Assumed But Not Proven

Examining the Efficacy of e-Mentoring within The Phoenix

Scholars
Devon Cash

ABSTRACT
e-Mentoring, or electronic mentoring, allows mentors and mentees to
communicate without being restricted by time and geography. As such, it is
often assumed that these benefits make it superior to traditional, in-person
mentoring. However, a closer look into the efficacy of the e-mentoring
model within the context of The Phoenix Scholars, an education nonprofit
serving disadvantaged youth, reveals that e-mentoring lacks the ability to
sustain meaningful interactions between mentors and mentees.

Cash 2
Assumed But Not Proven
In todays world, people have the power to phone someone from their computers
and video chat someone from their phones. The pace of technological advancement has
radically changed the way individuals interact with the world around them. However, the
brilliance of technological innovation should always be contextualized within its own
usefulness and applicability. (Recall the wearable PC and the two-in-one portable gaming
system and cell phone!) Oftentimes the benefits of a particular innovation are assumed
but not proven. E-mentoring is an example of this, at least for The Phoenix Scholars, as
the model has been utilized since the programs inception without thought or
evaluationuntil now.
The Phoenix Scholars Problem
Founded in 2009, The Phoenix Scholars is a student-run, Stanford-based
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, which provides pro bono college counseling services to
low income, first generation, and minority high school seniors in the state of California.
The program pairs these seniors (scholars) with Stanford and Berkeley undergraduate
mentors who help them apply to college, prepare for standardized tests, and obtain
financial aid and scholarships. Ultimately, The Phoenix Scholars believes that though
talent and intelligence are universal, opportunities and resources are not. As such, TPS is
a source of such counseling opportunities and resources in a state where the student to
counselor ratio is 945:1.1
Overall, the program has had major success. TPS has worked with over 450
undergraduate mentors, sent 500 scholars to four-year institutions (with 26% of the group
attending select colleges and universities),2 and established a host of professional
connections with other philanthropic organizations, including the Silicon Community
Valley Foundation, one of the nations largest private foundations with over $6.5 billion
in assets under management.3
Despite the organizations successes, scholar retention has not been easy. For the
2015-2016 academic year, TPS accepted a cohort of 161 scholars and 93 mentors. From
the start of the program, which began in the June following the scholars junior year of
high school, scholars were assigned monthly tasks and were encouraged to keep in
contact with their mentors on a bi-weekly basis. By October 2015, five months into the
years cycle, there was a steep decline in scholar responsiveness. TPS executive team
identified the most unresponsive scholars and gave them an ultimatum demanding that
they reengage in the program or be asked to leave. At the end of the intervention, 19 of
the 161 scholars (11.80%) left the program.
If the organization is to grow, understanding why these scholars left is extremely
important. Such information will allow the program to improve its weak areas in and
emphasize its strong areas.
The e-Mentoring Problem
Because TPS is based in Stanford University, where nearby Palo Alto had a
median household income of $126,771 for the period from 2010 to 2014,4 recruiting
students from underprivileged communities requires that the organization travel great
distances to reach its target demographic. The geographic breakdown of this years
cohort is as follows:

Cash 3

San
Joaquin
4%

Percentage of Scholars by County

San Mateo Santa Clara
6%
3%

San Francisco San

1% Bernardino
1%
Sacramento
1%
Orange
1%
Merced
4%

Solano
1%

Alameda
32%

Los Angeles
45%

Contra Costa
1%

Figure 1 shows the percentage of scholars living in various California counties.5

The heat map provides another look at the geographic distribution of the 2015-2016
cohort:

Figure 2 shows a heat map representing various concentrations of scholars throughout California. Purple dots
indicate that scholars are present in the region. Yellowish dots are areas of high scholar concentration. The red
arrow is directed at Alameda County. The yellow arrow is directed at Los Angeles County. Visit
https://www.myheatmap.com/app/map/18137 to be directed to the interactive version of the map.

