established models of mentorship (Evans, 2015). I was interested in this one because of its intended use for medical school, a science subject, potentially good because of the widening perspectives encouraged by subjects different from my own (Wernli, 2023). This is perhaps a moot point given how general the model is, the core strategies needing only slight adaptation for re-use in my own model. In any case, mentoring has been well researched and widely written about, I’m therefore less interested in reinventing or revolutionising existing models but more so revealing data unique to our participants and the subject of Spatial Practices within the context of CSM.

Notes on Mentorship Training Session 

The session went well and the adapted model was examined thoroughly. Mentors were surprised at the detail of guidance during training, positioning the pilot as a formal engagement but also with the level of freedom afforded them to manage the project. The sizeable length of time given to them between this meeting and our scheduled final wrap up in December, to be directed as they saw fit, was also a source of surprise. A promising observation was how seriously they seemed to take their position of responsibility, both demonstrating a willingness to do good job. Mentees were sent a similar framework derived from the adapted model [Appendix E] via email and it was the responsibility of the mentor to explain this at their first session.

Research Method- Focus Group Interviews

Various research methods were examined for their suitability. I felt that a method which was able to reflect the closeness and depth of person-to-person contact should be implemented in the hope of uncovering rich data. The pre-task questionnaire [Appendix C] yielded disappointing results as students wrote little in answer to questions and responses were general in nature. It felt like an impersonal exchange, opposed to the kinds of behaviours encouraged in the pilot. A quicker, fluid and more generous dialogue was desired in the hope of deepening understanding of the mentor relationships. Initially individual interviews were considered before deciding on focus group interviews as they have some distinct advantages according to research.

These include:

1. ‘Synergism (when a wider bank of ideas emerges through group interaction),
2. Snowballing (when the statements of one respondent initiate a chain reaction of additional comments),
3. Stimulation (when the group discussion generates excitement about a topic),
4. Security (when the group provides a comfort and encourages candid responses)
5. Spontaneity (because participants are not required to answer every question, their responses are more spontaneous and genuine)’ (Vaughn, 2013).

The above provide some exciting prospects of methods of uncovering data, I felt they were in alignment with the aims and values of the project.

---

---

portrait x

---

Chapter 2- Finding out & Finding Meaning   

Both pairs of participants moved beyond the prescribed number of two sessions in favour of more frequent contact time with each other. Pair (1) honoured the previously agreed two sessions and also met an additional seven times for shorter ‘mini meetings’, whilst pair (2) met for five sessions of longer duration. Both mentors and mentees expressed a desire to conduct less formal and less structured sessions in order to redress any perceived power imbalance between the pairs and allow for open and meaningful exchange.

‘ I was like, I’m not a tutor, I’m a mentor……….imagine we’re best friends’. (mb)

Whilst both pairs sought to deconstruct any perceived hierarchies, the meetings themselves differed significantly.  

Pair (1) would rely on exchanges by text to organise meetings or even conduct immediate mini tutorials upon encountering each other in the Granary building at Central Saint Martins. The pair seemed to intuitively settle into more fluid and responsive strategies for exchange which worked well for both, since more prescriptive ways of engagement proved difficult, especially in early encounters.

‘I think honestly the only challenge I had with the whole process was that first meeting and trying to work out when and how to do it.’ (ma)

The spaces where meetings took place were equally informal and improvised, making use of recreational space like the platform bar at CSM, as well as less usual places of study, a hallway for example, chosen among other circulatory or in between spaces, as the site for micro tutorials.

By contrast, pair (2) would conduct regular scheduled meetings on a Wednesday afternoon when both parties had independent study time. These would typically last anywhere between two to three hours and were always located in the library at CSM. On Wednesdays, second year students on the Spatial Practices Bachelor of Arts (BA) have lectures in the morning, after which many utilise being on site by relocating to the library to continue private study. Third years on the same course often also share this space at this time.   

