United States

Background: The ability to communicate and disseminate research findings via publications and presentations is widely acknowledged to be critical to trainees’ career success in STEM disciplines1,2. What has been little appreciated until recently, however, is the social, psychological, and cognitive roles that scientific communication skill development and mentoring play in building intention to persist in research careers. Our scientific communication (SciComm) model, adapted from social cognitive career theory, showed that self-efficacy and outcome expectations in SciComm, along with scientist identity, influence trainees’ research career intentions. Active mentoring of SciComm skills influences trainees’ SciComm productivity (writing, presenting, and speaking), resulting in increased career intentions through trainee self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and science identity3. Based on these findings, we developed mentor-training workshops, “Scientific Communication Advances Research Excellence (SCOARE),” as an intervention to provide faculty mentors with strategies and tools for SciComm mentoring. 
Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to determine whether the SCOARE workshops of the first year were effective in reducing mentors’ self-barriers to mentoring SciComm and in increasing mentors’ self-efficacy in SciComm and research and their actual SciComm skills. In addition, we examined whether these improvements were the same according to race/ethnicity and gender.
Methods: Half-day SCOARE workshops, held in 2018-19 and funded by an NIGMS “Innovative Programs to Enhance Research Training” (IPERT) grant, were delivered at 4 sites including Georgia State University in Atlanta, the Gulf Coast Consortia in Houston, the University of Colorado Boulder, and the Big Ten in Chicago. In the workshop, mentors learned why and how to help their doctoral or postdoctoral trainees improve their SciComm skills. Moreover, the workshop helped mentors themselves reduce their own barriers and improve their self-efficacy to mentor their trainees by obtaining more and better strategies for SciComm mentoring skills. Mentors who were willing to participate in our research project completed a survey 2 weeks before the workshop and 6 months after the workshop. A series of repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine changes in self-efficacy, in self-barriers, and in mentoring practices before and after the workshop. Gender, race (white vs. non-White), and use of strategies were compared. Of the 60 mentors who registered for the study participation, 46 attended the workshop and completed both surveys. Mentor participants’ responses were collected from four sites (Atlanta, Colorado, Chicago, and Houston) in 2018 and 2019. Among the mentors who attended the workshop, 65% were female, and 67% had been mentoring for more than 7 years; 61% were White. About half of the participants were currently working in basic science.
Results: Repeated-measure ANOVA results revealed that after the workshop, in general, mentors’ self-efficacy and mentoring practices in SciComm had increased, and their own barriers to mentoring SciComm had decreased. These changes were not significantly different by gender or race/ethnicity. Furthermore, mentors who used “adapted new” strategies based on what they learned in the workshop reported increased self-efficacy, improved mentoring practices and satisfaction with their mentoring practices, and a decrease in their own barriers, compared with mentors who continued to use the same strategies.
Conclusions: Preliminary evidence indicates that the SCOARE workshop is helping mentors increase their confidence in mentoring their trainees in SciComm skills and stimulating their engagement in mentoring trainees’ SciComm tasks. Further studies will examine the effects of the workshop on subsequent trainee’ self-efficacy, scientist identity, and career intention. The SCOARE workshop will continue over 5 years at 4 sites and will collect responses from both mentors and their corresponding trainees. 


Speaker bio:Hwa Young Lee, Ph.D., is a program manager of the Cancer Prevention Research Training Program (CPRTP) at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. She is trained as an educational psychologist with deep expertise in quantitative methods (structural equation modeling, multilevel modeling, and latent class models) and program evaluation. Her research interests include analysis of factors that influence trainees’ career intentions and promoting under-represented students in academia. In addition, as an insider-researcher, she is interested in helping non-native English-speaking trainees (L2) persist in their careers in academia, as well as helping mentors mentor their L2 trainees. Her favorite hobbies include watching movies, listening to rock music, traveling, eating diverse food, and having a good time with family and close friends.

12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

Effectiveness of the SCOARE workshop designed to improve mentoring skills in scientific communication

mentoring practices

mentor-training workshop

self-efficacy

UI is excited to announce the rescheduled 12th Annual Conference on Understanding Interventions December 10 & 12, 2020! As you may recall, the original conference scheduled back in March 2020 had to be cancelled due the worsening global conditions, and further declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Stay tuned for details regarding the virtual conference.

On December 10, 2020 from 12:00-5:00pm (EST), and December 12, 2020 from 11:00am-5:00pm (EST), UI will host the Virtual 12th Annual Understanding Interventions Conference powered by Underline. 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.

12th Annual Understanding Interventions Conference continues to facilitate the dialogue among education, behavioral, and social science researchers, evaluators, and faculty in STEM fields who participate in intervention programs. Workshops, sessions, and posters 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.

technical paper

Rationale
Our mission as a primarily undergraduate institution is to “provide our students with the world's best undergraduate science, engineering, and mathematics education in an environment of individual attention and support.” To provide further support for our research students and their faculty mentors, we developed a summer Undergraduate Research Community (URC) that provided supplemental workshops to the traditional research experience. These workshops, taught by faculty and staff experts, included topics around general research skills, scientific communication skills, and impostor syndrome. The workshops included lunch in many cases and were designed to promote both social interaction and skill development.
It is generally known from the assessment literature that high-impact practices like undergraduate research experiences can benefit student success (Johnson & Stage, 2018; Kuh, O’Donnell, & Schneider, 2017), and that frequency, intensity, and quality of the experience matter (Hernandez, Woodcock, Estrada, & Schultz, 2018). Furthermore, historically underrepresented students are less likely to participate in undergraduate research and more likely to benefit than majority groups (Kuh, 2008). We wanted to understand the likelihood of participation in the URC program, as well as the impacts of the program on student success indicators to identify areas to broaden participation and increase retention of our underrepresented students.

