undergraduate education research article

• Search this journal
• Search all journals

Article Sections

• Workshop overview
• Conclusions
• References cited

Related Content

• Next Article

Engaging Undergraduate Students in Research

Click on author name to view affiliation information

A primary goal of undergraduate education is to provide a comprehensive and diverse educational experience to prepare and promote student success in their professional and personal pursuits. Increased academic success and program connectivity have been demonstrated when undergraduate students are engaged in research early in their degree programs. Despite the known benefits of undergraduates engaging in research, there are challenges associated with conducting undergraduate research programs. Reported barriers include the lack of student knowledge about research methods, lack of preparedness, and lack of student identification and understanding of their specific interests which may not facilitate research ideas and affinity to conduct research. Additional challenges are related to the lack of faculty resources (e.g., time, specific equipment, research space, etc.), the ability to train and supervise undergraduates who may have very limited or no research experience and those students who are true beginners lacking foundational skills. Moreover, involving, engaging, and supporting underrepresented students (e.g., first-generation college students, females, ethnic minorities) in undergraduate research experiences can require different approaches for mentors to be effective. The “Engaging Undergraduate Students in Research” workshop was organized by the Vice Presidents of the American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS) Research and Education Divisions at the ASHS 2022 Annual Conference in Chicago, IL, USA. The workshop featured three speakers who described their experiences engaging undergraduate students in research. After each speaker provided comments for ≈5 minutes, the workshop attendees self-selected into three breakout groups with the speakers for roundtable discussions related to engaging students in research through coursework, engaging students via formal research projects, and engaging underrepresented students in research. After the breakout group discussions, a summary was given by each group, and whole group discussions and comments were facilitated. This is a summary of the information discussed and shared during the workshop, along with information that can assist faculty with developing and implementing undergraduate research experiences.

Engaging undergraduate students in undergraduate research experiences (UREs) is important for student development, both professionally and personally ( National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017 ). Increased involvement of undergraduates in research has been a major focus of science education ( American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011 ). Undergraduate research experiences have been thought to improve critical thinking, writing, and speaking skills to such an extent that a challenge was presented to research institutions in the late 1990s to engage more undergraduates in research experiences ( Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University 1998 ). More recent research demonstrated a correlation between participation in UREs and increased grade point averages, even if the experience was as brief as only one semester ( Fechheimer et al. 2011 ).

Many universities are strategically and actively developing UREs ( Blanton 2008 ). To facilitate UREs, universities often have specific offices and collaborative efforts devoted to undergraduate research, such as the Office of Undergraduate Research and Creative Inquiry of Kansas State University (Manhattan, KS, USA), The Ohio State University (Columbus, OH, USA), and the Innovation, Discovery, Exploration, Analysis (IDEA) Center of Texas State University (San Marcos, TX, USA). As part of the Kansas State University 2025 Visionary Plan, an explicit goal of the undergraduate experience is to expand opportunities for undergraduate students to participate in high-impact experiential learning and research by promoting and increasing opportunities for undergraduate research and allocating resources and assigning responsibility to coordinate and lead applied learning efforts, including a formal program for undergraduate research, service, community-based learning, and internships ( Kansas State University 2022 ).

Hernandez et al. (2018 ) demonstrated that underrepresented students who engaged in UREs benefitted in several areas, including academic performance, graduating with a scientific degree, being accepted into a science-based graduate degree program, and longer-term scientific workforce participation. Undergraduate research experiences were found to increase retention of students in science-related disciplines while also increasing enrollment in graduate school programs ( Russell et al. 2007 ), including those of underrepresented groups of ethnic minorities and women ( Bauer and Bennett 2008 ; Campbell and Skoog 2008 ; Gregerman 1999 ; Hathaway et al. 2002 ; Lopatto 2004 ; Nagda et al. 1998 ). Previous research also indicated that UREs build career confidence, self-awareness of career goals, leadership, and teamwork skills, especially when students complete collaborative projects with other researchers ( Madan and Teitge 2013 ).