Cash 4
Notice that Los Angeles County, where 45% of scholars are located, is approximately
360 miles away from Stanfords campus.6 Alameda County, another hub for scholars, is
approximately 50 miles away.7 Because of the great spatial distance between scholars and
mentors, e-mentoring, or electronic mentoring, has been the primary facilitator of mentorscholar interactions.
Though e-mentoring is a convenient, cost-effective model for the organization, it
obviates the need for in-person communication between mentors and scholars, perhaps
causing scholars to be disinterested in the program. As such, it can be conjectured that the
decline in scholar participation the organization experienced in October 2015 is due in
large part to the impersonal nature of e-mentoring.
Existing Research
There are differing perspectives among academics on the efficacy of e-mentoring in
helping mentees acquire an enhanced set of skills or knowledge. Virtually all scholars
agree that e-mentoring, as is the case with technology in general, allows for
communication unrestricted by time and geography.811 This quality of e-mentoring gives
mentees nearly unlimited access to the world around them. Through a few keystrokes,
mentees can be connected with government officials, business people, scientists, and
artists at any time from any place. Beyond that, however, there are compelling arguments
in either direction that make issuing judgment on the efficacy of e-mentoring very
difficult. Such arguments are extremely layered. The most common debates, however,
revolve around the following questions:
What are the expectations of the e-mentoring relationship?
What are the primary pros and cons associated with synchronous and
asynchronous communication?
Which mentees benefit the most from e-mentoring?
Addressing these questions will help summarize the existing research on e-mentoring.
Then, by contextualizing each of these questions within The Phoenix Scholars
philosophy, it will be clear whether or not the existing research lends itself to determining
if the e-mentoring model is a good one for the organization.
What are the expectations of the e-mentoring relationship?
Specifically, this question suggests that e-mentoring may not be effective if
mentors and mentees do not have the same understanding of what they will be receiving
from the mentorship experience. Many academics assert that a deep, personal connection
based on mutual trust between mentors and mentees is essential in building a successful
e-mentoring relationship.8,9 Such a connection requires that the e-mentoring relationship
transcend mere information sharing, by which expertise or knowledge is exchanged.11 Ementoring, at its core, should be a form of psychoemotional support, by which issues
related and unrelated to the mentoring subject can be addressed. When that element of
personal support is lacking, however, mentoring relationships tend to be nothing more
than weak ties, which either break easily or wither eventually.9
However, in their study of e-mentoring conducted at the University of Limerick
(UL) in Ireland, Risquez and Sanchez-Garcia found that on a few occasions, mentees had
no expectation of developing personal relationships with their mentors. In the study,
Risquez and Sanchez-Garcia looked at the ways in which computer-mediated

Cash 5
communication (CMC)an umbrella term for all digital communication including ementoringcould be used in the mentoring context to help in students transition to
tertiary study (i.e., the secondary school to college transition). Using a sample of 81
mentees and 42 mentors, Risquez and Sanchez-Garcia implemented an evaluation of
ULs three to twelve-month e-mentoring program. Ultimately, it was found that quite
often mentees expected their mentors to be sources of academic information, not
necessarily personal coaches. Even more interesting, some of the more introverted
mentees appreciated that e-mentoring provided them with a safe space to avoid building
personal connections with their mentors. More generally, this case study suggests that the
expectations of e-mentoring are subject to the experiences of those involved, specifically
the mentees. As such, it may be too bold to assert that a certain level of emotional
engagement is a requirement for beneficial e-mentoring relationships.
As it relates to The Phoenix Scholars, this research suggests that perhaps scholars
do not expect to build personal connections with their mentors and the program as a
whole in the first place. More specifically, perhaps the goal of e-mentoring should be
focused strictly on the mentoring subject matter (i.e. the college application process) and
not on personal relationship building. However, this logic seems counterintuitive,
especially within the context of The Phoenix Scholars. Unlike UL, TPS aims to work
only with students from extremely marginalized populations. Though a disengaged
mentee-mentor relationship may be successful in circumstances where social indicators,
such as race, socioeconomic status, and level of educational attainment, are not at the
foreground, such a relationship is contrary to the needs of TPS students and the
philosophy of the organization as a whole.
What are the primary pros and cons associated with synchronous and asynchronous
communication?
Not all e-mentoring is created equal. This question suggests that the type of ementoring implemented may be a key determinant in judging the efficacy of an ementoring model. There are two broad types of digital communication: synchronous and
asynchronous. Synchronous communication allows mentors and mentees to communicate
simultaneously (e.g., phone conversations and video chats), while asynchronous
communication typically involves a delayed response (e.g., emails, texts, and instant
messages).
Most of the debate about communication methods deals with asynchronous
communication. This is probably because when e-mentoring does occur, it typically is
facilitated by a portal service like Moodle, a software learning management system. Such
systems allow an organization to control the environment in which e-mentoring occurs
(as opposed to The Phoenix Scholars, where mentoring communications are
decentralized and vary from pair to pair). Portals also make it easy to track and archive
communications and ensure privacy while online. However, these portal services lack
synchronous communication features. Thus, programs forfeit the option to have
synchronous communication features in favor of greater logistical ease. As such, most of
the resulting research on the e-mentoring initiatives of such programs revolves around the
asynchronous elements of the portal services they utilize (e.g., forums, emails, instant
messages, announcements, etc.). However, where there are opinions about synchronous