Significant Challenges & How these were Supported

1.0

There was a general feeling communicated by mentor (a) that mentee (a) was struggling to manage some fundamental aspects of life as an adult in higher education. These included managing finances, organisational issues related to time management and difficulty committing to timetabled appointments. This it was suggested, is due to an undiagnosed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), something which the mentee wished to explore through the University’s Disability Service in order to obtain a proper diagnosis and pursue further support in the form of an Individual Support Agreement (ISA).

‘I kind of pointed him in the right direction for that and he was saying how he’s really struggling to, you know, time manage stuff. He’s getting a test thing done now and then hopefully getting an ISA, that was mainly what we spoke about.’ (ma)

By coincidence mentor a, also has a diagnosis of ADHD and has faced similar challenges educationally. They have also learned about the various support mechanisms in place at CSM. It was their shared experience, along with encouragement from mentor a, which gave the student confidence enough to begin exploring a formal diagnosis. This constitutes a major step forward in the educational journey of mentee (a).

Exploration of the Course

1.2

Exploring aspects of the course together helped to expand approaches to design work which had not yet managed to translate in meaningful ways to the mentee from information delivered by lecturers. Once the work of the mentor was shown to the mentee and seen to be unique and experimental, much broader ideas for potential outputs began to be discussed. This included a loosening of preconceived ideas about what architecture can be.

‘for me it was actually…when he kind of came to the realisation that not everything has to be these lines, these CAD drawn lines with rulers’ (ma)

Revealing the work of the mentor served as a reference of what it looks likes to build an identity through your work, on becoming an individual professionally and taking up a position. This served as a way to generate confidence in the mentee.

‘He obviously had…quite a big sense of relief after I explained to him that…there are other ways to do this… he was like, OK, this is no longer as difficult and scary… I can be a bit more like myself.’ (ma)

Relationships Between Staff and Students

1.3

An unexpected finding was a perceived opposition between students and staff which suggested a combative relationship, positioning staff as authoritarian figures. This came as a personal surprise to me given the many divergencies between school and the college, in addition to the work staff do with the intention of creating independent learners.

‘The way it was like explained to me it sounded like there’s a stigma to these tutors that like, they’re just here to make your life more difficult when that’s literally not the case at all.’ (ma)

Related to this is the role of social media outside the university which can contribute to ideas of opposition. Once algorithms establish a pattern of desired content and proliferate targeted information to people’s profiles, they can affect perceptions and attitudes towards the college without the individual ever having had the experience in the first place.  

‘I think actually it does come through social media ’cause if you like architecture posts on Instagram, right? You start getting memes about them and then like memes just probably subconsciously add up’ (ma)

This included seeing videos on social media feeds, fictional or otherwise of malpractice which saw tutors interfering with the work of students.

‘after your crit and the tutor doesn’t like your work and there’s a video of a person throwing something.’ (ma)

Experiences from school also reinforced themes of ‘them and us’ likely felt strongest in first year due to the proximity of students to their last place of study.

It was through conversations that mentor (a) began to reframe some of these perceptions to the point where mentee a felt less threatened by the tutor/student relationship.

‘I explained how I used tutors last year, he was like okay, they’re no longer that scary, I have some questions I want to ask them and I feel comfortable asking them now.’ (ma)

Building Mentor/Mentee Relationship

1.4

The approach taken by mentor (a) in helping to facilitate certain challenges faced by their mentee is worth discussing, since it took a gentle approach that revealed some interesting tactics for dealing with particularly shy students, something which I have increasingly noticed over the eight years I have been teaching at CSM.

Before a subject for support was identified, conversations were light and focussed on personal, ordinary and everyday activities outside of the University. The point of entry for these conversations was social media where the mentee chose topics for discussion based on images of interest, they found on the mentors Instagram account.