These are important considerations because undergraduate enrollment has decreased steadily over the past several decades in agricultural-related fields ( Arnold et al. 2014 ; Dole 2015 ). Suggested reasons include increased urbanization and a poor image associated with agriculture as a major and career choice ( Hansen et al. 2007 ). However, more recent research revealed a lack of public awareness of the term “horticulture” and the career opportunities that the field provides ( Meyer et al. 2016 ). Exposing students to various disciplines within agriculture while also increasing their awareness of the application of the majors to real-world environmental issues generally help attract environmentally conscious urban students to programs ( Hansen et al. 2007 ). Engaging students in UREs also gave students confidence in their career choice and abilities ( Lopatto 2004 ; Madan and Teitge 2013 ).

Research has suggested that the most positive outcomes regarding undergraduate research experiences come from highly engaged and organized faculty mentors facilitating the experience ( Russell et al. 2007 ). With typical university teaching, research, and service workloads, the additional mentoring of an undergraduate can be a challenge for some faculty ( Fechheimer et al. 2011 ; Shortlidge et al. 2015 ). Other obstacles to including undergraduates in research are finding funding to support students as well as for research questions that fit into an undergraduate timeline (O’Donnell et al. 2015). Furthermore, undergraduate students require more supervision than graduate students ( Russell et al. 2007 ). It should be noted, however, that previous research suggested that faculty members experience great satisfaction and benefits from participating in UREs ( Chopin 2002 ; Russell et al. 2007 ; Shortlidge et al. 2015 ; Zydney et al. 2002 ).

The goal of the workshop was to provide American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS) members an opportunity to learn and explore methods used by faculty at different institutions to recruit, implement, and engage undergraduate students in research within horticultural and agricultural disciplines. Workshop participants learned about successes and challenges associated with the different methods implemented by the speaker panel.

Dr. Ryan Contreras (Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA), Vice President of the ASHS Research Division, and Dr. Tina Marie (Waliczek) Cade (Texas State University), Vice President of the ASHS Education Division, were the workshop organizers and coordinators. The panelists were Dr. Chad Miller (Kansas State University), who shared insight about integrating undergraduate research activities in the classroom, Dr. Chieri Kubota (The Ohio State University), who provided details about engaging undergraduates through formal research projects, and Dr. Merritt Drewery (Texas State University), who shared experiences and approaches to engage underrepresented students in research. Dr. Contreras was the moderator during the session.

Engaging students Through CourseWork

Course-based UREs (CUREs) are UREs incorporated into program coursework and curriculum as an avenue to engage students in research. These CUREs can improve critical thinking and writing skills, along with the opportunity to broaden student awareness and knowledge of topic areas that may not be extensively covered in-depth through the course ( Allyn 2013 ). The UREs in coursework can range from a single laboratory period to several weeks over a semester, or longer, depending on the course structure. Several challenges have been identified by faculty when developing and implementing CUREs ( Shortlidge et al. 2015 ). Three challenges when incorporating URE into coursework discussed during the workshop (across all three topic areas) were: addressing background/experience with the scientific method and process, because many students are not familiar; some students are not interested in research or scientific inquiry; and time and resource limitations or constraints.

Research experiences should be designed and implemented based on the appropriate level for the students enrolled. These types of experiences can influence students in their educational and career trajectories ( Dolan 2016 ). For example, simple and guided research projects and assignments would be more appropriate for introductory or lower-level courses. Moreover, introductory courses taken early in a degree program in which students experience (positive) scaffolded research activities can assist students with learning scientific methods, building confidence, and preparing them for scientific writing/reporting in other higher-level courses and ongoing research activities ( Beatty et al. 2021 ; Buffalari et al. 2020 ). With upper-level or advanced courses, students would have a more “authentic” CURE ( Beatty et al. 2021 ), characterized by less guidance and more autonomy, and perform tasks like data analysis and poster or manuscript writing. UREs of these upper-level courses can provide students an opportunity to confirm their career interests and confirm their desire to pursue science research via additional CUREs during their undergraduate program and/or their career paths ( Dolan 2016 ). One method discussed during the workshop to address background differences involved the instructor facilitating group or class wikis and/or small groups, where information can be and is encouraged to be shared. With this approach, students can assist each other by using their individual strengths. Moreover, near-peer mentoring, which involves pairing current graduate students in the department or course with undergraduates, can be helpful.