Design
We used data from 2016-2019 to conduct a quasi-experimental comparison study, comparing students who participated in the URC program with a matched group who did not participate. The overall sample included summer URC participants (n = 43 in 2017, n = 45 in 2018, and n = 35 in 2019, total n = 123 with 6 students who participated during more than one summer) and a control group of all active undergraduate students from Fall 2016-Fall 2019 (n = 1941 unique students) at a Midwestern, undergraduate-focused STEM institution. 
Variables used to model the propensity to participate in the program included sex, race/ethnicity, research program, transfer status, major, year in program, cumulative year-end GPA prior to respective summer term, and first term math grade. The model is adapted from variables established by Hernandez et al. (2018) and includes additional variables of interest (e.g., first term math grade, which is a known predictor of retention at our institution). 
Inverse propensity score weighting was used to control for observed confounding. Inverse weighting was preferred to propensity score matching (Hernandez et al., 2018; Lin, Ninon, & Byrd, 2019) in order to reduce fuzzy matching and retain all treatment samples within the prediction model (Austin, 2011; Rosenbaum & Rubin, 1983; Rubin & Thomas, 1996). We removed students from the model who had a nearly 0% or 100% chance of participating in the URC to reduce weighting bias. 
Student success outcomes included four dichotomous variables: 1) graduation rate less than 6 years, 2) final cumulative GPA greater than 2.0, 3) plans to pursue graduate school or a research position, and 4) plans to join the STEM workforce.

Results/Program Outcomes 
We will share results concerning the likelihood of participation in the URC, as well as how URC participation impacts student success outcomes like graduation rate, final GPA, and placement after graduation. 

Limitations
Other variables of interest include prior research experience, number of URC workshops attended, and prior exposure to course-based research experiences. In the absence of reliable data for these variables, we recommend more systematic data collection to improve the predictive ability of our proposed model. 

References
Austin, P. C. (2011). An Introduction to Propensity Score Methods for Reducing the Effects of Confounding in Observational Studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.568786

Hernandez, P. R., Woodcock, A., Estrada, M., & Schultz, P. W. (2018). 
Undergraduate Research Experiences Broaden Diversity in the Scientific Workforce. BioScience, 68(3), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix163

Johnson, S. R., & Stage, F. K. (2018). Academic Engagement and Student Success: Do High-Impact Practices Mean Higher Graduation Rates? The Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 753–781. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1441107

Kuh, G. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Retrieved from Association of American Colleges & Universities website: https://secure.aacu.org/imis/ItemDetail?iProductCode=E-HIGHIMP&Category=

Kuh, G., O’Donnell, K., & Schneider, C. G. (2017). HIPs at Ten. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(5), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2017.1366805

Lin, W., Ninon, S., & Byrd, A. (2019, October). Using Propensity Score Matching to Assess Student Success. Conference presentation presented at the 2019 Assessment Institute, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from https://assessmentinstitute.iupui.edu/overview/institute-files/2019-institute/handouts-2019.html

Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41

Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (1996). Matching Using Estimated Propensity Scores: Relating Theory to Practice. Biometrics, 52(1), 249. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533160


Speaker bio:Dr. Jordan Trachtenberg is the Director of Assessment in the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Assessment at Rose-Hulman.

Predictors of Participation and Outcomes for a Summer Undergraduate Research Community (URC)

Building Community and Sense of Belonging Through Faculty-Led Initiatives: The Seed Grants Program at Duke

Sherilynn Black, Jennifer Goins, and Abbas Benmamoun
Duke University

Feelings of inclusion and belonging are key factors in the ability of individuals to persist in academic spaces (Elliott and Healy, 2001). A number of studies indicate that when these feelings are present, individuals demonstrate improved self-efficacy, academic identity and increased personal and professional agency. These feelings also correlate strongly with a positive and affirming institutional climate (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, 2018) and are important considerations when working to recruit, support, and retain individuals in academia. These issues can be felt more acutely in underrepresented groups, and can play a significant role in their retention in academia (Anderson-Rowland et al, 1999). 

A number of nationally-known programs are designed to heighten inclusion and belonging among students and are shown to be successful mechanisms to promote their persistence towards academic goals. However, such issues are not often a focal point in the professional faculty experience. Many faculty are often encouraged to focus exclusively on items directly correlated with their professional advancement, such as their academic scholarship, teaching, promotion and tenure, grant writing, and mentoring and service. However, faculty experience issues such as job dissatisfaction and isolation just as students do, and data shows that when some faculty disengage from their immediate academic environment or choose to depart, they often cite climate issues as a central reason for their departure (August and Waltman, 2004). Additionally, many institutions focus their efforts and resources on recruiting underrepresented faculty but do not devote nearly as much attention to fostering a sense of inclusion and belonging in all of the spaces that underrepresented faculty must navigate (departments, schools, centers, institutes, etc.) When considering this point in the context of critically low numbers of underrepresented faculty across academic ranks, it is not surprising that many underrepresented faculty who find challenges in academia circle back to these same feelings and issues related to isolation and a lack of inclusion as defining aspects of their professional experiences (Thompson, 2008). 

