United States

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 &amp; 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.

12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

Providing Opportunities Drives Success: The Case of UTEP BUILDing SCHOLARS

transition to graduate school

hallmarks of success

science identity

build

science self-efficacy

undergraduate research

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.

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.

technical paper

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. 


Top reasons that science majors cite for withdrawing from STEM gateway courses.

Focus of the intervention
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) have been a source of inspirational discoveries and transformative technological advances, helping the US develop the world's most competitive economy (National Science & Technology Council, 2018). Within the next decade, our nation will need one million more STEM professionals than it can produce (United States Congress, Joint Economic Committee, 2014). Currently there are a surplus of STEM careers and a depleted pool of individuals to assume these opportunities. One reason for the gap between the number of STEM career opportunities and STEM human resources is created by STEM exclusion. To address this, many initiatives on increasing the participation of those underrepresented and marginalized in STEM with primary attention given to women and people of color. STEM academic and workforce environments have come under scrutiny for their omitting persons of low socioeconomic status. 
The environments in which persons of low socioeconomic status live, go to school and to work do not have the cultural capital to encourage and nurture motivation and interest in STEM. In geographic regions where qualified teachers do not live and learning opportunities are not available, the experiences should be available online. UBOnline is a STEM diversity and inclusion initiative that harnesses the flexible and autonomous power of distance learning technology to afford persons of low socioeconomic status access to educational opportunities in STEM. 

Study population—
The population served by this project are secondary students of low socioeconomic status whose families' annual taxable income is at or below 150 percent of the poverty threshold. UBOnline intends to collaborate with centers, colleges and universities that host Upward Bound programs. While at the host institution during the summer residential program, the students have access to computers connected to the internet and have the resources to manipulate engineering design graphics software applications.
Contextual factors
The researcher evaluated the technological infrastructure available to the Upward Bound program participants. It also assessed the Upward Bound program staff attitudes toward implementation of technology and engineering courses and online learning opportunities among the educational opportunities they wish to afford their students.
Outcomes of the intervention
From 2014 to 2019, Basic descriptive data was collected and reported based on analyzing student responses to inquiries concerning technology and internet access it was found that 77.3 percent of Upward Bound programs have access to open computer labs during the academic year. Ninety-four percent of programs have access to open computer labs during the summer. Sixty-nine percent of Upward Bound programs have access to the internet/wifi in the residence halls during the summer. Eighty-five percent of programs are interested in integrating technology or engineering courses among the selectable elective courses offerings. Sixty-nine percent of programs would be interested in offering these learning opportunities using distance learning technology
Relevance to the UI community
This study is most relevant to the UI community due to the known low numbers of minority students. Basic STEM concepts are best learned at an early age—in elementary and secondary school—because they are the essential prerequisites to career technical training, to advanced college-level and graduate study, and to increasing one's technical skills in the workplace. The results of this prove the feasibility of integrating innovative STEM online educational opportunities in the curriculum of outreach programs that serve students of socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Next steps would be to create informal, online learning environments for students participating in these programs to practically test the feasibility of online learning integration.
References
National Science & Technology Council. (2018, December). Charting a Course for Success. A Report by the National Science & Technology Council. Available at: file:///C:/Users/pefaulkner/Downloads/STEM-Education-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf 

US Department of Education (2010). Transforming American Education Learning Powered by Technology. Office of Educational Technology: Washington, DC.