In the HORT 350 Plant Propagation course at Kansas State University, select laboratory activities are designed and implemented as research experiences. The scope of these laboratories could be considered “inquiry laboratories” ( Dolan 2016 ); the activities are guided, and a research question and experiment protocol already exist. During these activities, students are tasked with developing their own questions and experimental details (e.g., treatments, data collection). Students are responsible for creating two formally graded laboratory reports that follow a scientific manuscript template. During the first laboratory meeting, students are given a sample laboratory report with a discussion about and explanation of the different parts of scientific research and reporting (e.g., abstract, materials and methods, results). The first laboratory report is submitted near the end of the first half of the semester. The report is graded based on a rubric, and comments and suggestions are provided. A second report is submitted near the end of the semester, with the goal being that students can improve the second report based on feedback from the first report.

One challenge highlighted by faculty is that incorporating UREs into courses can require significant amounts of time, which is not to be ignored. Although time commitments may be relatively high, several benefits from a faculty standpoint can be realized, including opportunities to incorporate disciplinary research into teaching. When properly documented and recognized, these opportunities could assist faculty in the performance and promotion review process ( Shortlidge et al. 2015 ). Workshop participants also raised the issue of a lack of interest among some students. These students may view research as “extra” work that is not applicable to their career path and, as such, disengage in the CURE. The discussion of this topic encouraged faculty to stress the transferability of skills developed during the research process and to help design experiments for which the applicability of the problem is clear and cuts across crops and disciplines to appeal to the widest audience of students. Moreover, providing students with data and information about the demand for employees in careers related to science and engineering disciplines in the food, agriculture, renewable natural resources, and environmental industries ( Fernandez et al. 2020 ) could increase student engagement in CUREs and participation in UREs.

Engaging Students through Formal Research Projects

Undergraduate research experiences in the United States related to the Bachelor of Science (BS) curricula are often implemented through honors programs or senior capstone courses; however, they may not be required for successful degree completion. In contrast, BS curricula in other countries include undergraduate research and senior theses as core requirements for graduation, depending on the institution (van der Rijst and Visser-Wijnveen 2011; Wuetherick 2020). Undergraduate research and thesis writing experiences are invaluable for students because they help them build their skill sets that are required to be effective in a professional work setting ( Lopatto 2007 ). In the United States, a major goal of the BS curriculum for horticultural sciences is to provide students with a broad understanding of core scientific concepts and horticulture industry practices to prepare students for careers related to plant science or horticulture. Hands-on project experiences, discussions of scientific data, and technical writing experiences enrich undergraduate educational experiences and are often effective for connecting classroom knowledge to professional practices. For faculty members, undergraduate students on their research team provide unique opportunities. First, undergraduate students can provide opportunities to examine research ideas that have not been tested and are therefore considered “risky” because they may or may not generate data that warrant scientific publications or graduate student theses. These could be “pilot studies” useful for further research endeavors. Second, having undergraduate students in the laboratory provides opportunities for graduate students to mentor students who do not have laboratory research experiences. These mentoring opportunities can provide valuable experience and training useful to the professional development of graduate students while also reducing time demands on faculty. Third, in some cases, students in different majors (e.g., engineering or computer sciences) can join the research team. In these situations, the undergraduates may bring valuable insight and knowledge that can enhance the research laboratory and program.

In Dr. Kubota’s Controlled Environment Plant Physiology and Technology Laboratory at The Ohio State University, there are typically two to three undergraduate students who conduct their own research at any given time during an academic year. They are often recruited by the principal investigator (PI), or they are students who seek and approach the PI for UREs. The laboratory conducts science-based technology development in controlled-environment agriculture (CEA). The research requires a solid understanding of plant responses to environmental factors and environmental control. Typically, undergraduate students who have a limited understanding of CEA (e.g., when they have never taken courses taught by the PI) will be asked to start as an undergraduate student worker assisting with ongoing projects of the laboratory before being assigned to their own project. Students can choose to conduct research as a paid research experience (student research assistant) or for research credit (typically three to four credit hours per semester). For the former option, the research project must be relevant to the funded research projects of the PI so that expenses can be justified. Expenses for student participation in scientific meetings can be funded by project grants or gift funds and other revenues earned by the program.