To address this issue, the Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement (OVPFA) at Duke University sought to create opportunities for faculty to increase feelings of engagement in the campus community beyond their scholarship and professional advancement. One such opportunity is the OVPFA Seed Grant Initiative. OVPFA Seed Grants are designed to provide a financial head start for novel faculty-led initiatives that aim to foster a sense of community and promote a welcoming and respectful climate. For the initial calls, faculty were asked to pilot new faculty development ideas or expand currently existing initiatives to include a focus on building networks among faculty, or between faculty and other groups in the Duke community. Over 30 proposals were submitted and 9 were selected. One such program, the Writing, Research and Productivity Group (WRAP), was designed to specifically address issues of belonging and isolation in underrepresented faculty. WRAP utilizes cohort models and functions as an affinity group to connect early-career underrepresented faculty across campus as they work to advance their scholarship and make personal connections within an academic setting. The group engages in publication and grant preparation, peer mentoring, and improves personal support and socialization opportunities for the faculty participants. WRAP also includes write-on-site meetings, writing retreats, and opportunities for cross-engagement and mentoring between junior and senior underrepresented faculty in different disciplines. 

In the 2018-19 academic year 17 total faculty and senior postdocs participated in WRAP, representing 12 disciplines/units across campus. Outcomes indicate high productivity metrics through the submission of papers, grants and conference proposals. Qualitative data indicates that the faculty involved feel more engaged in the campus community and feel closer personal connections to their peers after participating in the group. WRAP has also assisted with the recruitment and retention for underrepresented faculty who seek peer-peer engagement. Some participants indicated that WRAP assisted in the pursuit of their professional leadership goals. Importantly, 75% of the postdoctoral scholars engaged in the WRAP community successfully matriculated into tenure-track faculty positions and cited WRAP as an important factor in their persistence and knowledge of how to navigate the job market (e.g. job talks, campus visits and negotiation process). Together, the data indicate that faculty find opportunities for cohort formation and connection as valuable experiences that increase their feelings of inclusion and belonging, and that these feelings can be linked to their own persistence, scholarship productivity, and engagement with professional networks. Initiatives like OVPFA Seed Grants that provide faculty with the opportunity to both identify the issues that exist in their academic units and propose the solutions to address them can empower faculty, increase their feelings of inclusion, and ultimately lead to improvements in the overall campus climate.

References
Anderson-Rowland, M., Blaisdell, S.L., Fletcher, S.L., Fussell, P.A., McCartney, M.A., Reyes, M.A. and White, M.A., 1999. A collaborative effort to recruit and retain underrepresented engineering students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 5(4).

August, L. and Waltman, J., 2004. Culture, climate, and contribution: Career satisfaction among female faculty. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), pp.177-192.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2018

Kevin M. Elliott & Margaret A. Healy (2001) Key Factors Influencing Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and Retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10:4, 1-11, DOI: 10.1300/J050v10n04_01

Thompson, C. Q. (2008). Recruitment, retention, and mentoring faculty of color: The chronicle continues. New Directions for Higher Education, 2008 (143), 47–54. doi:10.1002/he.312



Speaker bio:Abbas Benmamoun is the Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement and Professor of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies and Linguistics. In his role at Duke as Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement, he provides leadership, guidance, and oversight of University-wide strategies and programs to support faculty excellence. The office oversees faculty and leadership development programs and partners with Duke schools, departments, and other academic programs to advance faculty careers and enhance faculty success at Duke.
Benmamoun earned his BA from the Mohammed V University in Rabat, Morocco, master’s degree from University College London, and PhD from the University of Southern California. He served on the faculty and administration of the University of Illinois and the faculty of the University of Wisconsin and the University of London’s School of Oriental & African Studies. Benmamoun’s research focuses on the comparative syntax and morphology of natural language and heritage languages, particularly on issues of language maintenance and loss within immigrant communities. His publications include The Feature Structure of Functional Categories: A Comparative Study of Arabic Dialects (Oxford University Press), Arabic Syntax (Cambridge University Press), and The Routledge Handbook of Arabic Linguistics (Routledge).


Building Community and Sense of Belonging Through Faculty-Led Initiatives: The Seed Grant Program at Duke University

Effective mentorship plays a critical role in the long-term persistence and academic success of trainees (hereafter referred to as ‘mentees’) in research career pathways, making a significant impact on mentees’ research productivity, academic and research self-efficacy, and career satisfaction (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019). However, many faculty advisors (hereafter referred to as ‘mentors’) may be unaware of or unprepared to address mentor-mentee dynamics that can arise in research advising relationships, especially those that go beyond traditional scientific skill development. Addressing mentorship dynamics can be all the more challenging for mentors working with mentees from underrepresented backgrounds, many of whom will have distinct experiences from their mentors due to the ways in which their race, ethnicity and other aspects of identity can influence interactions within the research and training environment (Butz et al, 2019). Evidence suggests that mentorship that explicitly addresses cultural diversity as well as psychosocial needs of trainees is positively correlated with increases in trainees’ science identity, commitment to a research career, and satisfaction with a research career, particularly those from racial/ethnic groups underrepresented in the sciences (Fresquez & Haeger, 2016). Thus, a critical need in advancing scientific workforce diversity is to increase the capacity of research mentors to effectively navigate cultural diversity matters that often arise in their mentoring relationships.