Cash 6
communication, the consensus is that it is a viable imitation of face-to-face
communication.10
On the topic of asynchronous communication, however, the debate is intense.
There is the common opinion that asynchronous communication is too lexical to convey
ideas accurately. Though emojis and case usage can help in aiding conversations, the
absence of human cues (i.e., gestures and expressions) leaves room for
miscommunication.8,9 Another critique of asynchronous communication, aligned with the
idea that mentoring is supposed to be personal in nature, is that such communication
makes brevity commonplace and substantive dialogue nearly impossible.8
In direct response to the latter critique, other arguments suggest that asynchronous
communication actually leads to the development of hyper-relationships.9 Such
relationships are characterized by a high level of comfort and security afforded by the
lack of face-to-face interaction. Because of the delayed response aspect of such
communication, participants in a conversation do not have to worry about being
pressured to talk. Quite the opposite: participants in such conversations have the
opportunity to craft very thoughtful and measured responses, which filter out unimportant
information.
As it relates to The Phoenix Scholars, this research is vital. It adds another
dimension to the conversation. Perhaps choosing a particular type of e-mentoring, either
synchronous and asynchronous, may be what is needed as opposed to removing the ementoring model together. Maybe within the field of synchronous communication, video
chats are more effective than telephone calls. Maybe within the field of asynchronous
communication, email is a better medium for conveying information than texts. In any
case, this research suggests that the diversity within e-mentoring may make it very
difficult to condemn the model as a whole.
Which mentees benefit the most from e-mentoring?
This questions suggests that the type of individuals involved in the mentoring
process plays a big role in whether or not the e-mentoring relationship will be a
successful one. For example, can an affluent, white businesswoman from the Bible Belt
effectively mentor a teenaged Latina girl from inner city Los Angeles? Some researchers
suggest that the emotional separation afforded by e-mentoring makes such a question
irrelevant. More specifically, digital platforms allow for relationships to develop without
cultural, social, or personal baggage hindering the process.11
However, some say that such an argument misses the bigger picture altogether.
This is to say that if it is better for a mentor-mentee pair to use e-mentoring to simply
avoid misunderstanding or miscommunication, there is a good chance that that mentormentee pair should not have been established in the first place. Ultimately, the mentoring
experience should enhance relationships, not abstract them.
The Phoenix Scholars makes it an aim to recruit a pool of mentors that either
share similar backgrounds and experiences to the scholars or who have direct experience
working with low income, first generation, and minority youth. Relating to the
organizations philosophy that the mentoring relationship should be centered on deep,
personal connections, TPS is of the opinion that those relationships develop best when
mentees have someone they can relate to and see part of themselves in.

Cash 7
In general, the existing research allows the conversation surrounding e-mentoring
to be had in many ways. A discussion of mentor and mentee expectations, asynchronous
versus synchronous communication, and the similarity between mentors and their
mentees adds a level of rigor to the question at hand regarding e-mentoring. Though this
research primarily focuses on comparing e-mentoring with in-person mentoring, insights
on all of these points help place this work within an existing dialogue.
Methodology
The overall goal of this study was to gauge how engaged scholars were with their
mentors, what that engagement looked like, and how that level of engagement could be
improved. I sent out a 10-minute survey to 102 scholars (i.e., those scholars assigned to
Stanford mentors) with a one-week deadline and $25 prize drawing to encourage
participation. At the end of the week, I recorded 39 responses (27.46% of the remaining
cohort). The online survey consisted of the following questions:
How often do you communicate with your mentor?
a. Weekly
b. Bi-weekly
c. Monthly
d. Quarterly
What is the primary method of communication between you and your mentor?
a. In-person meetings
b. Telephone
c. Video chat
d. Text and instant messaging
How well do know your mentor?
a. Not at all
b. Somewhat
c. Appropriately
d. Very
What things would help you get to know your mentor better?
This final question was free response.
Results
The results are roughly divided into four parts: the distribution of responses to each of the
survey questions and their application to the cohort as a whole, the correlation between
specific variables, a regression analysis, and, finally, a look into causal effects.