‘the first conversation we had was quite awkward. But the fact that we then made this other connection on another platform outside of university, kind of created this different relationship in the sense it was more like oh, so now he can see what I’m up to in everyday life or I can see what he’s up to in everyday life has kind of made stuff easier to start conversations and get on to the topics of maybe what he needs help with.’ (ma)

Social media proved to be a useful icebreaker tool, allowing the mentee to access diverse information about the mentor which presented them as a well-rounded person with interests beyond the walls of the University. At the same time, it was also used to display key pieces of coursework done by the mentor, images that would gain attention and become subjects of discussion.  

‘So I saw your post, even if I hadn’t spoken to him about it then he’d be like, do you mind just showing me how you’ve done that or the work behind that or like the idea behind it.’ (ma)

This gave insight to audiences as to what had been produced, the works subject, mode of enquiry, conceptual approach, a plan drawing, a proposal model etc, as well also how it had been produced, what processes were involved, how it was made and associated skills.

Presentation of work was one sided however as no physical coursework produced by the mentee was shown during any of the sessions.

‘I’d basically have to imagine what the issue was in my head without actually seeing it, and then kind of give him this feedback and then I assume he’d go back and remember what I said or like, take inspiration of how I imagined he could.’ (ma)

Instead, the mentee chose to verbalise ideas and use hand gestures to communicate them.

‘ he would, like, draw it with his hands so I could kind of see it.’ (ma)

Whilst physically seeing student work is critical in traditional exchanges between studio tutor/design tutor (an assigned personal tutor responsible for facilitating design projects) and students, in order to support the progression of coursework (Architecture is principally a visual discipline). This less formal mentor/mentee relationship, one that is not associated with assessment or requirements by the University to measure progress in the same way, makes room for a softer, less exposing form of support, perhaps beneficial for the most timid of students. The mentor was empathic about this subject.  

‘I think he still felt a bit insecure to show me what he was doing and therefore wouldn’t really ask for the help on it, but kind of asked for it without showing me.’ (ma)

‘But also I would never want to force him to show me his stuff. I mean, like, yeah, it did make it a bit more difficult, but yeah because obviously the bits which he’s struggling with, he’s not going to be happy with and therefore won’t feel as comfortable showing’ (ma)

The reticence in showing work is of course problematic when thinking about efficiency during a session, as the most effective support is undoubtably achieved through seeing and exploring production outcomes.

This also raises questions about the role of the mentor and whether or not they should intervene like a tutor in a tutorial or act more as facilitator in guiding the student to seek their own answers in relevant places.

Networking & Building Relationships

1.5

Collaboration quickly extended beyond the one-to-one relationship of mentor/mentee to include the friendship group of the mentee. Having established a friendly and familial connection, they would often congregate together spontaneously.

‘I kind of went into his friendship group in a sense….I go and sit with Alex and his mates now in the library a bit and they ask me what are you up to? Can I see your work? Can you show me what to do?’ (ma)

This self-created group took special interest in the work seen on the mentor’s social media account.

‘So they’d come up to me and be like, oh, I saw you posted on Instagram. Can you show me how you did it or can you show me the rest of the portfolio for this or that type of thing?’ (ma)

The influence of the mentor reached more people than the pilot intended, expanding the community and allowing for sharing and exchange. While social media provided points of connection outside the University, working in the background to generate new possible agendas for the next encounter.

Learning in Groups  

1.0

Mentee (b) initially spoke about issues relating to a group project that was running at the time, suggesting that the current experience of students makes for relevant support topics.

‘Yeah, studio drama. She had an issue with her technical studies. Yeah, like especially group work. I think a lot of what everyone finds at first, you have a lot of disagreements and you have to kind of figure out how do I work around these or, like, find another way to make this work?’ (mb)

The mentor took on the role of protector once certain challenges in the project were revealed.

‘I was kind of teaching her to kind of stand her ground a little bit with certain things because then I don’t want her to be doing all the work and then no one else in her group does anything.’ (mb)

Group work can be notoriously difficult to navigate and it is unknown whether intervening advice from the mentor had a positive or negative effect on the group dynamic. The fact that it was raised however means it was a significant issue and one worth exploring, especially since the mentee when being described ‘can be very quiet’ and may benefit from guidance on how to create healthy professional boundaries. 

