United States

Introduction: The lack of diversity among faculty at universities and medical schools in the United States is a matter of growing concern. At universities in the US, underrepresented minority (URM) researchers make up a mere 3.5% of the faculty in the life sciences and just 6.3% of the faculty in basic science departments at medical schools (Lambert et al., 2020). Women also remain underrepresented, accounting for only 39% of the faculty in the life sciences at universities and 35% of the faculty in basic science departments at medical schools (Association of American Medical Colleges, 2017; National Science Foundation, 2019). We hypothesize that there are a significant number of postdoctoral researchers with aspirations of becoming faculty members in academia, but many seek nonacademic careers due to uncharacterized influences. 

Methods: Based on psycho-social theories for career development and motivation, we developed and conducted a survey to examine the factors that influence commitment to or divergence from conventional academic research careers with 1284 biomedical postdocs across the United States. To further elucidate the benefits, challenges, and strategies for pursuing an academic career, 994 responses were qualitatively analyzed using both content and thematic analyses. 177 unique codes, 20 categories, and 10 subthemes emerged from the data and were generalized into two thematic areas: Life in Academia and Strategies for Success.

Results: We reveal four main outcomes that were largely undefined in the field. (1) The first two years of postdoctoral training are pivotal in the retention of women and URM postdocs in the academic research pipeline. (2) The likelihood of biomedical postdocs choosing an academic research career increases as financial security, mentorship from their PI and their sense of self-worth increase. (3) Unlike their colleagues, many URM postdocs do not expect to associate with the people that they value most in a research-intensive faculty position. (4) We also find that female postdocs reported lower research self-efficacy (belief in research abilities) and lower outcome expectations (belief in the outcomes of research efforts) than men, which also significantly predicts first-author publication rates. 

Conclusions and Discussion: Multiple factors are responsible for URM and female postdocs not choosing to pursue careers in academic research, including the low expectation of finding people of similar background or like-values in academia. For women, lower self-efficacy and outcome expectations compared to their male counterparts were strong predictors for choosing non-academic careers. Interventions addressing such factors in the early stages of postdoctoral training may prevent attrition of underrepresented groups. For advisors and institutions, this work provides a unique perspective from postdoctoral scholars on elements of the academic training path that can be improved to increase retention, career satisfaction, and preparation for the scientific workforce.

Acknowledgements: We acknowledge the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (Award Number UL1TR002384) for support.

13th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2021

Factors that affect postdoctoral trainee persistence in academia

career

postdoctoral

diversity

The annual UI conference has grown from a meeting to a community of more than 6,000 researchers, program officers, evaluators, program directors, training faculty, and others within STEM, and now operates with a mission to mutually inform scholarship and practice, develop and enhance the community interested in educational interventions, and provide professional development for all STEM persons. UI held its first Virtual conference in December of 2020 in response to Covid-19 restrictions that forced the cancellation of the original March 2020 in person meeting. Born out of necessity, the virtual conference introduced a format that provided pre conference availability of symposia, Deeper Dives and Poster presentations. The 13th Annual Understanding Interventions Conference will continue with that design and we foresee future conferences adopting aspects of that format in reaching a virtual audience as well as those who attend the conferences in-person.

Attendees will experience plenaries, workshops, symposia, and poster presentations on hypothesis-based research on interventions and initiatives that broaden participation in STEM careers. The conference will continue to facilitate the dialogue among education, behavioral, and social science researchers, evaluators, and faculty in STEM fields who participate in intervention programs. Graduate students in these fields are strongly encouraged to attend. Workshops, sessions, and posters will communicate effective strategies from successful STEM intervention programs, present results from empirical research studies, and synthesize the translation of research findings into practice on STEM learning, undergraduate research, graduate education, and student retention.

The cost to attend the conference is $150. There are special rates for post-doctoral fellows and graduate students, as well as conference grants that can be provided for those with need. Registration for the conference is open, with additional information to come.