Cash 8
I. Distributions

How often do you communicate with your mentor?

25

21

20
Number of
Responses

15
10

10
5

0
Quarterly = 1 Monthly = 2 Bi-weekly = 3

Weekly = 4

Frequency of Communication (x)

Figure 3 shows the distribution of responses to the first survey question. Qualitative answers were assigned
numerical values on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 representing the most infrequent communication and 4
representing the most frequent communication.

The survey results to this question were extremely surprising. The Phoenix Scholars
encourages mentors and scholars to communicate on a bi-weekly basis. However, from
the sample, it is apparent that communication typically happens monthly. To put this in
perspective, the program only lasts 12 months, meaning that over the course of a year,
mentors and scholars only interact 12 times. Even more surprising was the fact that five
of the 39 respondents reported only communicating with their mentors once per quarter.
Considering there are monthly tasks for scholars to complete with their mentors, it is
virtually impossible to be able to accomplish those tasks by talking only four times for
the entire duration of the program. These results immediately raised a red flag. Perhaps it
is not e-mentoring that is the problem, but rather the frequency of communication. The
correlation analysis to follow will shed more light on the relationship between frequency
of communication and how well scholars know their mentors.
A 95% confidence interval for the frequency of communication mean will reveal the
frequency of communication between scholars and their mentors across the entire cohort:
!
1. General formula for the confidence interval: x t !!
2. x average response = 2.2821; t number of standard deviations =
tinv . 05, 38 = 2.0244; s! (sample standard deviation) = 0.7930
!.!"#$
3. confidence interval: 2.2821 2.0244 !"

4. [2.0217 to 2.5425]
More specifically, this result suggests with 95% confidence that the frequency of
communication between scholars and mentors in the cohort as a whole is between biweekly (3) and monthly (2).

Cash 9

What is the primary method of communication

between you and your mentor?
30
25

24

20
Number of
15
Responses
10

11
4

0
Texts and
instant
messages = 1

Telephone
calls = 2

Video chats = In-person

3
meetings = 4

Method of Communication (w)

Figure 4 shows the distribution of responses to the second survey question. Qualitative answers were assigned
numerical values on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 representing the most asynchronous communication and 4
representing the most synchronous communication.

Echoing the geographic distribution presented in The e-Mentoring Problem, the

results show that out of the sample of 39 respondents, not a single scholar met with their
mentor in person. All of the communication was done electronically. Interestingly,
asynchronous communication in the form of texts and instant messages was the primary
method of communication between scholars and their mentors. Synchronous
communication in the form of telephone calls and video chats were much less common.
A 95% confidence interval for the method of communication mean will reveal the
method of communication utilized by scholars across the entire cohort:
!
1. General formula for the confidence interval: w t !!
2. w = 1.4872; t = tinv . 05, 38 = 2.0244; s! = 0.6833
!.!"##
3. confidence interval: 1.4872 2.0244 !"

4. [1.2628 to 1.7116]
More specifically, this result suggests with 95% confidence that the method of
communication will either be texts and instant messages (1) or telephone calls (2).

Cash 10

How well do you know your mentor?

20
18
16
14
12
Number of
10
Responses
8
6
4
2
0

18
14

Not at all = 1 Somewhat = 2 Appropriately

=3

Very = 4

Level of Connectedness (y)

Figure 5 shows the distribution of responses to the third survey question. Qualitative answers were assigned
numerical values on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 representing the lowest level of connectedness and 4 representing
the highest level of connectedness.

To be in a position to quantify the analysis as much as possible, the need for a

dependent variable was essential. The assumption was that how well scholars know their
mentors (y) is most likely dependent on the frequency of communication between them
and their mentors (x) and the primary method of communication utilized (w), the two
independent variables. This assumption lays the groundwork for the correlation and
regression analysis that follows.
A 95% confidence interval for the level of connectedness mean will reveal the level
of connectedness between scholars and their mentors across the entire cohort:
!
1. General formula for the confidence interval: y t !!
2. y = 2.5897; t = tinv . 05, 38 = 2.0244; s! = 0.7853
3. confidence interval: 2.5897 2.0244

!.!"#$
!"