Some challenges of working with undergraduate students were discussed during the workshop. Because the research is not a curriculum requirement and is an extracurricular activity, students could leave the project without completing the planned experiment. This risk can be avoided with better communication by assuring a realistic timeline and establishing guidelines ( Beer and Myers 1995 ). In the Kubota Laboratory, all students with their own research projects meet with the PI at least once weekly to discuss their progress. Additionally, all laboratory members meet weekly or every other week to discuss research. During each of the 1.5-h meetings, one student gives a research progress presentation, and another student introduces a research paper that they found interesting and relevant to their research. These meetings help undergraduate students build a sense of community, which prevents early termination of their project without completion. A second challenge is that the availability of undergraduate students may not work for seasonal research cycles. It is necessary to adapt the research plan to the academic cycle of the students. Undergraduate students often leave for home or internships during the summer. Flexibility is required when planning undergraduate student research; however, this presents a major hurdle when the research is related to seasonal occurrences outside of controlled environments, such as flowering time, planting dates, and other activities with limited ability to change timing.

Engaging Underrepresented Students in Research

Black and Hispanic students are underrepresented among degree recipients and in the workforce of the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as well as agricultural sciences ( National Science Foundation 2019 ). Underrepresented students encounter additional barriers to academic engagement, including a lack of same-race peers and faculty mentors, a lack of faculty contact and mentorship, a lack of emotional support and encouragement from family, a lack of finances, which prevents participation in research, and a lack of validation from meaningful scientific others ( Carlone and Johnson 2007 ; Chang et al. 2011 ; Hurtado et al. 2008 ). These barriers contribute to the lack of science identity and sense of belonging that underrepresented students feel ( Hazari et al. 2013 ), especially in male-dominated fields ( Sinclair et al. 2014 ), such as agricultural sciences. When students do not feel they are legitimate or valued members of their discipline, they are less likely to persist ( Zaniewski and Reinholz 2016 ).

Benefits of UREs for STEM students have been documented ( Haeger and Fresquez 2017 ; Hernandez et al. 2018 ; Slovacek et al. 2012 ) and could arguably help underrepresented students overcome the aforementioned barriers to academic engagement. However, underrepresented students (e.g., Hispanic) are less likely to engage in UREs at primarily White institutions and minority-serving institutions (Haeger et al. 2015), perhaps because education and culture in STEM departments often align with masculine and White culture norms that may make UREs challenging and negative ( Carlone and Johnson 2007 ; Thompson and Jensen-Ryan 2018 ).

When engaging underrepresented students in UREs, especially in male-dominated fields (e.g., agricultural sciences), it is important to understand the aforementioned barriers and implement strategies that maximize recruitment, retention, and success. We outline best practices that are evidence-based and/or informed through our experiences in engaging underrepresented students in our laboratories that were also presented during the workshop and discussed during the breakout sessions.

Recruiting and hiring underrepresented students for UREs

Noninclusive or intimidating recruiting and hiring practices can introduce barriers to entry in UREs for underrepresented students. When promoting UREs to students, faculty should communicate early and often. A best practice is to introduce UREs in lower-level undergraduate courses, even if these students are not the target population. This early introduction familiarizes underrepresented students with UREs and prepares them to participate in later stages of their academic careers. When recruiting, it is also important to be authentic; faculty mentors should share their stories and identities. Women identify with other women in STEM who they believe have encountered strggles similar to their own ( Pietri et al. 2018a ), especially if they are the same ethnicity ( Pietri et al. 2018b ). If faculty mentors do not belong to an underrepresented population, then they can educate themselves about the adversity and bias that these groups face and publicly identify themselves as an ally. Alternatively, or additionally, faculty can allow a current student who is underrepresented to lead the recruitment. If recruitment involves physical or verbal advertisements for URE positions, then those advertisements should not tokenize target populations, because this can cause underrepresented students to feel isolated and individually disregarded ( Hall and Stevenson 2007 ; Stroshine and Brandl 2011 ). A best practice is to allow other underrepresented students to design or approve advertisements to ensure that the verbiage and graphics are welcoming and inclusive. Finally, the application process should not introduce additional barriers to URE entry. Data indicate that underrepresented college students tend to be less academically prepared because of lower academic achievement and underdeveloped academic skills in high school ( Terenzini et al. 2001 ; Zalaquett 1999 ); therefore, if the application process relies on the grade point average, writing samples, or letters of recommendation, then they may be eliminated from the candidate pool.

