United States

Through our National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), we implement and disseminate innovative, evidence-based best practices to improve mentoring relationships at institutions across the country. We connect highly knowledgeable and skilled mentors with motivated and diverse mentees, ranging from undergraduate students to early-career faculty, and facilitate long-term, culturally responsive interactions between them. We are committed to establishing a culture in which historically underrepresented mentees successfully progress in their careers and contribute to the biomedical research enterprise. With over 5,000 mentors and 8,600 mentees (and growing) participating on the platform, MyNRMN (online platform) enables mentees and mentors to connect professionally, support mentoring relationships and build their professional networks.

12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

NRMN-Resource Center: A National Resource for Mentorship, Networking and Professional Development

networking

mentoring

diversity

### Welcome to the 2023 Understanding Interventions/NSF CREST Annual Conference
Welcome to our annual conference, a gathering where the knowledge of our scientific communities share what they have researched since we last met. If it is your first time attending, then thank you for stepping into our world! If you are a returning guest, then thank you for coming back! Whether you are attending for the first or the fourteenth, we treasure your trust in what we have to offer. We promise to make it worth your while.

As in years past, we have put together an energetic collection of seminars, deeper dives, speeches, posters, and workshops to whet your appetite for learning. 

We are delighted that you have chosen to attend the 2023 Annual Understanding Interventions (UI) Conference, in partnership with the NSF Centers for Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST) Program. 

### About the Conference 
This conference was established to facilitate dissemination and exchange of hypothesis-based research on interventions and initiatives that broaden participation in science and engineering research careers. The conference is designed to create a dialogue among behavioral/social science and education researchers, evaluators, and faculty in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields who participate in intervention programs. 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.

Thank you again, and welcome! 
**[Download Program Agenda](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rTKTrWC2DOqnIF06po5xo4buAL3mPTqZ/view?usp=sharing)**

15th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2023 

This conference was established to facilitate dissemination and exchange of hypothesis-based research on interventions and initiatives that broaden participation in science and engineering research careers. The conference is designed to create a dialogue among behavioral/social science and education researchers, evaluators, and faculty in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields who participate in intervention programs.

poster

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.

Summer research programs (SRPs) are a widely used intervention for improving inclusion in STEM research tracks and are particularly important for recruiting and retaining underrepresented minority (UM) students (Ghee, Keels, Collins, Neal-Spence, & Baker, 2016; Pender, Marcotte, Sto. Domingo, & Maton, 2010). A core -element of SRPs is the use of faculty mentorship to assist undergraduate students in developing a strong science identity, research self-efficacy, and to create an authentic research experience for all participating students. However, it is not clear whether and how the quality of faculty mentorship affects the quality of SRPs students’ research. Therefore, in this study, we investigate the relationship between student-reported faculty mentorship quality, measured by the Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA) score and judges’ ratings of the students’ scientific poster presentations at a summer research symposium. Specifically, we make use of modern data analytic methods to filter over 250 measured characteristics of students. We then use a subset of these indicators to build predictive models of students’ research quality scores. Once we obtain well-fitting predictive models, we analyze the parameter estimates to assess the practical significance of the selected factors related to research quality. Overall, the results of this study provide evidence of a strong positive relationship between the quality of faculty mentorship and the quality of SRPs students’ research, even when controlling for student characteristics known to affect research outcomes, such as science identity and self-efficacy. We also identify interactions between the MCA score and other student characteristics that have practical implications for institutions running SRPs with UM students. We additionally provide evidence about the construct validity of a proposed research quality scale. This study confirms a long-held, but untested belief, that effective faculty mentors produce higher functioning future STEM researchers, and provides additional evidence for a sustained focus on implementing culturally responsive mentor trainings at institutions that offer SRPs to UM students.

Speaker bio:Dr. Angelica Monarrez Postdoctoral Fellow at the NIH-Funded BUILDing scholars at the University of Texas at El Paso. She earned a Ph.D. in Teaching, Learning and Culture with a concentration in STEM education and a masters in statistics from the University of Texas at El Paso. She is particularly interested in investigating ways to broaden participation of Latinx students in STEM higher education, especially those that are first generation college students and are emergent bilinguals by looking at issues of equity and inclusion. She is recently implementing student programs and interpreting qualitative and quantitative data results produced through the training interventions in the program. In addition, she coordinates the peer mentoring program and the summer research program, which looks at ways to recruit and retain students in STEM fields. She has co-authored several peer-reviewed manuscripts and book chapters. She has also presented at several prestigious international conferences such as the American Educational Research Association (AERA) and Psychology of Mathematics Education North American Chapter (PME-NA) for which she has been a member for over five years.