To address this need in developing a diverse scientific workforce, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) is supporting programmatic interventions that focus on addressing institutional, relational and cultural factors and not on trying to “fix” trainees. One program is the Gilliam Fellowship Program
(https://www.hhmi.org/sites/default/files/g20_announcement_091219.pdf). Gilliam Fellows (mentees) are highly competitive pre-doctoral trainees in the biomedical sciences from historically excluded populations who engage in multiple years of research training and professional development activities, guided by faculty research advisors. This program includes an innovative intervention to train cohorts of the research advisors (i.e., mentors) in evidence-based mentorship competencies and cultural diversity awareness. Acceptance of the Gilliam fellowship requires that both fellows (mentees) and their research advisors (mentors) participate in professional development to maximize their working together in support of mentees’ success.

In keeping with HHMI’s focus on not trying to “fix” students, the purpose of this proposal is to report data on outcomes for Gilliam mentors participating in the novel mentorship education and professional development activities. The findings have great potential to inform interventions implemented at both the individual and institutional levels to support the capacity of faculty mentors to optimize their mentorship practices with all students.

Since 2016, faculty mentors in the HHMI Gilliam Program have participated in mentorship education and professional development activities including: (1) foundational and career-stage specific mentee and mentor training that provides knowledge of specific competencies and characteristics of effective mentor and mentee roles; (2) extended training concentrated on building the cultural responsiveness of mentors to address cultural diversity matters in their research mentoring relationship; and (3) targeted work on mentoring relationship dynamics. We will present mentor cohort data that assessed behavioral and attitudinal outcomes, primarily using quantitative data and augmented by qualitative data derived from open-ended survey responses. Overall, results from data analyses revealed that mentors self-reported statistically significant gains in the areas of cultural awareness and communication, with mentors reporting substantial gains in their confidence to engage in conversations around race and culture with their mentees. Mentors also report an increased motivation to incorporate aspects of what they learned throughout the professional development exercises at their home institutions, with 77% planning to make changes in their

mentoring practices after completing the training. Unique to the Gilliam Program that requires parallel mentorship education of mentors and mentees, we collected paired data between Gilliam mentors and fellows to assess alignment in the dyad about their mentorship experiences. Our results revealed that in general there was alignment between mentors’ and mentees’ perceptions of their interactions on most topics including cultural diversity, though one topic emerged as misaligned in the area of career development topics. These data indicate that faculty development activities related to cultural awareness in mentorship not only hold a critical role in increasing faculty knowledge and efficacy in the areas of mentorship and graduate student training, but also hold high potential to improve the experience of both mentors and mentees and the overall climate in their home institutions. These changes can ultimately improve the culture around diversity and inclusion in the biomedical workforce.

Speaker bio:Sherilynn Black is the Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement, providing leadership in many areas of faculty advancement including support for pre-tenure and mid-career faculty, professional development for non-tenure system faculty, and mentoring. She also leads initiatives to increase diversity among the faculty ranks. Dr. Black is an Assistant Professor of the Practice of Medical Education and engages in social neuroscience research on the effectiveness of interventions designed to promote diversity in academia.

Dr. Black previously served as the founding Director of the Office of Biomedical Graduate Diversity for the Duke University School of Medicine and was also a Principal Investigator of the NIH-funded Duke Biosciences Collaborative for Research Engagement (BioCoRE). Dr. Black holds several national appointments relating to faculty development and advancement with the NIH, HHMI, AAMC, The Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, and the Society for Neuroscience. She has won a number of distinctions for her research and service, including the Samuel Debois Cook Society award and the Deans Award for Inclusive Excellence in Graduate Education. Dr. Black earned her BS in Psychology and Biology with highest honors at UNC-Chapel Hill as a Morehead-Cain Scholar. She earned her PhD in Neurobiology at Duke University and completed additional studies in the School of Education at UNC-Chapel Hill.



Optimizing Mentoring Relationships and Influencing Departmental Climate Through Increasing Cultural Awareness in Mentors 

Symposium Title: Research into Action to Diversify the Biomedical and Behavioral Research Workforce - Overview.

Authors: Shine Chang, Carrie Cameron, Kava Lewis, Hwa Young Lee, Cheryl Anderson

Broadening participation in research careers entails not only attracting and welcoming students to research but also retaining trainees who have embarked on the research career path. To enable this goal, NIH has provided funding to universities across the country to increase student interest in research careers. Such programs are mandated to recruit diverse groups of qualified students and typically provide mentored research experiences to spark career interest and also professional development that assists success in pursuit of such careers. Funded by multiple NIH awards, the Cancer Prevention Research Training Program at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center uses a tailored curriculum of mentored research, bioethics, career exploration, and professional development to encourage and facilitate diverse groups of students to pursue research careers. This symposium aims to describe the influence of our 10-week summer program on trainees’ psychosocial cognitive constructs related to research career intention. The symposium abstracts include:
1) Research into Action to Diversify the Biomedical and Behavioral Research Workforce: Training Programming Impact on Career Intent and Related Social Cognitive Constructs
2) Research into Action to Diversify the Biomedical and Behavioral Research Workforce: Effects of a summer research program designed to address trainees’ IP feelings and improve their growth mindset
3) Research into Action to Diversify the Biomedical and Behavioral Research Workforce: Combating Impostor Phenomenon (IP): A Preliminary Qualitative Evaluation of a Workshop for Diverse Summer Research Students
These findings will be interpreted in light of their implications for possible interventions to help sustain interest in research careers.