Exploration of the Course

1.1

Mentor (b), like mentor (a), helped to bring into focus, messages previously communicated by lecturers that had not yet been fully comprehended by the mentee. Design briefs require students to work through unfamiliar new exercises since Spatial Practices is a vocational course and has many new skills and ways of working to learn. It takes time for first year students to understand what is required, especially during shorter projects that involve new key terms.

‘So that’s why, you know, she kind of helped me out ’cause I don’t understand what user really meant or like what ergonomics meant and just all those big words.’(meb)

‘I feel like I needed extra help, because she is a student and she already did this unit,

 So I wanted to see what she has done and because obviously she probably has received feedback I could like gain more information and do well for myself.’ (meb)

This also fed into the mentees fears about managing their lack of understanding.

‘if I were to tell my tutor, I’d be more like anxious because, you know, they’re older.’

‘They would probably expect us to know all of this, and I feel like speaking to the mentor is just easier because, you know, we’re close in age and it’s more like a friend thing.’ (meb)

Mentor (b) is well placed to act as a debunker of this myth, since they will be more aware that students are actively encouraged to clarify exercises. However, this could be significant when thinking about particularly sensitive students or those who may not have had the educational support before arriving at university and are more guarded as a result. They may not feel confident in raising what they don’t know, or harbour feelings of guilt or shame for not quickly assimilating new knowledge. These are speculations, but the important thing is the space created by the mentor/mentee relationship in allowing the mentee to feel more comfortable in asking for help.

Work Life Balance

1.2

Mentor (b) helped to adjust perceptions relating to workload and some of the perceived negative cultures associated with the BA. 

‘I think she had the same perception that it’s gonna be terrible. It’s gonna be difficult when I have to do 100 million drawings and I was like no you can slow down and you can relax for a moment.’ (mb)

These anxieties were compounded and made real through communication exchanged outside of university.

‘it came to a point where she messaged me at 2:00 AM and then I messaged her the next morning and I was like, this is the first and last time.’ (mb)

The response from the mentor came from a place of concern rather than from the imposition of receiving a late message and constituted a positive shift in the habits of the mentee. Achieving healthy sleeping patterns is recognised as being a subject of contention on the course, its importance and need for it, regularly emphasised throughout the year. This shift bodes well for creating a happy learner and is a central theme of wellbeing.  

‘I think she finally going in the habit of sleeping properly and I was like that’s better because it’s better to get into that good healthy habit now instead of getting to the bad one.’ (mb)

Peer Learning

1.3

Sessions between mentor (b) and mentee (b) began in a more structured way, favouring to meet regularly at the same time each week on a Wednesday afternoon in the library. Sessions began by discussing coursework done by the mentee.

‘it was like I talk about work with her first. We had that hour or two to talk about the work and be serious.’ (mb)

Mentee (b) had a collaborative attitude and willingness to critically engage with their work as demonstrated by showing specifics examples with which to discuss with their mentor.

‘I’ve seen all of all of her work…she brought absolutely everything in and I ended up leaving it in my locker because she had to leave it afterwards.’ (mb)

Once the initial one to one phase was over, a less structured study session would begin, the pair expanding to include nearby second and third year peers who knew mentor b.

‘we’ll have worked together and then have the other second years and third years, we’d all kind of sit together to do work and then they’d give her advice as well.’ (mb)

‘she would ask all of us questions’ (mb)

The mentee benefitted from input and guidance from multiple perspectives across both senior year groups on the BA. This became a community that supported the mentee. 

‘It was like a bunch of friends just hanging together’ (mb)

‘yeah, they’ve been very helpful with her. I was like guys look out for her. If you see her, help her out. Now she kind of knows some of the third years and second years’ (mb)

‘she knows our group and has the confidence to come up to us at any point.’ (mb)

The development of a relationship of this kind would be rare, if at all possible, since there is little opportunity for first years to interact with vertical studios (made up of second and third years). Timetables are different which require students to attend design tutorials and lectures on different days.