The annual UI conference has grown from a meeting to a community of more than 6,000 researchers, program officers, evaluators, program directors, training faculty, and others within STEM, and now operates with a mission to mutually inform scholarship and practice, develop and enhance the community interested in educational interventions, and provide professional development for all STEM persons. 

symposium

BUILD (BUilding Infrastructure Leading to Diversity) is a NIH-funded program aimed to promote diversity in the biomedical and behavioral sciences by engaging and retaining undergraduate students of diverse backgrounds in health-related research. New and returning undergraduates (N = 40) in the one to two-year research program participate in a Summer Undergraduate Research Gateway to Excellence (SURGE) program for eight weeks in three cohorts. The goal of SURGE for students new to the program (junior “Year 1 Scholars” and senior “Fellows”) is to help trainees to develop cohesive cohorts, to acclimate them to their research environment and faculty mentor’s research, and to develop their science identity and sense of belonging as a researcher; and for returning students (“Year 2 Scholars”) is to prepare them for applying to graduate programs in the fall. SURGE is led by doctoral level University staff and faculty as well as Graduate Mentors (Master's students). From 2014-2019, SURGE was an in-person once or twice weekly experience. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic coincided with ongoing racial injustice which impacted students and the personnel who work with them (Lederer et al., 2020). The program’s training team immediately pivoted to address the challenges that the pandemic and racial injustice produced. The resulting intervention took the form of multiple modifications to the SURGE program. 

The primary purpose of this descriptive case study is to describe the modifications while another team of researchers will present outcomes in a companion submission (See Psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 and racial injustice on undergraduate summer research experience trainees). The case study will provide background information on the program, its participants, and the SURGE model that preceded the pandemic and the heightening of racial injustice. Next it will present the problem by outlining the challenges which emerged simultaneously for students (e.g., personal loss, loss of sense of community, financial and emotional stress, academic and personal uncertainty) and the program (e.g., lack of research availability, loss of family involvement in BUILD, technology issues). To address those challenges, program personnel made significant modifications to SURGE that included adapting SURGE content to virtual format, adding new culturally sustaining activities, facilitating safe space discussions, selecting student representatives for weekly feedback, developing alternative research activities for students whose research was halted, and others (Kreiger, 2020). The authors argue that the program modifications became the intervention for supporting students during a pandemic and time of ongoing racial injustice. 

Our presentation will describe the modifications and detail the methods (steps) we took to implement them, during a period of persistent personal and programmatic uncertainty and upheaval. Discussion will include lessons learned such as the importance of developing contingent plans for the future, centering student voices when faced with unprecedented challenges, continued use of virtual and/or hybrid program delivery, and developing a sense of community for students in virtual settings. Lessons learned will inform recommendations for those who work with undergraduates from diverse backgrounds, along with reflections about ongoing challenges, areas for improvement, and additional questions that program personnel need to consider. 
References. 

Kreiger, N. (2020). ENOUGH: COVID-19, structural racism, police brutality, plutocracy, climate change—and time for health justice, democratic governance, and an equitable, sustainable future. American Journal of Public Health, 110(11), 1620-1623. 
Lederer, A.M., Hoban, M.T., Lipson, S.K., Zhou, S. & Eisenberg, D. (2020, October 31). More than inconvenienced: The unique needs of U.S. college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120969372 




Reflections on CSULB BUILD Program Response to COVID-19 and Racial Injustice: A Descriptive Case Study

Science Self-Efficacy, Academic Self-Concept, and Their Associated Factors in Freshmen at a Historically Black University

Shiva Mehravaran, MD, MIH, MSc;1† Hamideh Taraji, DrPH;2 Farin Kamangar, MD, PhD1; Payam Sheikhattari, MD, MPH;2 Christine Hohmann, PhD1

1 Department of Biology, School of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences, Morgan State University, Maryland, 21251, USA
2 Department of Public Health, School of Community Health and Policy, Morgan State University, Maryland, 21251, USA

†Corresponding author: shiva.mehravaran@morgan.edu

Keywords: science self-efficacy, academic self-concept, undergraduate, academic outcome, historically Black university
Abstract
Introduction. Self-efficacy and self-concept are two important constructs that influence an individual’s behavior. Self-eﬃcacy is deﬁned as a person’s confidence in their capability to successfully perform a particular task (Bandura, 1997). Such beliefs inﬂuence people’s decisions, efforts in given endeavors, flexibility in the face of adversity, and level of accomplishment. Self-concept is defined as a person’s perception of themselves, and it can be useful in explaining and predicting how one acts (Bong & Skaalvik, 2003). In academic settings, self-eﬃcacy and self-concept often pertain to students’ conﬁdence in their capacity to perform academic tasks such as preparing for exams and conducting their own research. Students’ perceptions of their capabilities and their confidence in performing necessary tasks to achieve goals in academic settings is an important and essential asset that contributes to the enrichment of students’ knowledge and skills (Bandura, 1997). Educational institutions are increasingly recognizing the role of science self-efficacy (SSE) and academic self-concept (ASC) in academic motivation and learning (Artino, 2012) and their importance for college student success (Meral, Colak, & Zereyak, 2012). This study was conducted to examine SSE and ASC and identify their associated factors among freshmen at a historically Black university.