Integrating STEM online learning initiatives in educational outreach programs

Background: The NIH and more specifically the NIGMS has an agenda to broaden participation and persistence in the biomedical workforce through research and interventions. Our previous research, adapted from social cognitive career theory, indicates that mentoring trainees in scientific communication (SC) skill development directly increases research career intention through the intermediate social-cognitive constructs of self-efficacy in and outcome expectations for acquiring SC skills, as well as science identity. We have now begun the translational phase of our work, applying our previous research findings to an intervention for mentors.
Purpose: While a variety of interventions exist that provide mentor training with the goal of strengthening the participation and persistence of a diverse group of trainees, no other programs focus specifically on SC skills and their impact on research career intention. The “Scientific Communication Advances Research Excellence” (SCOARE) program trains mentors to address SC skill development specifically and thus increase trainee persistence in research careers. This poster outlines the development and design of the SCOARE program and the first two years’ evaluations.
Methods: The SCOARE program consists of a half-day workshop for faculty mentors of research trainees and an associated research study for the mentors and up to five of their trainees. Workshop learning objectives for mentors are (1) to understand their role and perspective as a mentor versus that of a trainee in SC development, (2) to learn how to set expectations, create structure, and create and apply strategies to increase engagement for their trainees in SC development, (3) to learn to deliver useful and appropriate feedback, and (4) to create, adapt, and personalize mentoring strategies to use with their own trainees. The workshops are delivered at five sites nationally: Georgia State University, the University of Colorado Boulder, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Big Ten Academic Alliance, and the Gulf Coast Consortia. Local site partners at each institution recruit workshop participants. At the end of each workshop, attendees complete an anonymous evaluation that includes questions about workshop objectives, attendee skills and knowledge before and after the workshop, and attendee capability to implement strategies learned in the workshop. Evaluations are analyzed by the Learning through Evaluation, Adaptation, and Dissemination Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Results: Of the 168 mentors who attended the workshop in the first year, 160 completed the post-workshop evaluation (95%). The majority of participants agreed that they are satisfied with the workshop and would recommend it to a colleague. Participants also reported positive increases in skills and knowledge post-workshop, with the greatest skills increase in applying new and various techniques when mentoring trainees, and the greatest knowledge increase in how linguistic bias influences our perception of others. The majority of participants felt very capable of using most strategies covered in the workshop, but indicated a desire for more material on engagement and accountability strategies.
Conclusions: Overall the SCOARE program has been well-received by faculty mentors. We have honed the length of the workshop in response to mentor feedback, working to balance time spent on didactic workshop sections, activities, and group discussions. We have also added additional reflection time to help mentors digest the complex material and to address differing concerns of audiences at each workshop site.

Development and Evaluation of the Scientific Communication Advances Research Excellence Program

The positive impacts of shadowing experiences on undergraduate students’ career exploration has been well documented in medicine and other health-related fields.1 However, use of shadowing to introduce students to scientific research careers has not been as thoroughly explored. At Xavier University of Louisiana (Xavier), under the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)-funded Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) Program, research shadowing has been used to make students more aware of the research process and expand their knowledge of and enthusiasm for biomedical careers. The BUILD Program at Xavier, Project Pathways, offers opportunities for students to shadow in Xavier research labs and at local partner institutions. The participants observe undergraduate and graduate research students along with research staff and faculty in labs over a period of several weeks. Students are also given the opportunity to attend graduate courses in biomedical and psychological sciences. The benefits to the shadowing students include but are not limited to the opportunity to observe and ask questions about live experiments; the ability to explore the pros and cons of participating in research and attending graduate school; and the opportunity to experience the format and rigor of various types of graduate courses. Participants can also form and benefit from mentoring and near-peer mentoring relationships. Shadowing participants are uniformly positive in their responses to post-shadowing surveys, and have indicated that shadowing was effective at helping them to understand the research process and clarify their goals as related to research. Participants shadowing graduate students responded in a similar, positive manner overall, and on their intent to apply for graduate school. Overall the assessment results show that research shadowing is a low-cost, high-impact intervention, beneficial for large numbers of undergraduate students who are curious about biomedical research careers.

Research Shadowing: High Impact, Low Cost Introduction to Research

This study examined how students’ experiences in a Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP)-funded summer bridge program were associated with two social psychological factors, self-efficacy and belonging, which are strongly related to retention and success in college. Specifically, the degree to which students broadly report a positive bridge experience appears to be sufficient to promote a sense of belonging; however informal social experiences that may foster a peer social network might be most impactful. Activities that increase students’ awareness of campus resources and help build a peer social network may boost students’ confidence in their ability to reach their academic goals.