‘We would have never spoken before, because we were never in the same area’ (mb)

The pairing was successful enough for both to want to continue working together.

‘me [mentor b] and [mentee b] are praying that we get the same studio next year.’ (mb)

This wish is significant given the impact a relationship of this kind could have on vertical studios. If participants of a mentor scheme such as the one I am suggesting meet together again as new second and third years, the benefits could be manifold. Mentor (a) confirms a lack of confidence when communicating with third years.

‘I definitely didn’t do that. I was just a bit like OK. Scary older people. They know that they are better than me.’ (ma)

Tutor Support

1.4

Another unexpected and worthwhile connection was the involvement of mentee (b’s) studio tutor. In Spatial Practices, each year is divided into studios, of which a studio tutor is assigned to help facilitate the work of the main design module. This requires students to respond to design briefs which ask for architectural interventions of various sizes to be explored theoretically and documented via coursework. Studio tutors are critical in helping to guide students through the complex process of designing a building.

By coincidence, the studio tutor of mentee (b), met with mentor (b) because of an initiative that ran outside of normal teaching hours. This allowed for four informal conversations about appropriate support for mentee (b).

‘she [studio tutor] was also kind of asking me for feedback on her tutoring. And then I was asking her for feedback if I’m telling the right thing, so it’s kind of both trying to figure out, are we doing the right job here?’ (mb)

This comment suggests an open and collaborative dialogue between the two which places emphasis on being responsive to the particular needs of the mentee. A collective pooling of experiences and knowledge occurred here which helped to guide the mentee from both sides. This also allowed mentor (b) to ensure that guidance which directly related to coursework and not in conflict with information communicated by mentee (b’s) studio tutor.

‘that was definitely like one thing I had in the back of my head constantly. Like, make sure I don’t set her off in the wrong direction.’(mb)

This was verified by the studio tutor, to the relief of mentor (b).

‘every piece of advice you’ve given her [mentee b] so far has worked because every week she’s come back with more and more excitement and she’s doing a lot better.’ (mb)

This unexpected triangle of mentor/mentee/studio tutor could offer ways forward as to how mentors can be integrated harmoniously into conversations about specific coursework without coming into conflict with messaging from studio tutors.   

The bonds formed between mentor and mentee cannot be overlooked, such was the success of the pairings.

‘I think that was also quite good, like the pairing thing for me as well….I feel like I could go and get a drink with [mentee a], he’s introduced me to his girlfriend.’ (ma)

‘It felt like I was with a friend constantly. Even every time we see each other, we get so excited.’ (mb)

‘Even though I’ve been at this uni for like 2 months, I feel like the closest person is my mentor at this point.’ (meb)

This eventuality was principally luck, the only variable I used to pair participants before meeting being their gender, as an obvious instance of commonality. Since gathering their insights however the coincidental similarities between the pairs suggest it was the things they had in common which may have been responsible for such an agreeable working relationship.  

‘we were quite similar to each other, she likes painting, I like painting. It’s like our favourite medium to use. She’s a Muslim. I’m a Muslim, like all the basic things. And then she’s a traveller and me too, so.’ (meb)

This extended to include ways of engaging with each other which may have suited participants based on certain shared traits. For example, both mentor (a) is confirmed as having ADHD and mentee a, in the process of diagnosis. It has been documented that they struggled to meet in the first instance and that time management was an issue for the mentee. Meetings happened quickly, relied on text messaging when on site as well as utilising impromptu or chance encounters to conduct tutorials. Could it be that the nature of their meetings happened as a result of their shared ways of operating because of ADHD, encouraging a kind of synchronicity? This is something which would of course require further research but nevertheless acts as an interesting annex to considerations when pairing participants.

Less contentious is the value of seeing those ahead of you who come from similar cultures, backgrounds or have shared similar experiences.