Methods. The 2018 Freshman Survey developed by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) was administered to incoming first-year students at the beginning of the Fall semester at Morgan State University, Maryland, USA. Additional information was retrieved from the institutional database at the end of Fall 2020 semester. We examined associations of SSE and ASC scores with background information (gender, race/ethnicity, first generation status, financial concern, degree aspiration, academic major), scores on other main CIRP constructs (Pluralistic Orientation, Habits of Mind, Social Self-Concept, Science Identity, Social Agency, and Likelihood of College Involvement), and academic outcome metrics (persistence, cumulative GPA, and cumulative course completion rate) up to Fall 2020.

Results. Of the 472 students included in the study, 327 (69.3%) were female and 417 (88.3%) were African American. Mean SSE and ASC percentage scores were 68.6% and 73.5%, respectively. Multiple regressions analyses with background variables showed that a higher SSE score was associated with male gender, having no financial concern, and certain majors (Nursing and Biology). A higher ASC score was associated with having no financial concern and aspiring to obtain a graduate degree, and it was significantly lower in Psychology compared to all other majors. Across majors, the inter-gender difference was greatest in Computer Science where females had lower and males had higher SSE and ASC scores. SSE and ASC significantly correlated with each other and all the other CIRP constructs examined in this study. SSE showed the strongest correlation with Habits of Mind (r=0.476) and the weakest correlation with Likelihood of College Involvement (r=0.123). ASC showed the strongest and weakest correlations with Social Self-Concept (r=0.591) and Science Identity (r=0.096), respectively. Students with higher SSE and ASC scores had higher GPA at the end of their first semester (Fall 2018); the association was statistically significant for ASC. In the long-term, students with higher SSE and ASC scores were more likely to persist to their 2nd and 3rd years, although the associations were statistically significant for SSE only. Both SSE and ASC showed inverse associations with 3rd year academic outcomes, and higher scores were associated with lower cumulative GPA and course completion rates and vice versa; only the association between SSE and Fall 2020 cumulate GPA was statistically significant.

Conclusion. In this detailed analysis of data from freshman in a historically Black university, differences in the levels of students’ SSE and ASC were found to be strongly related to their gender, financial status, choice of major, as well as their scores in other CIRP constructs examined in this study. Students who persisted to their 2nd and 3rd years of study had significantly higher baseline SSE and ASC scores, but their GPA and course completion rates seemed to have an inverse relationship. Further longitudinal studies can help understand how SSE, ASC, and other CIRP constructs can be used as predictors of academic success and in case-control studies. Overall, results identified certain areas that should be of interest to other researchers who aim to inform educational policies and interventions to overcome barriers towards academic and career success. 

Acknowledgements. Research reported in this publication was supported by ASCEND Center for Biomedical Research at Morgan State University and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number UL1GM118973. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References
Artino, A. R. (2012). Academic self-efficacy: From educational theory to instructional practice. Perspectives on Medical Education, 1(2), 76–85.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Macmillan.
Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. (2003). Academic Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy: How Different Are They Really? Educational Psychology Review, 15, 1–40.
Meral, M., Colak, E., & Zereyak, E. (2012). The Relationship between Self-Efficacy and Academic Performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 1143–1146.

Science Self-Efficacy and Academic Self-Concept Among Freshmen at a Historically Black University

The COVID pandemic has had devastating personal and career impacts on millions of people in all walks of life, including established scientists [1,2]. However, much less is known about how recent biomedical PhD graduates are navigating the pandemic. We have been interviewing a group of PhDs students for over 10 years, uniquely positioning us to investigate how recent PhD graduates are navigating the pandemic. Recruited a decade ago, participants were less subject to potential selection bias that can occur in new studies. The study duration also allowed for rapport to grow between participants and interviewers. Our data reveal how young scientists responded to pandemic-related challenges. But they often seized new opportunities and reflected carefully on their roles in science, future careers, and life choices.