Effects of Faculty Mentorship Quality on Undergraduate Students' Summer Research Outcomes

Background: The ASCEND (A Student-Centered ENtrepreneurship Development) Training Model is an NIH-funded initiative at Morgan State University (MSU) to increase diversity in the biomedical research workforce. Unlike the traditional apprenticeship-style research training model, the ASCEND Entrepreneurial Research Training Model (ERTM) involves undergraduate students in active leadership roles in their research projects. ASCEND's ERTM-based interventions are designed to enhance students' sense of science identity, research competency, and peer support, which are predictors of academic success and persistence. 

One of ASCEND's interventions, the Student Research Center (SRC), is an undergraduate student organization that is partially run by student members and has the following main aims: (1) Recruitment and Community Service, (2) Leadership Development, (3) Research Productivity and (4) Graduate School/Academic Preparation. We report on the Health Research Concepts Competition (HRCC), an ASCEND SRC initiative developed to achieve the SRC's aim of research productivity. 

Methods: The HRCC is designed to expose MSU undergraduate students to the real-world research grant application process by simulating it and providing the students with an opportunity to conduct research on a topic of their own choosing about which they are passionate.

The HRCC runs twice a year (one round in the fall semester and another round in the spring) and is open only to members of the SRC. A research associate coordinates the HRCC process and provides technical support to applicants throughout the application process.
Students seeking funding for their research are required to submit an abstract according to the HRCC guidelines established by the SRC. The abstract is submitted along with a literature review/list of references and a project budget. A general information session and a technical assistance workshop are offered to students before the abstract submission deadline. Applicants are also offered the opportunity to get one-on-one support/technical assistance from the research associate as they prepare their abstracts for submission. Each submitted abstract undergoes internal review by two MSU faculty members, after which feedback is provided to the students so they can develop full proposals. At least two external reviews per proposal are then conducted by faculty members from other institutions who are leading researchers in the related field. Based on the HRCC guidelines, each applicant must be mentored by an MSU faculty member and receive step-by-step support to develop their concepts into strong proposals that will lead to a successful application. Grant awards of up to $5,000 are provided per health-related research project and projects are funded for a duration of one year.

Results: Five rounds of HRCC have been conducted since spring semester of 2017, with 45 concepts submitted for internal review. Of these, 18 concepts have been developed into full proposals and reviewed by external reviewers. Sixteen of the externally reviewed proposals have been funded. In terms of dissemination, there have been seven abstracts presented at national/international scientific conferences and one peer-reviewed journal publication. Of the 35 students who participated in the HRCC who have graduated, thirteen have entered into graduate STEM or health-related research programs. 

Conclusion: The HRCC initiative of the ASCEND model exposed students to the real-life grant application process and empowered them to take ownership of their research, thereby making them leaders in their research projects. Participating in the HRCC was instrumental in students' transition into graduate research programs


Speaker bio:Dr. Jummai Apata completed her Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degree from the University of Jos, Nigeria. She completed a Master of Public Health (MPH) from École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique (EHESP), Paris, France and then a Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) from Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Her research interests include Public Health, Epidemiology, Biostatistics, Community Based Participatory Research, Underserved and Vulnerable populations

Cultivating an Entrepreneurial Mindset Among Undergraduate Student Researchers: The ASCEND Health Research Concepts Competition

Several cross-sectional studies have provided evidence of a dramatic and largely one-way exodus from an interest in academic research careers among biomedical scientists in training. However, new data from the National Longitudinal Study of Young Life Scientists reveal a much more complicated and nuanced picture. Annual interviews with 147 biomedical PhD students conducted from the beginning of the PhD through graduation reveal how differentiation into and away from academic research careers follows many different paths. Over the course of PhD training, as many students shifted towards academic research as shifted away, with no measurable differences across gender and racial/ethnic groups. Almost half (19 out of 39) of those who finished the PhD with the intention to pursue an academic research career had expressed limited or no intention towards this career at the beginning of the PhD. 

This presentation illustrates the factors that influence differentiation into academic research careers. Patterns vary from gradual evolution to an abrupt change at PhD completion. Some cases reflected pivotal events and insights, while others reflected the aggregation of small events and decisions over the years. Understanding and recognizing this complex differentiation process is essential for assisting the development of young scientists. While cross-sectional surveys may point to broad trends across a population at a point in time, longitudinal analysis reveals far more complexity across individuals in career decision-making.

Speaker bio:Christine Wood, PhD is an assistant professor of Medical Social Sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

A counter narrative to generalized decline in academic research careers: New insights from longitudinal data

There is increasing interest in assisting graduate students and postdocs in identifying and pursuing a variety of careers with their PhDs. Efforts such as the NIH BEST programs have focused on designing approaches for this level of support. However, to best guide those approaches, it is critical to understand how trainees make decisions during the course of the PhD and postdocs. The way doctoral students make career decisions during and immediately after PhD training is not well understood. 