‘I obviously have like quite bad ADHD……. But him being able to see someone who’s actually managed to go through first year, I guess with a bit of struggle but like not that much and then just see that he can be all right and it will be all right.’ (ma)

This came across as a heartfelt observation by mentor a, speaking from a place of experience about the difficulties faced by those with learning differences or neuro-divergencies but can be applied equally, to those for example, from other minorities, ethnic or otherwise.

I found the focus group interview to be most useful and was surprised at the range and depth of information gathered in such a short amount of time. A group interview was conducted with mentors which lasted for forty minutes. Individual interviews were conducted with mentees as unfortunately they couldn’t both attend the same meeting, these lasted thirty minutes each. This discrepancy was a happy accident as I was able to perceive and compare distinct differences between individual vs group methods. Unfortunately, the meeting with mentee (a) was arranged so late in the year, I was unable to include their accounts in the research. Anecdotally, these were similar to those of mentor (a).

One useful result of the focus group interviews was how quickly ‘snowballing’ occurred when open ended questions were posed to the mentors. Data, located in the memories of the mentors was given definition through a back-and-forth co construction of information, each mentor adding to and aggregating on the previous comment, growing to form substantial thematic insights. This was incredibly exciting to witness. When a rich subject was uncovered, I would gently encourage the continuation of the topic, often revealing new and useful layers of information. 

‘ the goals are to conduct an interactive discussion that can elicit a greater, more in depth understanding of perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and experiences from multiple points of view’

(Vaughn, 2013)

It felt like we moved intuitively toward subjects which had a certain magnetism, the group giving each other permission to add layers of informational massing to newly emerging thematic planets.

The space given to a listening mentor in any given moment allowed for the formulation of new contributing ideas to an emerging subject, creating depth with relative ease. This was in contrast to my observations of the individual interviews, where, because of the constant spotlight on the mentee, there was little comfortable thinking time. The interviews felt more transactional and because of the reduction in numbers, reinforced old tropes of the binary tutor/student relationship. The power imbalance was possibly too great here to illicit easy communication.

There was much more of a celebratory feel to the group interview, perhaps because of the synergy created between participants. It was a generous space where ‘stimulation’ took place because of the de-pressuring effects of focus group work. This would be my preferred research method in the continuing development and improvement of the scheme.

---

---

portrait y

---

Chapter 3- Conclusions

Learning

The research suggests that mentors, in both cases, acted as a bridge between the content being taught on the course and the level to which this was comprehended by the mentee. They helped to bring into focus certain concepts and ways of thinking that had not yet been fully understood. This kind of feedback could be useful to expose shortcomings in teaching should repeated challenges arise but is more likely indicative of first years attempting to assimilate a lot of new knowledge at once. All participants combined experiential, anecdotal and consensus forming methods of decision making en route to production that involved unexpected tools like social media to direct enquiries. Learning took place in multiple directions, gained by the mentee in the first instance, but also by the mentor through the act of teaching. Learning exchanges happened in groups and also occurred in an unexpected direction with the involvement of a studio tutor which created a triangle of learning and exchange through self-critique between mentee, mentor and tutor. Mentors were also a bridge to less tangible things and shared knowledge relating to the institution of CSM and the cultures active within. 

Fear communicated by mentor (b) in not wanting to incorrectly direct their mentee is to some extent justified but in reality, probably negligible given the regular frequency with which first years are guided by their studio tutors, evaluating multiple opinions being the hall mark of a mature learner in any case. Although much more could be made of guiding frameworks, like the initial ‘mentor preparation’ sheet, goal setting and progress reviews etc, the feeling I get from this research is that any accompanying paperwork should be light or minimal, if at all. That actually, for once, progress should not be measured or scrutinised as a set of boxes to be filled or ticked and the pair allowed to direct their business as they decide. That is not to say that experiences shouldn’t be shared in the interests of improving the scheme and I would return to informal ‘chats’ as the preferred means of information gathering as they have worked well.