Our findings, drawn from annual interviews with 58 individuals, fit into two sections. First, we report on themes: work and productivity; mentors and networks; job transitions; and life outside work. Our data illustrate a range of experiences and highlight sources of opportunity and challenge. We explore questions such as: Given the disruption and restructuring of lab time, what led many to conclude as a new postdoc did, “it was a surprisingly productive time”? How did mentoring and networking change when face-to-face interactions went virtual? For whom did career decisions become highly influenced by personal circumstances, such as a postdoc whose work-at-home time led to reconsidering his career and family roles? 

Second, we focus on academic careers for insights into how aspiring and new faculty navigated the pandemic, including: how trainees managed increasing uncertainty and job searches; and how new faculty navigated campus shutdowns. Some decided to shift away from academia; while for most, short-term doubts about academia were tempered with long-term optimism, as one postdoc said, “it can only get better.” 

Overall, we found that young scientists were able to utilize their skills and resources during a time that disrupted work and personal lives. Many shared responses similar to one graduate, “[The pandemic] is part of everyone’s life . . . [I] feel fortunate that it’s allowed me to move forward.” We found increased space for reflection on work, life, and values was a major factor that facilitated participants to “move forward” amidst challenges. We argue that PhD and postdoctoral trainees could benefit from more built-in time and space for reflection.

References 
Korbel, J. O., & Stegle, O. (2020, May 11). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on life scientists. Genome Biology. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02031-1

Myers, K. R., Tham, W. Y., Yin, Y., Cohodes, N., Thursby, J. G., Thursby, M. C., Schiffer, P., Walsh, J. T., Lakhani, K. R., & Wang, D. (2020, July 15). Unequal effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientists. Nature Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0921-y


How Recent PhD Graduates Navigated the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Balance of Challenges and Opportunities

Introduction. Community colleges serve a large proportion of underrepresented minority, first-generation and low-income students and so are ideally positioned to identify potential STEM students (Ma and Baum, 2016). Data also indicates that community college students, even academically talented STEM students, may be underprepared for college success due to limited financial resources, first-generation college student status, or lack of knowledge about STEM-related options in academia and work. In the COVID-19 global pandemic context, challenges are greater, with students reporting delayed graduation (13%), lost jobs, internships or job offers (40%), and expecting to earn less at age 35 (29%) (Acujeo et. al 2020). In STEM too, a majority of undergraduates whose Spring 2020 STEM courses shifted from in-person to remote instruction due to COVID-19 struggled significantly (Means and Neisler, 2020). Increasing evidence suggests that unified, holistic supportive services attuned to individual student needs while promoting integration provide greater benefits to community college students, especially underrepresented minority, first-generation and low-income students, and results in better outcomes as measured by persistence (overall and in STEM) and transfer (Cooper et al., 2014; Kolenvic et al., 2103; Shadduck, 2017). 

This study examines 2 years of data collected on the STEM Scholars program at Oakton Community College during academic years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, which offered novel programming to serve this underrepresented segment of Oakton students, to examine the critical role that unified holistic support services can play in low income, academically talented underrepresented minority and female STEM students' persistence to degree and in STEM in the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods. We analyzed quantitative data collected from 19 STEM Scholar enrollments and data from Oakton's Office of Research and Planning establishing a control group, consisting of 1,144 full-time and part-time students that first enrolled for fall 2019 and fall 2020 who have taken certain STEM-related courses while scoring at least 300 on math placement exams. We also used qualitative data software analysis tool Atlas.ti to code and analyze qualitative data including participant surveys from 3 different time points for each of 2 cohorts, yearly 1-on-1 interviews with Scholars, a survey and focus group with Scholar mentors, STEM Scholars program records and interviews with STEM Scholars Leaders.

Results. In the COVID-19 context, financial support and unified, holistic support services played an essential role in helping STEM Scholars persist. In particular, among Hispanic/Latinx STEM Scholars, persistence rates were 10% greater from fall 2019 to spring 2020 compared to the control group. Persistence rates for the same group of Hispanic/Latinx STEM Scholars increased to 20% when considering fall 2019 to fall 2020 persistence as compared to Oakton Hispanic/Latinx STEM students not a part of the STEM Scholars Program. Among female participants in the STEM Scholars Program, we find that while their fall 2019 to spring 2020 persistence rates increased by 10% compared to the control group, this trend did not apply to fall 2019 to fall 2020 as their persistence rates were similar to their Oakton STEM counterparts (persistence rates of 60% and 61, respectively). 100% of cohort 2 Scholars persisted fall 2020 to spring 2021. 