4. [2.3318 to 2.847]
More specifically, this result suggests with 95% confidence that the scholars in this years
cohort know their mentor either somewhat (2) or appropriately (3).

Cash 11
II. Correlation Analysis
Correlation analysis will help in indicating possible relationships that exist
between the proposed independent variables (x being the frequency of communication
and w being the method of communication) and the proposed dependent variable (y
being the level of connectedness).

Frequency of Communication (x) vs. Level of

Connectedness (y)
4

Level of
Connectedness
(y)

1
1

2
3
Frequency of Communication (x)

Figure 6 shows the scatter plot where the independent variable is "x," the frequency of communication, and the
dependent variable is "y," the level of connectedness.

A cursory glance at the graph suggests that there is a positive correlation between
the frequency of communication and level of connectedness. A more rigorous approach
to finding the correlation between the two variables is as follows:
1. x, y =

!"#(!,!)
!! !!

!"!!!
!! !!

2. xy = 6.2564; x = 2.2821; y = 2.5897; s! = 0.7930; s! = 0.7853

3. x, y = .5564
A correlation of .5564 is considered moderate positive correlation,12 indicating that there
may be a link between the frequency of communication and the level of connectedness.

Cash 12

Method of Communication (w) vs. Level of

Connectedness (y)
4

Level of
Connectedness
(y)

1
1

2
3
Method of Communication (w)

Figure 7 shows the scatter plot where the independent variable is "w," the method of communication, and the
dependent variable is "y," the level of connectedness.

A glance at the graph shows a positive, but unconvincing, correlation between the
method of communication and the level of connectedness. A rigorous analysis of the
correlation provides the following result:
1. w, y =

!"#(!,!)
!! !!

!"!!!
!! !!

2. wy = 4.051; w = 1.4872; y = 2.5897; s! = 0.6833; s! = 0.7853

3. w, y = .3724
A correlation of .3724 is considered weak,12 which does not really say much about the
relationship between the method of communication and the level of connectedness.
Interestingly, because the correlation between x and y is greater than the
correlation between w and y, the statistics suggest that the frequency of
communication has a greater impact on the level of connectedness than does the method
of communication. Reliance on the statistics alone would in part invalidate the hypothesis
that e-mentoring (i.e., the method of communication) contributed to the lack of
relationships built within The Phoenix Scholars. However, correlation is not causality. A
look at the fourth survey question later in the paper will help contextualize the
significance of the statistics that were uncovered.

Cash 13
III. Regression Analysis
Though there were no strong correlations between the variables, simple linear
regression analysis will provide a line that best estimates y-values given particular xvalues and w-values.

Frequency of Communication (x) vs. Level of

Connectedness (y)
4

Level of
Connectedness
(y)

1
1
y = 0.5655x + 1.2994
R = 0.32603

2
3
Frequency of Communication (x)

Figure 8 shows the regression line that best estimates the data from the scatter plot "Frequency of
Communication (x) vs. Level of Connectedness (y)."

From the graph, the regression line that best estimates the data is y = 0.5655x +
1.2994. Finding the frequency of communication that will maximize the level of
connectedness requires the following process:
1. Set y = 4, i.e., assume that the goal is for scholars to know their mentors very
well
2. Solve for x, which will be the frequency of communication that will maximize
the level of connectedness
3. x = 4.7756
Because x = 4.7756, the regression line suggests that for scholars to know their mentors
very well, they should communicate at least on a weekly basis.

Cash 14

Method of Communication (w) vs. Level of

Connectedness (y)
4

Level of
Connectedness
(y)

1
y = 0.4393w + 1.9364
R = 0.14612

2
3
Method of Communication (w)

Figure 9 shows the regression line that best estimates the data from the scatter plot "Method of Communication
(w) vs. Level of Connectedness (y)."

