Promoting Diversity: Access and Engagement in Biomedical and ...
-
Upload
medresearch -
Category
Documents
-
view
422 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Promoting Diversity: Access and Engagement in Biomedical and ...
Engaging Undergraduates in Science Research: Not Just about Faculty
Willingness
Kevin Eagan, Jessica Sharkness, Sylvia Hurtado, Mitchell Chang & Cynthia Mosqueda
Higher Education Research InstituteUniversity of California, Los Angeles
Association for Institutional Research Annual ForumChicago, Illinois – May 31, 2010
Background
College freshmen who aspire to degrees in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) have lower completion rates than their non-STEM major peers Rates are even lower for underrepresented
minorities
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
32.4%
24.5%
15.9% 14.0% 13.2%
4-year STEM degree completion, by race (HERI, 2010)
Undergraduate Research Experience
Provides students with hands-on training Several benefits:
Improved ability to work and think like a scientist Improved preparedness or desire for graduate
study Higher STEM retention rates Develop close ties with faculty members
Few studies explore factors influencing faculty members’ decisions to involve undergraduates in their research
Faculty Workload
Workload increase in last 25 years Time allocations vary
By institutional type, rank, tenure status, discipline, gender, race/ethnicity and marital status
Rewards greatest for research-oriented faculty Pay, tenure, Status
Implementing and maintaining research programs is resource-intensive Requires time, support staff and institutional/
departmental support
Faculty Mentorship
Mutual benefits for protégé and mentor Few incentives for faculty to become
mentors Disincentives: research and publishing is
rewarded, mentorship can be time consuming Large classes, high student-faculty ratios
can make it difficult to establish meaningful faculty/student relationships
Students tend to rely on faculty to establish mentoring relationships
Conceptual Framework
Organizational Citizenship: Exerting more effort on the job than is required
or expected by formal role prescriptions (McManus & Russell, 1997)
Taking on undergraduate students doing research is often “above and beyond” the call of duty for faculty
Two primary components: Actions and decisions targeted for certain
individuals Activities directed at an organization
(Organ & Ryan, 1995)
Research Questions
What predicts STEM faculty members’ likelihood of involving undergraduate students in their research projects?
What factors account for the variation across institutions in STEM faculty members’ average likelihood of involving undergraduate students in their research projects?
Data and Sample
Data Source and Sample: 2007-2008 HERI Faculty Survey
4,765 STEM faculty members from 193 institutions
Dependent Variable: During the past two years, have you engaged
undergraduates on your research project (Yes = 1, No = 0)
Yes, 61%
No; 39%
Engaged undergrads in research?
Analyses
Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM) Appropriate for multi-level data with dichotomous
outcome
Significant predictors reported as delta-p (Δ-p) statistics
Level 1 Predictors Level 2 PredictorsDemographic Characteristics Institutional Characteristics
Professional Career (Tenure, rank, etc.) Institutional Selectivity
Teaching and Scholarly activities Aggregated Faculty Variables
Publications and funding
Goals for undergraduates
Perceptions of Institutional Climate
Results: Level 1
Level-1 Predictors* Delta-P
Professional Career
Time since appointed at present institution -0.48%
Discipline (Biological/Life sciences is reference)
Engineering and Computer Sciences -17.04%
Health Sciences -34.55%
Physical Sciences -19.97%
Teaching Activities
Taught an honors course 9.63%
Taught an interdisciplinary course 5.76%
Number of graduate courses taught -3.69%
*We only show significant predictors.
Results: Level 1 (cont’d)
Other Scholarly Activities
Level-1 Predictors Delta-P
Scholarly Activities (other than teaching)
Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching 7.94%
Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work 7.08%
HPW engaged in research/scholarly writing 4.87%
Extent: engage in academic work spanning multiple disciplines 5.51%
Extent: mentor new faculty 5.09%
Publications and Funding
Number of articles published in academic/prof. journals (career) 4.41%
Number of published books, manuals or monographs (career) -3.87%
Source of stress: Research or publishing demands 8.58%
Received funding for work from foundations 8.58%
Received funding for work from state or federal government 13.22%
Received funding for work from business or industry 7.73%
Results: Level 1 (cont’d)
Undergraduate Goals and Institutional Climate
Level-1 Predictors Delta-P
Goals for Undergraduates
Encourage student habits of mind for learning (factor) 6.64%
Institutional Climate
Agree: faculty feel most students well-prepared academically 3.50%
Agree: faculty strongly interested in acad. problems of ugrads 3.65%
Agree: my research is valued by faculty in my department 3.04%
Results: Level 2
Level-2 Predictors Delta-P
HBCU 17.03%
Liberal Arts Institution (Carnegie) 13.03%
Institutional Selectivity (in 100-point increments) 3.50%
Model Statistics
Explained variance at Level 2 0.59
Baseline probability of inclusion of undergrads in research
0.61
Discussion
Institutional context Faculty perceptions of institutional climate Disciplinary context Face-time with undergraduates, goals for
undergraduates Funding
Conclusion & Future Directions
Future research Type and quality of UG research opportunities Fuller accounting of faculty effort in involving
undergraduates in research Conclusions
Incentivizing behavior Institutionalizing undergraduate research
Contact Information
Acknowledgments: This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01
GMO71968-05 as well as the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by
the sponsors.
Papers and reports are available for download
from project website:
www.heri.ucla.edu/nihProject e-mail: [email protected]
Faculty and Co-PIs:Sylvia HurtadoMitchell Chang
Monica LinGina GarciaFelisha Herrera
Postdoctoral Scholars:Kevin EaganJosephine Gasiewski
Administrative Staff:Aaron Pearl
Graduate Research Assistants:Christopher NewmanMinh TranJessica Sharkness
Cindy MosquedaJuan Garibay
HERI Faculty Survey 2010-2011
Registration is now open Go to www.heri.ucla.edu for more
information about participating