Conclusions and Discussion. Financial support and unified, holistic supportive services did not address every challenge STEM Scholars faced, but helped identify problems before they became roadblocks to persistence. Such resource intensive support is not easily scalable, however we suggest mechanisms and institutional changes to more fully support future cohorts of STEM students. 

Acknowledgments. Research was supported by an S-STEM grant provided by The National Science Foundation and Oakton Community College.

Persisting Despite COVID-19 Disruptions: Persistence of Low income, Academically Talented Latinx and Female STEM Community College Students Receiving Financial Support and Unified, Holistic, Supportive Services

A primary motivation for this study was to compare student perceptions and performance within a virtual learning environment to the traditional in-person learning experience at Xavier. In this article, we present quantitative and qualitative analyses of the General Chemistry II course offered during the five-week summer sessions. Furthermore, we compare student performance on exams during the COVID-19 remote learning experience with exam performance over a 3-year period of conventional in-person instruction. In this article, we outline student grades, survey feedback, and learning outcomes. This study was performed to assist us in improving and enriching the course contents and its delivery, as we cope with the transition to a virtual learning environment imposed by the COVID-19 Pandemic

Students Grade Evaluation, Survey Feedback, and Lessons Learned During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Study of Virtual vs. In-Person Offering of Freshman-Level General Chemistry II Course in Summer at Xavier University of Louisiana as a symposium

In this presentation, the symposium chair introduces the focus of the symposium, which is on factors related to the success of students transitioning to four year institutions, either directly from high school or through transfer from community college. She briefly describes the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation as one of several programs designed to facilitate underrepresented students' postsecondary educational success in STEM fields, and ends by introducing the two speakers, Dr. Peter Riley Bahr and Dr. Kolby Gadd.

Predictors of student transitional success in a STEM pipeline program: Lessons learned from one LSAMP

Objective: Community colleges have considerable potential to grow the number of individuals who complete STEM baccalaureate degrees and to improve the equal distribution of educational opportunity in STEM. However, efforts to tap this potential have been hampered by nagging questions about whether community colleges prepare students adequately for advanced STEM courses at universities. In this study, we draw on data from four universities in Michigan to investigate differences in the course and degree outcomes of students who completed prerequisite STEM courses in community colleges versus students who completed prerequisites at the university. Methods: We use logistic and linear regression to control for several potentially confounding variables, including academic achievement as measured by high school grade point average. Results: In three of the universities, we found no consistent evidence of weaker outcomes among students who completed STEM prerequisites at community colleges or among transfer students generally. In the fourth university, students taking STEM prerequisites in a community college had weaker course outcomes than did non-transfer students. Intersecting qualitative evidence points to differences in levels of support for transfer students as a likely explanation for the differences in students’ outcomes, rather than inadequate rigor of community college STEM coursework. Conclusion: Our findings generally align with prior evidence of minor or inconsistent differences in outcomes for students who previously attended a community college, but also point to the probable role of institutional factors at universities in influencing the chances of success among students who utilize community college to complete STEM coursework.

Transfer Pathways to STEM Degrees: Do community colleges prepare students for success in university stem courses?

Interest plays a major role in STEM motivation. Our research is based in introductory biology classes for pre-health majors, where students start out with high levels of interest. The course is challenging, however, and we test interventions (based in expectancy-value theory [Eccles & Wigfield, 2002]) to help underrepresented students perform better. Both competence beliefs and values are critically important, but we intervene on value, and test competence beliefs as moderators. Different outcomes reflect different motivational processes, and we use different measures to study students' performance in gateway science classes and persistence in STEM. We know that these value-focused interventions can promote students' performance and engagement in the targeted biology classes (Harackiewicz et al., 2016). We have now begun to analyze long-term follow-up data from biology students in order to shed light on intervention processes and inform the design of future interventions (Harackiewicz & Priniski, 2018).