Relationships

It is the relationships which have grown from person to person contact that has been the main success of the pilot. These interactions can be characterised as less formal, closer to equal in the balance of perceived power, an intentional stewardly commitment that evolved into robust new friendships. Contributions to the newly formed relationships were quickly initiated, beginning with the decision to increase the frequency of interactions and developing to where participants were invited into larger groups, adding to, or making new communities within the Spatial Practices BA. It was the strength of these relationships which encouraged vulnerability, participants able to share substantial challenges and fears affecting them from both inside and outside of University. Relationships were formed horizontally, increasing in number to include peers outside of the initial pairings, as well as peers in upper years, when encompassing studio tutors. The expansion of participants grew substantially and was self-initiated, it seems that the pilot encouraged collaboration within the department.

The harmony with which pairs operated is down to good fortune rather than foresight and whilst some evidence in this research suggests pairings should be based on what people have in common, there will undoubtedly still be problematic pairs if the pilot were to be expanded. Other established mentorship programmes in higher education use strategies like reconnecting mentees with new mentors from a pool of participants, should the initial pairing fail. There will forever be an element of luck in establishing synchronicity between people, but the useful accident occurring in this research should not be ignored and I should like to further test in the next research cycle (McNiff, 2010), the theory that people who have had shared experiences, have an increased chance of a successful working relationship (Subasi, 2018).

A Contextual Admissions Lens

It’s important to speculate on the impact a favourable mentor relationship could have, particularly on students who have come through the CA route. This research suggests that mentors become figures of multidimensional support. They become the teacher, confident, guide, friend, connector, facilitator, champion, protector and more. The criteria establishing a CA route into CSM is a good indicator, not in every case, but in many, that the student is from a disadvantaged background. These students are less likely to view the institution of university as home, in many cases seeing it as an alien environment in which they are intruding. This research suggests that a constructive mentor pairing connects the mentee to the University in profound ways and in a short time frame, especially important in the transition to higher education. The potentially stabilising force of a mentor, in amongst the precarious doubting of first year, cannot be underestimated. The success of the scheme can be summed up in one sentence.

‘Even though I’ve been at this uni for like 2 months, I feel like the closest person is my mentor at this point.’ (meb)

This is despite the mentee being surrounded by roughly a hundred other first year students. I am not suggesting that worthwhile relationships aren’t being made between first years, but given the small size of the pilot, this may be significant. May be the special dynamic achieved through this formalised union, creates an increasingly significant bond?

I also think working with somebody further ahead than you, seeing yourself reflected in them through shared experience, proof of trajectorial progress, is critical. These things may make the basis for strong bonds and foster a sense of kinship that can make minority groups feel as if they belong. They are signifiers of the right direction.

Positionality

My positionality must be discussed as a limitation of the project, given that I will undoubtably bring a certain amount of bias to the research. I hold three positions at CSM; First Year Studio Design Tutor, Embedded Academic Support Tutor and I also work as part of the admissions team. Without going into detail about each one, these combine to give an understanding of the experiences and challenges faced by first year students and as a subgroup, CA students. CA students are diverse, representing different genders, sexualities, race, abilities, disabilities and economic backgrounds. As a white, cis, heterosexual man of roughly middle age, there are clear limitations to my understanding of experiences across such a large cross section of people. 

I can relate to certain challenges faced by CA students having been only the second member of my family to attend University. I was educated at a local comprehensive school and had to rely heavily on the student loan system. I am from a multicultural part of South London and have been used to exchanging experiences and information with diverse groups of people. 

I am aware however that I score highly on measurements of privilege (Bryan, 2022) and would have less in common and less insight into the experiences of students from areas considered to be ‘low’ on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD).

Student fees are considerably more than when I was studying which is compounded by a cost-of-living crisis. The impact made by media, various social and political landscapes as shaped by global and local events will contribute to unique world views held by new students each year.