From the graph, the regression line that best estimates the data is y = 0.4393w +
1.9364. Finding the method of communication that will maximize the level of
connectedness requires the following process:
1. Set y = 4, i.e., assume that the goal is for scholars to know their mentors very
well
2. Solve for w, which will be the method of communication that will maximize the
level of connectedness
3. w = 4.6975
Because x = 4.6975, the regression line suggests that for scholars to know their mentors
very well, they should communicate in-person.
In general, the regression line, though not based on the strongest data, predicts the
most common sense solutions. In short, the statistics conclude that for scholars to know
their mentors very well, weekly, in-person communication between scholars and
mentors is a must.
IV. A Look at Causal Effects
The correlation analysis shed light on the possible linkage between the frequency
of communication, method of communication, and level of connectedness between
mentors and scholars. The subsequent regression analysis then predicted appropriate
frequencies and methods to best maximize the level of connectedness. Though these
statistics provide insights into the current status of our mentor-scholar relations and how
they could be improved, they are too limited to suggest any causal relationships.
However, the fourth survey question, If necessary, how can we help you get to
know your mentor better? requires scholars to reveal what challenges they faced during
their mentorship experience. If the method of communication were the problem for some
scholars, it would be revealed in their answer to this question. If the frequency of

Cash 15
communication were the problem for some scholars, it too would be revealed in their
answer to this question. Because the question is open-ended and requires scholars to
share their direct experiences, the answers to these questions provide insight into what
actually causes impactful relationships to form. As such, I have listed some of the actual
responses to that question.
On the method of communication, many scholars revealed that would prefer inperson meetings, suggesting that e-mentoring was not the most useful model for personal
interactions:
I would have liked the opportunity to meet my mentor in person
I think it would be better if some mentors were around the area of the student.
May I suggest a get-together of Phoenix Scholars mentors and mentees after
senior year is over
The best way to better know my mentor would probably be to hold a get together
where both the mentor and the mentee must attend.
The most effective way I believe is meetingin person
However, it would be nice if a general Phoenix Scholars meet-up was set
up
On the frequency of communications, many scholars also revealed that having
more frequent, mandatory communication would be beneficial for them, suggesting that
quarterly and even monthly communication is inadequate:
Require a mandatory Skype call
By scheduling mandatory check-ins at least once a week, mentees could get to
know their mentor better!
[Make] it mandatory to text, call or have some type of communication once a
month at the least.
More communicationcan always be a bit helpful.
Having a schedule that was determined would make it easier
The qualitative answers to the fourth question of the survey validate the statistics
after all. Though the correlation analysis revealed a weak, positive correlation between
method of communication and level of connectedness, the number of scholars saying
they want more in-person meetings affirms that the correlation is even stronger than
initially predicted. The correlation analysis also predicted a moderate, positive correlation
between the frequency of communication and level of connectedness. Again, the
scholars answers reveal that there is a strong correlation between those two variables.
Further, the responses to the fourth question confirm the solutions provided by the
regression analysis, i.e., scholars would like to have more in-person meetings with their
mentors, and they would also like to be in more frequent communication with their
mentors.
Ultimately, these results demonstrate that my hypothesis was only partially valid.
Though the method of communication is a vital component in scholars getting to know
their mentors better, the frequency of communication is equally important in relationship
building.
Moving Forward
Given the results from the survey, establishing a set of policy recommendations
for The Phoenix Scholars is a logical next step. The goal of such recommendations