Speaker bio:Kava Lewis, B.A., is a Program Manager in the Cancer Prevention Research Training Program (CPRTP) at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. She earned her BA in Communication Studies from the University of Texas of the Permian Basin and received a partial scholarship from Texas Tech University to pursue an MA in Strategic Communication & Innovation. After relocating from St. Louis, Missouri in 2009, she joined MD Anderson CPRTP and began managing the program website, social media, marketing, trainee statistical data, and the postdoctoral and NCI summer fellowship programs. Her professional background includes healthcare, telecommunications, and information technology. She has research and career interests in social media practice, integrated media, crisis communication, and communication within organizations. Recently, she began working with the CPRTP research scientists and collaborators to evaluate growth mindset, imposter phenomenon, and career outcomes of CPRTP fellows. In her spare time, she enjoys acrylic painting, cooking, baking, movies/television, and spending time with family.

Research into Action to Diversity the Biomedical and Behavioral Research Workforce: Overview

Background: Impostor experiences can occur as early as in high school,1 making it a pervasive phenomenon during scientific training. If experiencing IP (particularly by those historically underrepresented in the STEM and bioscience workforce)2,3 impedes progress in research careers,4 designing effective interventions to reduce its impact are warranted. 
Purpose: To examine the effectiveness of a workshop on raising awareness and empowering diverse summer research students to recognize and process impostor-feelings.
Methods: For the summer program, a 90-minute, research-based, interactive workshop addressed IP experiences, bias, and resilience. Data were analyzed from 25 racially/ethnically diverse students (5 African-American, 5 Latinx, 8 Asian, 7 white; 8 undergraduate, 13 graduate, 4 medical) who participated in an orientation workshop and attended a mid-summer panel presentation by senior faculty on failure, rejection, and IP. Using qualitative, open-ended reviews of student surveys, we identified themes about the impact of the workshop activities on coping with IP over the summer experience.
Results: Students strongly endorsed scheduling the workshop, at the beginning of the 10-week program. Formally learning about IP, with a common vocabulary to describe it, increased awareness and appreciation of the issue. They valued sharing personal stories that validated their own IP experiences and relieved anxiety by learning about this common experience; students described “feeling relief.,” Some felt more comfortable with themselves and with others through a sense of bonding over shared experiences. They also felt supported by the training program for recognizing the value of offering the workshop to trainees.
To increase resilience in dealing with IP, one workshop activity had students brainstorm coping strategies together after discussing IP triggers. Students appreciated working on solutions together and they seemed to recognize the long-term/usefulness of the material covered. Many reported using methods learned from the workshop during their summer experiences to deal with IP and reported using positive self-talk, focus their thinking on facts about themselves and the situation, grounding them firmly against potentially persuasive and confidence-eroding impostor-feelings (e.g., “I reminded myself that despite those feelings of doubt, there is little to negate the fact that my name is on that poster.”).
Knowledge and skill gained from the workshop, when reinforced by key supporters at moments of struggle, may enable students’ ability to combat impostor feelings: “Since the workshop, I am better able to identify and acknowledge when I am feeling like an impostor. For example, as I was preparing for my Elevator Speech, I felt a little nervous and my lab member reminded me that I am the expert of this project and I needed to own it. After that discussion, I saw a big improvement in my subsequent rehearsals!” Not all impostor feelings were addressed, but students reported being more able to manage their feelings and persist towards goals and challenging tasks. A small number of students, mostly men, reported not experiencing IP, describing comfort with status as a student who inherently has less knowledge, embracing the experience as an opportunity to learn, not being afraid of not knowing, and not being afraid to ask questions. Some students reported disappointment from suboptimal performance but no impostor feelings.
Conclusion: A brief, theory-based workshop designed to help students recognize, prevent, and combat IP experiences can have positive impact on subsequent experience and successful management of IP during a summer research experience. Future research can improve understanding about IP with longer follow-up and enhanced measurement of IP triggers and experiences, as well as characterization of individuals who do not report experiencing or report lower levels of impostor feelings for further insight for interventions. 


Speaker bio:Shine Chang, Ph.D., is a University of Texas System Distinguished Teaching Professor, Ashbel Smith Professor, and tenured full professor in the Department of Epidemiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. She is also director of a large, federally and state-funded multi-disciplinary research training program in cancer prevention. With more than 20 years of experience as a cancer epidemiologist and cancer prevention scientist, and as a nationally recognized cancer research training program director, she has extensive experience leading training programs, advising college, graduate and health professional students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty. Dedicated to diversifying the academic health workforce, she has published more than 75 original peer-reviewed journal articles and presented numerous seminars and workshops nationally and internationally on topics including cancer prevention education and training, workforce diversity, and academic health leadership. She has held leadership roles in several professional membership societies focused on cancer prevention, education, and cancer research, and received recognition for her work and mentorship, including an NIH Merit award for mentorship, and the 2017 MD Anderson President’s Leadership Award for Advancing Women and Minority Faculty, the institution’s highest honor for efforts to diversify and support faculty. Whenever possible, she enjoys swing dancing with her husband, which drives their three dogs crazy.

Research into Action to Diversify the Biomedical and Behavioral Research Workforce: Combating Impostor Phenomenon (IP): A Preliminary Qualitative Evaluation of a Workshop for Diverse Summer Research Students