First, we conducted a two-year follow-up of a utility-value intervention (UVI) with 1039 students, examining subsequent course-taking and whether students had chosen biomedical majors. The original study (Harackiewicz et al., 2016) had found that the UVI improved course grades for all students, as well as for underrepresented students, by promoting engagement. In the follow-up (Hecht et al., 2019), students who were more confident that they could succeed in the course were more likely to persist in biomedical fields if they had received the UVI (a classic expectancy-value effect), and this effect was mediated by higher levels of personal relevance in students' writing assignments (a linguistic measure). We also found that the UVI increased persistence through the original effects on course grades, for all students, and for underrepresented students in particular. In other words, engagement was more relevant for performance (with clear implications for persistence in the biomedical pipeline), but a focus on personal relevance (for confident students) was most relevant for academic choices over time. These data help shed light on the different motivational processes that underly the efficacy of the UVI for different groups of students.

Second, we conducted two large-scale interview studies (Rosenzweig et al., 2021, Rosenzweig et al., in press), to examine students' long-term interests in biomedical fields throughout college and how that translated into different career trajectories. We identified 1193 students from the introductory biology courses who intended to pursue biomedical fields of study early in college, and then interviewed them at the time of college graduation about their future plans (a 2-3 year follow-up). If students had changed their career plans since beginning college, we examined their explanations for changing their plans, specifically looking at (1) whether students who left biomedical fields referenced competence beliefs or value and (2) whether they felt pushed out or became disenchanted with their original path, or attracted to another path (e.g., pulled away by interest in another field). As shown below (Figure 1), there were 196 students who left biomedical fields of study during college, 76 who remained in biomedical fields of study but did not intend to pursue biomedical career paths post-graduation, and 921 who remained in biomedical fields and planned to pursue biomedical career paths. However, among the 921 who remained in biomedical fields, 422 (46%) still changed their career plans. We therefore examined two kinds of change: leaving biomedical fields altogether (e.g., changing to pre-law), or changing within the pipeline (e.g., changing from pre-med to biology PhD). With respect to leaving the pipeline we found results consistent with previous research: underrepresented ethnic minority students (African American, Latinx, or Native American students in this sample) were more likely to leave the biomedical pipeline. A different pattern emerged for change within the pipeline: There were no differences as a function of race/ethnicity, but women were more likely to change plans than men.

We coded students interviews and found that among students who left biomedical fields of study altogether, 62.5% reported changing primarily due to disenchantment, referencing both low interest and low perceived competence in biomedical fields. However, 25.2% of students who left primarily changed plans because felt pulled towards alternative fields of study, with almost all of them referencing a growing interest in other fields. Among those who remained in biomedical fields but changed plans, 34.8% reported disenchantment with their original plan, whereas 49.5% reported attraction, with most students referencing changing plans due to value and interest. Results highlight the importance of value and interest in shaping students' educational decision-making, underscoring the critical role of value-focused interventions in introductory biology courses. They also point to an important future direction for such interventions, focusing on the relative value of one career path or field of study compared to one another, as opposed to focusing only on value for one particular field.

Although it is not always easy to collect long-term follow up data from interventions, this data provides critical insights that can inform both theoretical understandings of motivation and more specific understandings of when and how to intervene to support students' motivation in pursuing biomedical careers. The follow-up of the utility value intervention explores the different processes by which reflecting on value can shape diverse students' learning outcomes and persistence in the field; the long-term interview data explores how students reflect on their own motivation in a way that can drive future intervention design.

Using Long-term Follow-up Data to Understand and Refine Utility-Value Interventions in the Biomedical Sciences

Undergraduate research and international experiences are often described as high-impact educational practices beneficial for undergraduate student success and for supporting the development of science identity and intercultural competencies. While several studies have investigated the impact of undergraduate research on students from minoritized groups, fewer studies have focused on their engagement in global experiences, and fewer still have explored their engagement in international research experiences. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Science Identity, Social Cognitive Career Theory, and the Intercultural Competence Model, this present study explores the benefits of participating in an international research experience for minority undergraduate scientists. Using a qualitative case study methodology, we examined the evolution of students' science identity, research competencies, and intercultural competence after engaging in a three-month international research opportunity in France and Belgium. We found that after participating in international research, minority undergraduate scientists had: (1) Increased confidence in their science identity and abilities; (2) Gained and strengthened skills necessary to be a successful researcher, (3) Recognized the influence of international exposure on their growth personally and professionally, (4) Expressed how monumental this research opportunity is for all minority students to experience. Our findings suggest substantial benefits from an international research experience on the development of minority undergraduate scientists.