Cash 16
should be to make frequent, in-person communication between scholars and mentors as
feasible as possible. To accomplish this, recruiting students closer to Stanfords campus,
providing awards and scholarships to incentivize mentor and scholar participation in TPS,
and reducing the yearly cohort size are steps in the right direction.
Recruiting Closer to Stanford
As mentioned earlier in the paper, Stanford is based in an area of affluence. As
such, the programs Outreach Committee has historically traveled long distances to
present at high schools in some of Californias most underserved communities. The
assumption was that the organizations target demographic was most easily accessible in
such communities. However, that assumption is not necessarily true. The California State
Association of Counties publishes California Low Performing Schools, a list of
underachieving schools by county.13 Interestingly, 27 schools on that list are within a
one-hour drive of Stanford University, with one of those schools being only eight minutes
away from Stanfords campus. Though low performing does not mean that those
schools necessarily serve low income, first generation, and minority youth, those social
indicators are typically present in underperforming settings. Thus, refocusing the
outreach efforts of the organization could result in recruiting students closer to Stanford,
making in-person meetings between mentors and scholars more feasible. There is also the
possibility that The Phoenix Scholars could host events on campus to help facilitate those
in-person meetings.
Providing Awards and Scholarships
In addition to recruiting scholars from nearby schools, The Phoenix Scholars
could also provide awards and scholarships in the form of textbook vouchers, application
waivers, and cash gifts to those scholars who are actively engaged in the program. Ways
to gauge engagement include having their mentors submit a letter of recommendation and
tallying the number of monthly tasks scholars have completed. In any case, providing
awards can incentivize scholars to remain involved and easily accessible throughout the
course of the 12-month program.
Reducing Cohort Size
In the same way scholars need to be actively engaged in the program, the TPS
executive team needs to be actively engaged with its scholars. More specifically, the
executive team should be in a position to effectively monitor relationships between
mentors and scholars via surveys, interviews, or group discussions. By being more
proactive in helping nurture these relationships, TPS can identify problem mentors and
scholars before something as radical as the intervention held in October happens.
Perhaps by reducing the yearly cohort size by a third or even half, the organization can
fine tune the ways in which it tracks the growth and progress of mentor-scholar pairs and
afterwards focus on scaling.
Conclusion
This study aimed to discover whether or not the e-mentoring model was an
effective one for The Phoenix Scholars. Survey results showed that scholars were more
impacted by the lack of in-person meetings than by e-mentoring itself. Further, scholars

Cash 17
desired required, more frequent communication. In Moving Forward, a set of policy
recommendations outlined how The Phoenix Scholars can effectively address these
experiences. Ultimately, this study hopes to encourage The Phoenix Scholars and any
other organization seeking to implement technology to test the implications of said
technology before assuming it is beneficial by default.

Cash 18
Bibliography
1.
California Department of Education. Research on School Counseling
Effectiveness. at <http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/cg/rh/counseffective.asp>
2.
The Phoenix Scholars. Our Results and Impact. (2015).
3.
Silicon Valley Community Foundaiton. Financials. at
<http://www.siliconvalleycf.org/financials>
4.
United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts: Palo Alto city, California. at
<http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0655282>
5.
Cash, D. Scholars by County. (2015).
6.
Google Maps. Stanford, CA to Los Angeles, CA. at
<https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Stanford,+CA/Los+Angeles,+CA/@35.71698
83,122.4402438,7z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x808fbac95ef1decd:0x
6bad0d43152c9f52!2m2!1d122.1660756!2d37.424106!1m5!1m1!1s0x80c2c75ddc27da13:0xe22fdf6f254608f
4!2m2!1d-118.2436849!2d34.0522342!3e0>
7.
Google Maps. Stanford, CA to Alameda County, CA. at
<https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Stanford,+CA/Alameda+County,+CA/@37.51
00752,122.4854874,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x808fbac95ef1decd:0x
6bad0d43152c9f52!2m2!1d122.1660756!2d37.424106!1m5!1m1!1s0x808ff23734791759:0x68c6c7111b137d
73!2m2!1d-121.7195459!2d37.6016892!3e0>
8.
Guy, T. in Critical Perspectives on Mentoring: Trends and Issues. Information
Series. 2738 (2002).
9.
Risquez, A. & Sanchez-Garcia, M. The Jury Is Still Out: Psychoemotional Support
in Peer e-Mentoring for Transition to University. Internet High. Educ. 15, 213221
(2012).
10. Dabner, N. Design to Support Distance Teacher Education Communities: A Case
Study of a Student-Student e-Mentoring Initiative. in Society for Information
Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 218223 (2011).
11. Bierema, L. L. & Merriam, S. B. E-mentoring: Using Computer Mediated
Communication to Enhance the Mentoring Process. Innov. High. Educ. 26, 211
227 (2002).
12. Rumsey, D. J. How to Interpret a Correlation Coefficient r. Statistics For
Dummies, 2nd Edition (2011). at <http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/howto-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r.html>
13. California State Association of Counties. California Low Performing Schools. at
<http://www.csac.ca.gov/pubs/forms/grnt_frm/LowPerformingSchool.pdf>
Appendix
The original data from the online survey can be found by visiting
https://docs.google.com/a/stanford.edu/spreadsheets/d/1CCTZRa2cRWz42t9ehrKPKhVz
w_1R7OVaYGeNDg5TFC8/edit?usp=sharing.