Abstract
Rationale
In recent years, the lack of diversity in computing fields in the United States has been the focus of a number of conversations: in academia, and in technology companies. From an academic perspective, student persistence in the major is a critical issue, in particular during the first year. Of those that do persist, research has shown that Computer Science (CS) students are not sufficiently prepared for life after graduation (Lawrence-Fowler et al. 2015). Students lack effective communication, collaborative skills, as well as the technical skills to support large-scale development. From an industry perspective, graduates of Computer Science (CS) programs have gaps in knowledge, experience, and enculturation when interviewing for, or starting, their first full-time job in the software engineering industry (Garousi et al. 2019, Lawrence-Fowler et al. 2015). It is in the interest of both industry and academia to identify those gaps to ensure student persistence in the major, and better prepare undergraduates for technical interviews and careers. Several approaches address these gaps including apprenticeships, co-ops, internships, and project-based courses. This paper describes an alternative approach, the Silicon Valley CS Summer Academy, an immersive summer experience for African American undergraduate rising sophomores. We specifically focused on rising sophomores who did not receive summer internships or admittance into a tech industry pre-internship program. 
Design 
The CS Summer Academy involves several Silicon Valley technology companies and several Historically Black Colleges (HBCUs), organized in a partnership formed through a United Negro College Fund (UNCF) STEM Initiative. The goal of the CS Summer Academy is to increase African American student persistence in Computer Science, and to prepare these students for high-tech careers in Silicon Valley. Participants spend 8 weeks immersed in Silicon Valley focused on: enhancing core technical skills (such as: programming and pre-exposure to Data Structures), interview preparation, and maintaining a growth mindset using a hybrid teaching model that focus on mastery; eliminating the focus on grades. In addition, students participated in weekly visits to local tech companies in Silicon Valley.

Students were taught by faculty from the participating HBCUs using active learning techniques, with the assistance of recent graduates who were entering the workforce at one of the partnering Silicon Valley tech companies. The recent graduates served as teaching assistants and/or near peer mentors. Students worked daily on problem sets followed up with recitation from teaching assistants, as well as, weekly mock interviews with local software engineers. Students receive constant feedback on their performance from faculty, local practitioners, and student mentors in an effort to change: 1) students’ mindset from a fixed mindset to a growth mindset, 2) students’ attitudes about persisting in the major, and 3) students’ sense of belonging in Silicon Valley. In order to connect theory to practice, students also participated in a capstone experience that incorporated concepts from innovation and entrepreneurship. Students worked in teams of three to develop a mobile application to solve a problem of their interest under the direction of faculty and engineers from a local industry partner.

Program Outcomes
The intervention was evaluated using pre and post surveys that looked at students’ career interests, data structures experience, sense of belonging, motivation and their ability to innovate. An analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected shows that the program had a positive effect on the students and has led to them returning to their respective universities and taking on leadership roles.

References
Garousi, V., Giray, G., Tuzun, E., Catal, C., & Felderer, M. (2019). Closing the gap between software engineering education and industrial needs. IEEE Software.

Lawrence-Fowler, W. A., Grabowski, L. M., & Reilly, C. F. (2015, October). Bridging the divide: Strategies for college to career readiness in computer science. In 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.

Speaker bio:Dr. Burge is Professor and Executive Director of the Howard West Initiative and former Chairman of the Department of Computer Science at Howard University. His primary research interest is in distributed computing. Dr. Burge is also interested in Computer Science Education and Diversity, and Tech Entrepreneurship and Innovation. His work in CS Education and Diversity has primarily been focused on informal and personalized learning, and on the use of technology to aid in the socio-technical enculturation of underrepresented students in CS, K-12 initiatives, and diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond compliance. Dr. Burge practices design thinking as an innovative teaching methodology and promotes immersive learning and learning by doing. He co-teaches the Bison Startup and Bison Accelerate courses co-developed with YCombinator, in which students are guided through the process of founding technology startups. Dr. Burge has a strong interest in developing university innovation ecosystems for HBCUs as a way to create alternative revenue streams, attract and retain students, and prepare students with 21st century skills. He currently directs the HowU Innovate Foundry; which has consistently incubated on average 15 student led tech startups per year. Dr. Burge is a certified Lean Launchpad Educator, and Stanford D-School Design Thinker. He is a co-founder of XediaLabs, a DC-based incubation firm that provides training and technical consulting to local startups. He has been featured in several articles such as Bloomberg Business Week regarding diversity and inclusion in tech, and conducted a TedX talk on HBCUs role in the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem for African Americans. Dr. Burge is a Fellow of AAAS, BEYA Innovation Award recipient, and a Fulbright Scholar recipient.

Increasing Student Persistence in CS and Preparedness to Careers in Tech

What makes the difference for students pursuing degrees in biomedical fields at The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) to complete their degrees in a timely manner and enter PhD programs? The average time to degree for UTEP students, in general, entering as first time freshman (FTF) who graduated in 2017-18 and 2018-19 is 5.6 years, and for those pursuing majors in the College of Science it is 4.85 years [UTEP CIERP, 2019]. However, of all students who enter the university as freshman 38.4% complete their degrees in 6 years or less. The principal reasons underlying these statistics are that the majority of UTEP students (83.5%) are Hispanic, the first in their families to attend college (51%) and financially disadvantaged (57% are Pell grant eligible). With funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund, we established the BUILDing SCHOLARS program at UTEP, which provides a tuition scholarship, a monthly stipend, rigorous, multi-year and multi-site research training, personalized academic advising, and one-on-one mentoring to all students. As one of ten BUILD programs across the U.S. that form the backbone of the NIH Diversity Program Consortium (DPC), BUILDing SCHOLARS shares the DPC mission “to implement and evaluate effective approaches to training and mentoring undergraduate students with the goal of increasing the participation and persistence of individuals from diverse backgrounds in the biomedical research pipeline” (NIGMS, 2019). Therefore, the student development interventions implemented by BUILDing SCHOLARS are evaluated at the national level using eighteen student hallmarks of success, which were established by the executive steering committee of the DPC to guide a consortium-wide evaluation and allow for comparisons between students participating in the various BUILD programs across the US and students not in the programs (NIGMS, 2019). This presentation, however, will only address internal site comparisons between our UTEP BUILDing SCHOLARS participants and the population of non-participating UTEP students pursuing the same majors.