LSAMP Summer Bridge Programs: Effects on Academic Self-Efficacy and Belonging

Despite efforts to improve diversity in STEM career pathways, many demographic groups are still underrepresented based on ability status, gender identity, race and ethnicity, or sexual orientation; and this disproportional recruitment and retention manifests at every stage of the academic pipeline from undergraduate through professional appointments (Bernard & Cooperdock, 2018). Although many solutions to inequity have been proposed, research indicates that comprehensive mentoring and role modeling programs can improve women’s motivation and persistence in STEM (Haacker, 2015). However, comprehensive programs often consist of multiple components and require intensive resources (e.g., time, money, logistical support) that may limit their replicability and scalability (Komro, Flay, Biglan, & Wagenaar, 2016). Therefore, we conducted a randomized field experiment to one-of-three one-day professional development workshops to identify the critical elements of a prototypical comprehensive mentoring program for women: (a) exposure to STEM careers via female career role models; (b) training on how to maintain and grow their network of mentoring relationships; or (c) introduction to a local female scientist mentor. Here we show that the combination of all three elements were necessary to improve mentoring, motivational, and persistence outcomes.

Building optimal support programs: Evidence from a randomized field experiment

The NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub is eager to contribute a poster to introduce Understanding Interventions leaders and conference participants to the NSF INCLUDES National Network. One of the National Science Foundation’s “10 Big Ideas,” NSF INCLUDES (Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science), aims to enhance U.S. leadership in science and engineering by developing talent from all sectors of our society, including underrepresented minorities, women, and people with disabilities (NSF, 2018).

To achieve this aim, NSF has invested in robust collaborative infrastructure – the NSF INCLUDES National Network – to support the development, sharing, and scaling of knowledge and best practices across STEM broadening participation networks and projects nationwide. The INCLUDES Network, which is open to all interested in broadening participation in STEM, offers members opportunities to meet new partners and connect with funders and industry representatives; build capacity in areas such as measurement, communication, and sustainability; and share their own expertise and project impacts at a national scale. 

As a poster session participant, a leader from the NSF INCLUDES Coordination Hub (which leads and supports the INCLUDES Network) will ask conference leaders and participants about the successes and challenges they experience in their broadening participation work, and describe for them resources, topical online affinity groups, and other Network activities the INCLUDES Network offers that align with their needs. The Hub leaders will also offer that people can sign into the Network website to join the Network’s online community and highlight its relevant features. 


Citations:
NSF (2018, January 31). NSF INCLUDES Report to the Nation. Retrieved from: https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/nsfincludes/pdfs/INCLUDES_report_to_the_Nation.pdf on 


An Introduction to the NSF INCLUDES National Network

Fair Play is a virtual simulation in which the player takes on the perspective of Jamal Davis, a Black graduate student on his way to becoming a renowned professor (Virtual Games for STEMM Faculty to Break the Bias Habit, DP4 GM096822; PI: Carnes, 2010-2014). While interacting with other characters and the environment in Fair Play, players experience situations that exemplify different types of racial biases and decide how to respond to each bias experience as it occurs. Research about the effects of game play suggests that the player is able to engage in perspective taking, which increases empathy, and it also increases their understanding of a number of racial bias concepts (Kaatz et al., 2017, Gutierrez et al., 2014). Do You Play Fair? A Workshop About Bias in Academia is a workshop that was developed to further extend the learning through Fair Play (NIH-NIGMS, R25GM114002, PI: Pribbenow, 2015-2020). It is based on the “habit breaking” model, which has been shown to decrease gender bias and has proven to be successful at improving bias literacy among players (Carnes et al., 2015). During the implementation of this project, the Fair Play workshop has been delivered to ~1170 faculty/instructors, administrators, academic staff, researchers, postdoctoral scientists and graduate students at sixteen universities and fourteen national STEMM-related conferences across the country. Evaluation results show consistently favorable responses on questions pertaining to participant satisfaction and learning; 96% of the participants indicated that the workshop was an effective way to teach about bias; 95% indicated they would recommend the workshop to a colleague. Workshop participants learned bias concepts and definitions, engaged in perspective taking, increased in their concern for the issues, and became more aware of the prevalence of bias-related issues in higher education and STEMM. Furthermore, participants articulated steps they intended to take to address bias in their professional environments.

Providing Opportunities Drives Success: The Case of UTEP BUILDing SCHOLARS

Downloads

Next from 12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

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

Similar lecture

Impact of a STEM-focused living and learning community and early research experience on science self-efficacy, identity, and community values

Providing Opportunities Drives Success: The Case of UTEP BUILDing SCHOLARS

.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

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

Similar lecture

Impact of a STEM-focused living and learning community and early research experience on science self-efficacy, identity, and community values

Downloads