Retaining and supporting underrepresented students in UREs

Financial considerations should be made for any student facing economic challenges or hardships. Regarding underrepresented students, finances are often a barrier for underrepresented student participation in UREs ( Hurtado et al. 2008 ). Black and Hispanic first-generation college students often finance college themselves, and White first-generation college students often receive financial support from their parents early during their college career; however, these funds are eventually depleted ( McCabe and Jackson 2016 ). Therefore, underrepresented students should be compensated at or above fair market value for UREs, but they still may need to have an additional job. Faculty mentors should be mindful of these external pressures and adjust timelines and expectations accordingly. Furthermore, underrepresented students will likely not understand their role in the URE. A best practice is for the faculty mentor and student mentee to jointly develop and sign contracts clarifying performance and behavior expectations. This will demystify the URE process for the student.

Positive mentorship is especially critical for underrepresented students in STEM ( McCormick et al. 2014 ; Tsui 2007 ); however, student characteristics (e.g., ethnicity, first-generation status, sex, financial resources, age, etc.) impact the type of faculty contact they have. For example, first-generation college students have less frequent and less satisfying interactions with faculty ( Kim and Sax 2009 ). Near-peer mentoring is an effective approach for supporting underrepresented students ( Zaniewski and Reinholz 2016 ) involved in UREs and could complement traditional mentorship received from faculty. Near-peer mentoring, especially when the mentor is from a similar background as the mentee, connects students with role models from similar communities ( Inzlicht and Good 2006 ). Role models alleviate negative stereotypes and provide representation because students see others like themselves who can be and are successful in their fields. Therefore, providing an underrepresented student who is beginning the URE with an experienced student to serve as a mentor can increase the success of that URE while also providing the experienced student an opportunity to develop as a mentor. The near-peer pair should be encouraged to discuss academic and nonacademic topics; furthermore, the struggles associated with being an underrepresented student in STEM should be normalized to provide academic and psychosocial support ( Zaniewski and Reinholz 2016 ).

Underrepresented students often feel isolated in the classroom and are intimidated by peers and faculty ( Shehab et al. 2007 ). Whereas ethnic majority students require relationships with peers to feel they belong in their discipline, underrepresented students require formal relationships with both faculty and peers ( Meeuwisse et al. 2010 ). Social integration in college increases the students’ sense of belonging and perceived social support ( Hurtado and Carter 1997 ; Strayhorn 2008 ; Wilcox et al. 2005 ). Therefore, faculty engaging with underrepresented students in UREs should cultivate environments that involve experiential learning and dynamic social interactions. To achieve this, faculty mentors can arrange laboratory field trips or “lunch and learn” events. These opportunities provide a venue for supportive interactions in academic and social environments that enhance the students’ sense of belonging ( Hoffman et al. 2003 ) and community.

Perhaps most importantly, to support underrepresented students in UREs, faculty mentors should meet students where they are and acknowledge them as valid members of the STEM fields and their specific discipline. Faculty–student engagement and faculty validation significantly predict underrepresented students’ sense of belonging with faculty ( Cole et al. 2020 ; Newman et al. 2015 ).

Conducting and facilitating UREs can be challenging for both students and faculty; however, the end product can be rewarding for all involved. It is important, regardless of a student’s background and previous experiences, that faculty and mentors ensure inclusivity and equitability when mentoring students. There are various techniques and opportunities to provide UREs that can be adapted to fit the individual terms of faculty and students. Including undergraduate students in UREs increases their awareness of areas within their discipline and of the industry that they may otherwise overlook. Furthermore, it aids in the success of students beyond their time in the URE. Moreover, UREs can assist in graduate student recruitment when undergraduate programs overlap with a master’s degree program. Examples include a 3 + 2 Program (Kansas State University, Horticulture and Natural Resources 2022) and the Accelerated Master’s Program ( Oregon State University Graduate School 2022 ).

There are many benefits to faculty facilitating UREs, including broadening research interests, connecting research and teaching programs, and publications. All of these can positively impact performance reviews, promotion, and tenure. Because of the benefits derived by the students, faculty, individual academic units, and institutions, increased incentives for faculty who engage undergraduates in UREs should be considered.