Data associated with our interventions from two cohorts who completed or are still completing the program after entering in Fall 2015 (N=42) and Fall 2016 (N=36) will be presented to demonstrate early trends. To answer the original research question, we have used student testimonials provided as part of an exit survey completed (N=34) by graduating seniors. Responses were coded using NVivo 12 to determine what aspect of the BUILDing SCHOLARS program students consider impacted their lives the most and helped them complete their degrees in a timely manner. The analysis is based on the use of specific terms associated with participation in research, mentoring, and financial support. In addition, we will present results of seven of the eighteen DPC hallmarks that specifically address their participation in undergraduate research experiences (NAS, 2017), persistence in a biomedical degree, evidence of excelling in biomedical research & scholarship, completion of a bachelor’s degree in a biomedical field, and acceptance and entrance into a subsequent research training program in a biomedical discipline. As of December 2019, 58 students from the two cohorts will have completed their degrees. For those who started as FTF (N=49), the average time to degree was 4.2 years, indicating our program is making a significant difference. 

References

NAS. (2017). Undergraduate Research Experiences for STEM Students: Successes, Challenges, and Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 
NIGMS DPC. (2019). Hallmarks of Success. Retrieved from https://www.nigms.nih.gov/training/dpc/Pages/success.aspx. 
UTEP CIERP. (The University of Texas at El Paso Center for Institutional Evaluation, Research and Planning). (2018). Family background and Pell Grant Eligibility. Unpublished raw data.


Speaker bio:Lourdes E. Echegoyen is the founding director of the Campus Office of Undergraduate Research Initiatives (COURI) at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). She is also a Research Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. Dr. Echegoyen received B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemistry from the University of Miami. She started her career as a high school teacher in Miami before returning to the University of Miami as a post-doctoral fellow and lecturer. In 2002 she joined the faculty in the Chemistry Department at Clemson University and took over the direction of their Summer Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program, which she successfully ran for two cycles of continuous NSF funding. That program involved strong recruiting of minorities (usually 50% or more) and an international component that enhanced the program with bi-directional global awareness. In 2008, she took a leave of absence from Clemson to develop and manage the American Chemical Society International REU Exchange Program (also with NSF funding), which exchanged a cohort of 35-45 US and European students every year to participate in summer research at multiple universities and research institutes across Western Europe and the U.S. Since her arrival at UTEP in 2010 and as part of her developing and growing COURI, Dr. Echegoyen has received several awards from the National Science Foundation (2), the National Institutes of Health (2), the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (1), and the Department of Energy (2), all of which have focused on student, faculty and institutional development. Multiple cross-institutional partnerships and collaborations have ensued from these awards. Her earlier publications were in the area of supramolecular and fullerene chemistry, while her most recent ones emphasize the impact that undergraduate research and related activities have on students, particularly those from minoritized groups.

Providing Opportunities Drives Success: The Case of UTEP BUILDing SCHOLARS

At The University of Texas at El Paso, we have continually worked to best serve a student population with demographics that include a wide range of predicted risk factors for graduation, including 87% URM (predominantly Mexican American) and 51% First in Family. Research experiences for undergraduates have consistently been associated with improved retention, graduation, and matriculation of STEM students into advance degree programs (D. Lopatto, 2010), however, mentored research opportunities are often limited in number and most research opportunities focus on upper division students. Freshman Course Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (F-CUREs) such as The University of Texas at Austin's "Freshman Research Initiative" have shown promise in providing competitive access to authentic research experiences for entering freshman STEM students (S.E. Rodenbusch et al., 2016). However data are limited on non-competitive programs centered on student demographics such as ours. In 2015, with funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the National Institutes of Health (BUILDing SCHOLARS), UTEP established the Freshman Year Research Intensive Sequence (FYRIS) with the commitment of offering the opportunity of CURE experiences, based on research of our science faculty, to every UTEP first year student eligible to take any first-year science major course. This program has grown to include 236 students in the College of Science enrolled in FYRIS courses this fall and a total of 858 students participating over the life of the program, providing the opportunity for in-depth analyses of the impact of this non-competitive program on a critical student demographic. In this poster, we present longitudinal data on the three entering cohorts of program participants with data spanning two to four years. We
compare participants to non-participating students with majors in the College of Science, monitoring retention and graduation of all students. We present retention and graduation rate comparisons as well as a Binary Logistics Regression model testing common predictors of retention (J.D. Reason, 2003; J. Radunzel, J. Noble, and S. Wheeler, 2014; and S. Stewart, D.H. Lim and J. Kim, 2015). The results demonstrate that FYRIS participation is a significant predictor of retention, controlling for HS rank and number of transferred credit hours (i.e. dual and AP credit hours earned during HS years) and gender. Students who completed the CUREs also benefitted from significant increases in general and discipline specific research self-efficacy. Our results demonstrate that Freshman CUREs can positively impact a wide range of students with at-risk characteristics in a non-selective, non-competitive environment. We discuss possible roles of different aspects of the program on student success, and propose new analyses to dissect these possibilities.
References: 
1. D. Lopatto, Peer Review, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 769-822, 2010. 
2. S.E. Rodenbusch, P.R. Hernandez, S.L. Simmons, and E.L. Dolan, CBE-Life Sciences Education, vol. 15, pp.1-10, 2016. 
3. R.D. Reason, R. D. NASPA Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 172-191, 2003. 4. J. Radunzel, J. Noble, S. Wheeler, Iowa City, IA: ACT,
2014. 5. S. Stewart, D.H. Lim, J. Kim, Journal of Developmental Education, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 12-20, 2015.