The Role of International Research Experiences in the Development of Minority Undergraduate Scientists

Hostos Community College (HCC) of The City University of New York (CUNY) recently created and was awarded the NSF S-STEM titled “Hostos Engineering Academic Talent” (HEAT) Scholarship Program. The HEAT Program trains a subset of student as part of the HCC Joint Dual Engineering Degree Program with The City College of New York’s Grove School of Engineering (CCNY’s GSoE) of CUNY. The HEAT Program offers low-income academically talented scholars financial support, and exposure to a variety of high-impact extracurricular activities that include: faculty and peer mentoring model; undergraduate research opportunities; STEM-related field trips; participation at professional STEM conferences; career orientation workshops; and other professional development opportunities. These activities are designed to increase efficacy, belonging and science identity, and are considered complementary to financial aid assistance. Financial aid by itself is insufficient for academic success for low-income academically talented college students.1,2 Here we report partial data as to the impact of the HEAT model on the first cohort of ten HEAT Scholars and five Associates who had benefitted from the program with the exception of direct financial support, as well as faculty and peer mentoring. To this end, we have administered a series of surveys3,4 targeting their perceived utility, program satisfaction, and assessment of non-cognitive and cognitive outcomes. Measures include academic self-efficacy for engineering courses, emotional engagement, identity as an engineer, expectancy for an engineering career, and cognitive engagement. These outcomes were assessed in HEAT Scholars, Associate HEAT Cohort and a control population of non-participating students taken from the HCC engineering general population. 

At the time the surveys were administered, six out of the ten scholars were conducting research. However, by the end of their first year of the program all were engaged in research. In addition, the scholars reported high levels of cognitive engagement, thinking about different ways to solve problems, and trying to connect current learning to previous knowledge. Most scholars participated in field trips to museums and engineering laboratories and took part in the 9th Hostos STEM Olympiad. As of today, eight out of the ten scholars have obtained their A.S. in Engineering from HCC; five have transferred to CCNY’s GSoE, and two to Cornell University. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, one HEAT Scholar had to move out of New York City, but intends to continue pursuing a B.E. degree and thus, 90% of the scholars remain in engineering and 80% remain in the program. The United States is in need of an increased and diverse STEM workforce.5 HCC via its Joint Dual Engineering Degree Program with The City College of New York’s Grove School of Engineering of CUNY is contributing towards this endeavor.

Results of our study on non-cognitive impacts show that HEAT scholars have higher academic self-efficacy for engineering courses, feeling confident in the ability to learn the material, and to meet the challenge of performing well in engineering courses compared to the engineering population. HEAT Scholars also reported high levels of emotional engagement looking forward to engineering classes, enjoying learning new things about engineering, wanting to understand what is taught, and feeling good when in engineering classes. In addition, the Scholars reported high levels of cognitive engagement through the work in their engineering. Associate scholars scored significantly lower in all these measures comparable to that seen in the non-participating control. We consider this work exploratory as we look to confirm with a larger cohort size. This preliminary analysis of the HEAT program indicates its positive impact on the development of Scholars’ non-cognitive and cognitive outcomes due to their participation in the program’s activities. The scholars feel supported both morally and financially and appreciate that faculty and peer mentors are available at all times to encourage and advise.

Acknowledgments - We are grateful to the National Science Foundation (NSF S-STEM Award DUE-1833767), the HCC Office of Academic Affairs, our Hostos STEM students, our HEAT Program Assistant Luis Tejeda Ortiz for his significance contribution to HEAT, and the HCC and CCNY’s GSoE Financial Aid Offices, and the CUNY Research Foundation.

References
1. Smith, J. M., & Lucena, J. C. (2016). Invisible innovators: how low-income, first-generation students use their funds of knowledge to belong in engineering. Engineering Studies, 8, 1-26.
2. Patel, R. and Rudd, T. (2012). Can scholarships alone help students succeed? Lessons from two New York City Community Colleges. The Performance-Based Scholarship Demonstration. MDRC.
3. Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(6), 727-742.
4. Paglis, L. L., Green, S. G. and Bauer, T. N. (2006). Does adviser mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451-476.

Downloads

Next from 13th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2021

Reflections on CSULB BUILD Program Response to COVID-19 and Racial Injustice: A Descriptive Case Study

Similar lecture

Factors that affect postdoctoral trainee persistence in academia

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from 13th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2021

Reflections on CSULB BUILD Program Response to COVID-19 and Racial Injustice: A Descriptive Case Study

Similar lecture

Factors that affect postdoctoral trainee persistence in academia

Downloads