Scope of Research & Future Implementation

A limitation of the research is the small number of participants involved in the pilot. A wider sample group could offer a greater amount of data with which to identify emergent patterns and commonalities between the experiences of mentorship pairings and be used to tailor future schemes to be more efficient, depending on the most important aspects to nurture going forward. On the other hand, in the context of this ARP, the small number of participants has allowed a comprehensive examination of the pairings to be carried out, leading to rich data of multiple topics worthy of pursuit.

Both sets of mentees were chosen because of their CA routes into CSM. This is problematic as there is no comparison to students from traditional routes into the University. It is impossible therefore to separate similarities or differences between these groups. It could be, that all students face similar challenges when transitioning into higher education, but this is impossible to conclude since there is no comparative control group. It’s also difficult to argue the case for targeted help directed only at CA students for the same reason (this decision having differing opinions as I have documented). This issue may raise its head short term if sign up rates are much higher from prospective mentees, meaning that not all of them will be able to be paired. In this scenario I think it best to choose mentees that would benefit most from support, taking into consideration their route into University and any additional background information (this could be acquired via personal statements received through UCAS for example). It would be a good subject to develop in further research cycles by widening participation to include a more diverse set of students to see if there are emergent support needs within groups which would help tailor increasingly nuanced support for individuals. Some of the more powerful aspects of the research however, centre on basic human needs, those of care, support, connection, friendship etc. This surely transcends the urge to limit acts of generosity to any one group, especially since, in this case, it’s likely we have the resources at CSM to roll out a mentor scheme year wide. This it is hoped, will globally raise standards and feelings of wellbeing.

Strong leadership and supervision of mentors and mentees is advised if the scheme were to be expanded, in order to counteract potential abuse. That said, I can say from this small pilot, I witnessed only care and kindness.

---

---

portrait z

---

All portraits taken from ‘Focus on Blur’, a photographic series which accompanies the action research project. Since all participants were required to be anonymised, the series embraced indistinctness, offering the antithesis to the close relationships developed between participants. Some images are of them and some are not.

---

References

• Bryan, J., 2022. Warwick University- Privilege Walk. [Online] Available at: https://warwick.ac.uk/services/dean-of-students-office/community-values-education/educationresources/privilegewalk [Accessed 30th June 2024].
• David Takeuchi, T. D., 2018. Equality and Equity: Expanding Opportunities to Remedy Disadvantage. Jstor, 42(2), pp. 13-19.
• Evans, D. J. B., 2015. How to Succeed in Medical School, an Essential Guide to Learning. Second ed. London: Wiley Blackwell.
• Freire, P., 2005. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edition ed. London: Continuum.
• Gilbert, J. H., 2019. Precariat Insurgency: A Means to Improve Structures of Inclusivity in Higher Education. London: Institute of Education Press.
• Glennon, P., 2003. Linkedin. [Online] Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulglennon/?originalSubdomain=uk [Accessed 18 09 2024].
• Glennon, P., 2024. Learning about Disadvantaged Students & Mentorship [Interview] (10 09 2024).
• Hatton, K., 2019. Inclusion and Intersectionality in Visual Arts Education. London: Institute of Education Press (IOE).
• McNiff, J., 2010. Action Research for Professional Development. First ed. New York : September books.
• Ohidey, A. C. N., 2020. Mentoring Programmes for Disadvantaged Children in Selected European Countries. Hungarian Education Research Journal, 10(3), pp. 180-188. Students, O. f., 2023. Office for Students. [Online] Available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/press-and-media/students-from-disadvantaged-backgrounds-less-likely-to-complete-their-course/ [Accessed 21 12 2024].
• Subasi, B., 2018. Harvard Business Review. [Online]Available at: https://hbr.org/2018/09/research-people-share-more-information-with-

Appendices

Appendix A- Pilot Advert

Appendix B- Participant Consent Form

Appendix C- Pilot Pre-task

Appendix D- Guidance for Mentors

Appendix E- Guidance for Mentees

---

Presentation

---