Based on annual interviews, this presentation displays the career intentions of 147 students from the start of graduate school through graduation. Career intentions are connected across years for each student in order to reveal individual trajectories. While previous research on the "interest," "desirability," or "attractiveness" of careers offer many useful insights, we used qualitative interviews to understand the career intentions of students in each year of the PhD.

The data reveal extensive fluidity and complexity in career decision-making, with most students changing their career intentions several times before gradually differentiating into the career they plan to pursue after graduation. Contrary to cross-sectional studies, these data also reveal: 1) only modest differences across gender and racial/ethnic groups in their intentions to pursue various careers; 2) the total number of students planning to pursue a career as an academic PI is nearly unchanged from the start of PhD to graduation, although individual students moved into and out of this career intention at about the same frequency; and 3) students differentiated into an intended career at various time points over the course of doctoral training. Taken together, these findings offer a new perspective on career decision-making while also cautioning against overgeneralizing results from single-time point, cross-sectional surveys.

Speaker bio:Remi Jones, MA is a research associate with the Scientific Careers Research and Development Group at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

A Longitudinal Exploration of Career Differentiation from the Start of the PhD through Graduation

The current challenges in producing and retaining science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent in the United States to meet workforce demands are well documented in several national reports. For instance, of the college entrants who begin STEM degree programs initially, 48% leave STEM prior to earning an undergraduate degree; nearly half of these by changing to non-STEM majors and the other half of these by leaving college without completing any degree or certificate. This departure rate is even higher for individuals from groups underrepresented in STEM.
Concurrent with examinations of why students fail to persist in college have been the development of programs and strategies aimed at addressing obstacles to persistence and at increasing the number of students earning degrees in STEM. An NSF-funded project at North Carolina Central University (NCCU) implemented Entrepreneurship in Science Education as a strategy to attract and hold students’ interest and academic pursuit of STEM through entrepreneurial thinking and training.
The focus of study is to assess the science mastery skills gained by students due to their participation in the Project and to investigate the specific contributions to the STEM student outcomes due to the unique entrepreneurial training component of the project. Nineteen (19) participants in the Project experienced the entrepreneurial thinking training, and 19 Non-participants identified as comparable through the propensity score matching process. Entrepreneurial thinking was assessed on participants through measures of Entrepreneurial Skills, Managerial Skills, Personal Traits and Technical Skills. Persistence measures were compared between participants and the matched comparison group.
We will present results that show students participating in the engineering design and entrepreneurial training component of the Project significantly improved their science mastery skills, and this contributed to outstanding STEM student outcomes as measured by persistence. The Project was particularly effective with respect to STEM persistence for students who would be categorize as “at-risk,” specifically low SES, first-generation college students from single-parent homes.


Speaker bio:Dr. Caesar Jackson is professor of physics at North Carolina Central University (NCCU). He previously served as dean for School of Graduate Studies, College of Science & Technology, and College of Arts & Sciences. He served 3 years at National Science Foundation in program director and division director roles. His degrees are Bachelor of Engineering Technology in Electrical Engineering (Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University), Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering (University of Florida), and Doctor of Philosophy in Physics (North Carolina State University). Over the years, he has been engaged in nuclear physics research at Triangle Universities Nuclear Laboratory in Durham, NC and at Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory in Newport News, VA. Currently, he conducts science education research on issues associated with increasing the number of minorities pursuing degrees and careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). His current work investigates cognitive and non-cognitive factors that influence student’s academic performance in STEM at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Specific studies include: (a) investigating the relationship between self-regulated learning (SRL) and academic achievement of African American undergraduate students in STEM courses at an HBCU; (b) investigating the relationship between science identity and academic achievement of African American undergraduate students in STEM degree program at an HBCU; (c) investigating the impact of active-learning instructional approaches on student learning in STEM courses at an HBCU.

Increasing STEM Persistence of Minority Students Through Entrepreneurial Thinking Experiences