Longitudinal Study of the Impact of F-CUREs at a Majority Hispanic University

The EXPRESS (Exposure to Research for Science Students) Program at the University of Missouri aims to cultivate, nurture, and train the next generation of researchers and innovators in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. Funded via NIH, this IMSD (Initiative for Maximizing Student Development) grant supports underrepresented STEM majors via a four-year training model that integrates undergraduate research, mentoring, academic and social support, along with professional development. Over the past decade, yearly participation has grown from an average of 20 to approximately 100 across the cohorts. Crucial to this expansion has been strategic training of upper-class Peer Mentors. Curriculum has been designed around core competencies for undergraduate mentors and a three-day training retreat has been implemented each August before classes begin. Additionally, ongoing weekly coaching sessions are held throughout the academic year (15 per semester) for a total of 30 more hours of engagement creating a robust community of practice. This workshop will provide an overview of the Peer Mentor training that could be adapted to other programs and campuses. Formal external evaluations, along with internal assessments, demonstrate the effectiveness of the Peer Mentors in mitigating many of the common factors that contribute to UR persistence in STEM. Outcomes include: MU's IMSD Program freshmen retention rate is 98% (sophomore year is 93%), compared with the MU UR average across majors of (81.3% and 71% respectively). The IMSD four-year graduation rate is 78% (vs. MU UR average of 35%). The six-year MU IMSD Program graduation rate for students who complete the program is 97% (vs. MU UR 57%). Other measured metrics of student success include the number of posters presented at discipline-specific meetings, publications, and predoctoral fellowships awarded. The percentage of participants who pursue post-graduate education or training has now increased to 70%. The presentation will outline specific ways in which Peer Mentors impact their mentees' perceived self-efficacy, and science identity. Additionally, focus group data will be presented that demonstrate significant outcomes and personal growth for the Peer Mentors via this transformative coaching experience.

Training effective undergraduate peer mentors as an intervention to increase student success amongst UR STEM majors

Nationally, there has been a push to increase the persistence of STEM majors for decades. The Neal Report in 1986 first sounded the alarm (1). Since then there has been a great deal of analysis and alarm ringing, but the success of STEM majors in introductory courses has not improved. The national average for persistence in gateway courses is still in the 60-70% range (2). At Georgia Gwinnett College (GGC), an open-access four-year state college, 30-40% of students who were enrolled in the introductory courses for the Biology and Chemistry majors did not successfully complete that course. A significant question that needed to be answered was how educational institutions, and more specifically how GGC, can meet the demands for greater numbers of STEM graduates to fill the technologically advanced jobs of the future. At GGC the School of Science and Technology uses an institutional model that includes four key High Impact Practices (HIPs) including Course-embedded Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs), Peer Supplemental Instruction (PSI), and Faculty Learning Communities.

The specific aim of this project was to better understand why students withdraw from gateway (introductory) courses required for their major. This research project was a quantitative methods study employing questionnaires to collect data. The research questions this project addressed were: 
1. What are the top reasons why students withdraw from one of the gateway courses in their major?
2. When during the semester do students commit to withdraw and submit the form to withdraw from the course? 
3. How have students who have withdrawn made use of the available resource while enrolled in a course from which they ultimately withdrew?

We solicited the participation of approximately 2,126 undergraduate students who withdrew from one or more gateway course(s), more specifically, from Principles of Biology I and II with Laboratory, Principles of Chemistry I and II with Laboratory, College Algebra, Precalculus, and/or Programming Fundamentals courses in 2019 and 2020. The questionnaire covered reasons for and timing of the withdrawal decision. Additionally, students were questioned about their use of on-campus resources, such as Peer Supplemental Instruction (PSI), tutoring in the Academic Enhancement Center (AEC), and meeting with their course instructor outside of regular class sessions. We also asked about their use of online resources, such as the publisher’s textbook site or videos (Khan Academy, YouTube, etc.). 

From the 167 students who have responded by November 23, 2020, our preliminary analysis indicated that most students decided to withdraw close to mid-semester. The top two reasons given were course-related issues and work commitments. To better understand the dimensions of the issues chosen by the student, follow-up questions were asked. For example, two of the top dimensions of work commitments were worked too many hours and work schedule conflicts. In terms of resources, very few availed themselves of available on-campus opportunities and preferred online videos. Only 26 of 97 students who responded attended PSI sessions, only 21 of 92 students received tutoring in the AEC, and only 34 of 131 students met with their instructor outside of regular class sessions, while 65 of 100 students reported using online resources (videos) as part of their study strategy. 

This work is funded and supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation under NSF Award No. 1623779. 

1. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

2. Awong-Taylor, J., Runck, C., Mundie, T., D’Costa, A., Pursell, D., Leader, T…Moon, N.W. (2018, December 12). Engendering faculty and student engagement in STEM education: An institutional model. Scientia. //dx.doi.org/10.26320/SCIENTIA287. 


Downloads

Next from 12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

Predictors of Participation and Outcomes for a Summer Undergraduate Research Community (URC)

Similar lecture

Development and Evaluation of the Scientific Communication Advances Research Excellence Program

.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 12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

Predictors of Participation and Outcomes for a Summer Undergraduate Research Community (URC)

Similar lecture

Development and Evaluation of the Scientific Communication Advances Research Excellence Program

Downloads