2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This complete research paper details a study that examined the effects of grading on the power dynamic between near-peer mentors (NPM) and their mentee students. Traditional NPM models, such as Supplemental Instruction (SI) and Learning Assistants (LA), do not allow their mentors (SI Leaders or LAs, respectively) to grade student work to prevent a power dynamic from developing between the students and their mentor, as the mentors do not have any perceived control over student success. At Michigan Technological University, this model did not meet our instructional needs; we needed a role that encompassed both the role of student mentor and teaching assistant, which included a grading component. Our NPMs (called LEAP Leaders) act as an LA as they attend class and assist the students with questions on their in-class activities and assignments. They act as an SI Leader by planning and facilitating an additional help session outside of class. Additionally, they act as a TA by grading their students' assignments.

In surveying our LEAP Leaders, they have reported that having access to their grades increased their ability to help their students. They were better able to plan activities to meet the needs of their students, monitor student progress, and intervene when a student is struggling in the class. With the recommendation of these established programs not to comingle grading with other mentoring responsibilities and our own leaders’ perceived benefits, we proposed a study to address the research question: what impact does grading have on the relationship and power dynamic between the NPMs and their students?

In the Fall of 2022, we conducted a study to determine the impacts of grading on the perceived power dynamics between the LEAP Leaders and their students across 14 sections of our first-semester, first-year engineering course (n ≈ 240 students). One group of seven LEAP Leaders performed all standard duties, including grading, while a second group of seven LEAP Leaders shared these same job responsibilities, but did not grade their students' work. Students and LEAP Leaders completed an end-of-semester survey where they were asked to identify the perceived power role of their LEAP Leader or themselves by using an adapted version of the Teacher Power Use Scale (TPUS). Additionally, each group of leaders participated in a focus group where we used a semi-structured interview protocol and deductive coding to identify themes associated with the power dynamics that emerged from each mentor/mentee relationship.

Results indicated no statistically significant difference in how students perceived their LEAP Leader’s power, regardless of whether their LEAP Leader was responsible for grading. Students in both groups primarily identified their mentors as utilizing prosocial forms of power: expert power (knowledge), referent power (approachability), and reward power (positive reinforcement). Interestingly, the LEAP Leaders in the grading group reported an increased pressure to maintain professional boundaries and proactively amplified their referent power to counteract their evaluative role. These findings suggest that incorporating grading into NPM roles is a viable instructional model that can enhance a mentor’s ability to intervene when students struggle without compromising the essential mentoring relationship.