Profiles in Mentoring: Mariana Guerreiro on Advancing Student Well-Being Through Peer Support

Mariana Guerreiro is a PhD student in Psychology at the University of Algarve, where her work examines how peer mentoring shapes students’ academic experiences. Her research centers on mentoring, stress and distress, cognitive emotion regulation, perfectionism, soft skills, and quality of life across academic and educational settings, with additional scholarship connecting these themes to tourism. We recently spoke with Ms. Guerreiro about her recent research on how peer mentoring can promote academic success, featured here in the Chronicle!

Chronicle (C): What initially sparked your interest in the topic of peer mentoring and student retention in higher education?

Mariana Guerreiro (MG): My interest in peer mentoring and student retention in higher education began during my professional internship to the Portuguese Psychologists Association. In this internship, I contributed to the implementation of the University of Algarve’s (UAlg) first peer mentoring program. The university had already expressed interest in developing such an initiative, given its concern with reducing student dropout and promoting academic success.

Since these issues remain pressing challenges in higher education institutions both nationally and internationally, and considering the potential of peer mentoring to address them, I decided to investigate these topics in my PhD thesis in Psychology at the UAlg, with the supervision of Professor Saúl Neves de Jesus, who played a key role in sparking my interest in the topic of peer mentoring and student retention. In fact, the Peer Mentoring Program at the University of Algarve (UAlg) began to be envisioned by him during the period in which he served as Vice-Rector of the university.

C: Your review highlights that selecting mentors based solely on academic performance may hinder a program’s effectiveness, which is a fascinating and counter-intuitive finding. Could you elaborate on why you think this is the case and what other qualities should be prioritized?

MG: This was indeed a surprising finding for us, and we believe it shifts the paradigm regarding the selection criteria often used in peer mentoring programs aimed at promoting academic success and preventing student dropout. This conclusion emerged because all the studies we identified that reported non-significant results (three on academic success and two on student dropout) selected mentors based on their academic performance — mentors were required to have a good academic performance.
Although the number of studies is limited (five with non-significant results), when we look at the 15 studies that did report significant results (eight on academic success and seven on student dropout), none of them selected mentors by academic performance.
Furthermore, empirical evidence supports our conclusions. Terrion and Leonard (2007) suggested further research to evaluate mentors who failed or initially struggled academically but learned how to succeed, despite having a grade point average below the student model. More recently, Rockinson-Szapkiw, et al. (2021) screened mentors with low academic performance in their peer mentoring program and demonstrated that both mentors and mentees improved their STEM achievement compared to the control group.

Based on this, we hypothesize that selecting mentors solely for their high academic performance may limit program effectiveness. However, we recommend additional studies that compare the effectiveness of mentors with high versus low academic performance in the context of peer mentoring programs, to gain clearer insights.

Regarding the qualities that should be prioritized in mentor selection, my experience has led me to reinforce that peer mentoring programs should adopt an inclusive approach. I do not think mentors should be selected based on strict criteria. Apart from requiring at least one year of university experience — particularly when mentors support first-year students — all students should have the opportunity to participate. Peer mentoring programs generate benefits not only for mentees but also for mentors, and restricting access may limit these developmental gains.

What is truly essential is providing mentors with adequate training, especially in transversal skills. These competencies are not only important for mentoring but are also valuable for students’ broader academic, personal, and professional development. In line with this, we currently have a paper under review on the topic, and another related manuscript will be submitted soon.

C: What do you think is the most critical question that future research needs to address to advance our understanding of effective peer mentoring?

MG: In the systematic review, we attempted to address this question by providing a framework for program implementers and researchers, organized into three levels of priority (high, medium, and low). I would say it is particularly important to understand whether and in what ways academic performance influences mentoring effectiveness, especially since most peer mentoring programs tend to use this criterion. To what extent might we be excluding good mentors and limiting their development by doing so?
Additionally, I would highlight the need for future studies to ensure greater methodological quality in peer mentoring research. This includes the use of validated instruments and representative samples, which continue to pose challenges in mentoring research. It is also essential that studies provide detailed program elements’ reports. Such transparency would allow researchers to conduct comparative analyses and replication studies, thereby strengthening the scientific evidence on what makes peer mentoring effective.

Read the full paper here