Background: For most people, taking on new roles increases the likelihood of experiencing the impostor phenomenon (IP), defined as feelings of self-doubt about accomplishments and skill competence, and the fear of being exposed as a fraud1. Students in summer research programs may be especially susceptible to IP if they subscribe to the common belief that only brilliant people can succeed in STEM, suggesting a fixed mindset of ability2,3. For students pursuing research careers, having a fixed mindset and experiencing IP more often than others may have a negative impact on developing a strong identity as a scientist, an important predictor of career intention3,4. However, little research has focused on the relationship between IP, mindset, and formation of identity as a scientist, and no study, to our knowledge, has examined changes in trainees’ mindsets and scientist identity following a short-term research experience. 
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of participation in a summer research program in cancer prevention and control; specifically, we examine the degree to which trainees, with low or high IP feelings at entry into the program, reported changes in mindset and in scientist identity by the end of the summer. 
Methods: Summer research program activities included raising awareness about IP and growth mindset throughout, including an interactive workshop on strategies for recognizing and combating IP, a mid-summer senior scientist panel discussion on IP-related experiences, and an end-of-summer workshop to identify barriers and build supports to career advancement. A series of repeated-measures ANOVA was used to examine changes in ability mindset and scientist identity, comparing men and women with either low or high IP feelings at entry into the program. Data for this preliminary analysis were collected from 51 trainees over 2 summers who completed pre- and post-summer online surveys with three IP items1,5 and four mindset items2. 
Results: At entry into the summer program, 6 of 16 men (38%) and 7 of 35 women trainees (20%) were in the high IP group. 
There were no differences in fixed ability mindset between women/men, low/high IP groups, or entry/end of the program. Trainees with low IP at entry had a strong growth ability mindset, regardless of gender. However, men with high IP had significantly lower growth mindset than men with low IP at entry; by the end of the summer, high IP men increased their growth mindset to the same level as men with low IP. Women with high IP did not change their growth mindset by the end of the summer. As for changes in IP, men with high IP at entry had lower IP by the end of the program, but IP feelings for women did not change significantly by the end of the program. 
Women with low IP at entry had stronger scientist identity than women with high IP. Conversely and curiously, men with low IP at entry had significantly lower scientist identity than men with high IP, who had the highest scientist identity of all. Over the short summer experience, scientist identity did not change overall nor by gender. 
Conclusions: Participation in our summer program was effective in helping students increase their growth mindset and decrease their IP feelings after the program, but these improvements varied by both gender and report of IP upon entry. Gains in mindset and scientist identity were greatest for men with initially high IP feelings. These results show that changes can occur even in a 10-week program and with subsequent summer student cohorts, next steps will seek to expand impact across student subgroups.

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.

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

Access to national funding is generally required for career advancement and promotion and/or tenure and was identified as a barrier for junior faculty members (Flores & Sumter, 2011). Several studies have documented that both the number of applications received from and the number of awards to scientists from underrepresented groups is significantly lower than the number of applications from and awards to non-minority scientists (Ginther et al, 2011, Ginther et al, 2018, Hoppe et al, 2019). The Minorities Affairs Committee (MAC) of the American Society for Cell Biology has a long history of providing career development opportunities for minority cell biologists. In 2013, a team of MAC members applied to the NSF for support for the Faculty Research and Education Development (FRED) Program, an intervention to promote grant funding success of minority senior postdoctoral fellows and junior faculty members and junior faculty members at minority-serving institutions.
This Program matched senior postdoctoral fellows or junior faculty members with faculty mentors who are at research-intensive institutions with a substantial track record of grant support. The main goal of this program was to enhance the grant funding capabilities of the junior faculty by establishing a year-long mentoring relationship focused on the preparation of a research or educational grant proposal to be submitted to a funding agency such as the NSF or the NIH.
The year-long FRED Program activities began with a three-day summer workshop in which the mentees learn about NIH and NSF funding opportunities and hear from near peers and MAC members about the tenure process and collaboration establishment. A major component of the workshop was the one-on-one mentee-mentor meeting time to work on the specific aims or summary section of the proposal. Each of the mentees was required to submit a proposal for the mock review panel/study section held during the ASCB annual meeting in December. The mentees and mentors served as reviewers during this mock session. Also, each pair of mentee-mentor engaged in reciprocal visits to each other’s institutions. This was critical for the mentors from research-intensive institutions to appreciate the research environment of the faculty at MSIs and more teaching-intensive institutions. 
The FRED Program has had 6 cohorts of mentee and mentor pairs. The junior faculty member/senior postdoctoral fellow mentees have been a diverse group of individuals – 42% were Hispanic/Latinx, and 20% were African-American. Over 60% were women. The 45 mentees in cohorts 1 to 5 reported promotions, publications, collaborations, and other significant events that came about in part because of their involvement in the Program. Of the 43 grants that were submitted by FRED mentees from 2014-2019, 28 were awarded (an overall 65% success rate). The majority of the applications were submitted to the NIH (56%) and NSF (23%) with the remainder of proposal submissions spread over several federal and other agencies. In addition, 42% (8/19) of the funded mentees received more than one grant award.
Thus, the FRED Program model has been an effective approach for junior faculty to compete successfully for grants from NIH, NSF, and other federal agencies, as well as from private-sector funding entities. The FRED Program model can be readily adopted and adapted by other professional societies and by colleges and universities who are committed to the success of their junior faculty members. This work was supported by NSF Award 1340395 and conducted under Georgia Gwinnett College IRB protocol 17196.

Next from 12th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2020

Effects of Faculty Mentorship Quality on Undergraduate Students' Summer Research Outcomes

Similar lecture

Impact of Freshman Mentoring Intervention on Student Success and science identity