Allyn, D. 2013 Course-based undergraduate research – It can be accomplished! J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Dance 84 9 32 36 https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2013.838113

• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

American Association for the Advancement of Science 2011 Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action https://visionandchange.org/ [accessed 11 Oct 2022]

Arnold, M.A. , Lineberger, R.D. , Davis, T.D. , Reed, D.W. & McKinley, W.J. 2014 A survey of North American horticulture graduate programs: Demographics, policies, finances, and metrics HortTechnology 24 2 241 251 https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.24.2.241

Bauer, K.W. & Bennett, J.S. 2008 Evaluation of the undergraduate research program at the University of Delaware: A multifaceted design 81 111 Taraban, R. & Blanton, R.L. Creating effective undergraduate research programs in science: The transformation from student to scientist. Teachers College Press New York, NY, USA

Beatty, A.E. , Ballen, C.J. , Driessen, E.P. , Schwartz, T.S. & Graze, R.M. 2021 Addressing the unique qualities of upper-level biology course-based undergraduate research experiences through the integration of skill-building Integr. Comp. Biol. 61 3 981 991 https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icab006

Beer, R.H. & Myers, C. 1995 Guidelines for the supervision of undergraduate research J. Chem. Educ. 72 8 721 https://doi.org/10.1021/ed072p721

Blanton, R.L. 2008 A brief history of undergraduate research 233 46 Taraban, R. & Blanton, R.L. Creating effective undergraduate research programs in science: The transformation from student to scientist. Teachers College Press New York, NY, USA

Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University 1998 Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America’s research universities https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/26012/Reinventing%20Undergraduate%20Education%20%28Boyer%20Report%20I%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y . [accessed 11 Oct 2022]

Buffalari, D. , Fernandes, J.J. , Chase, L. , Lom, B. , McMurray, M. , Morrison, M. & Stavnezer, A.J. 2020 Integrating research into the undergraduate curriculum: 1. Early research experiences and training J. Undergrad. Neurosci. Educ. 19 1 A52 A63

Campbell, A. & Skoog, G.D. 2008 Transcending deficits and differences through undergraduate research 206 214 Taraban, R. & Blanton, R.L. Creating effective undergraduate research programs in science: The transformation from student to scientist. Teachers College Press New York, NY, USA

Carlone, H.B. & Johnson, A. 2007 Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44 8 1187 1218 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237

Chang, M.J. , Eagan, M.K. , Lin, M.H. & Hurtado, S. 2011 Considering the impact of racial stigma and science identity: Persistence among biomedical and behavioral science students J. High. Educ. (Columb. Ohio) 82 5 564 597 https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2011.0030

Chopin, S.F. 2002 Undergraduate research experiences: The transformation of science education from reading to doing Anat. Rec. 269 1 3 10 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.10058

Cole, D. , Newman, C.B. & Hypolite, L.I. 2020 Sense of belonging and mattering among two cohorts of first-year students participating in a comprehensive college transition program Am. Behav. Sci. 64 3 276 297 https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219869417

Dolan, E.L. 2016 Course-based undergraduate research experiences: Current knowledge and future directions https://advance.louisiana.edu/sites/advance/files/Course-based%20Undergraduate%20Research%20Experiences%20Current%20knowledge%20and%20future%20directions.pdf . [accessed 27 Oct 2022]

Dole, J. 2015 Status of student numbers and program identity at two-year and four-year horticultural programs Amer Soc Hort Sci Nwsl. 31 1 5 6

Fechheimer, M. , Webber, K. & Kleiber, P.B. 2011 How well do undergraduate research programs promote engagement and success of students? CBE Life Sci. Educ. 10 2 156 163 https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-10-0130

Fernandez, J.M. , Goecker, A.D. , Smith, E. , Moran, E.R. & Wilson, C.A. 2020 Employment opportunities for college graduates in food, renewable energy, and the environment; United States 2020–2025 https://www.purdue.edu/usda/employment/#:∼:text=We%20expect%20employment%20opportunities%20in,with%20bachelor%27s%20or%20higher%20degrees . [accessed 20 Sep 2022]

Gregerman, S. 1999 Improving academic success of diverse students through undergraduate research Counc. Undergrad. Res. Q. 20 2 54 59

Haeger, H. , BrckaLorenz, A. & Webber, K. 2015 Participation in undergraduate research at minority-serving institutions Perspect Undergrad Res Mentoring. 4(1):1–22. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/229534389.pdf . [accessed 25 Oct. 2022]

Haeger, H. & Fresquez, C. 2017 Mentoring for inclusion: The impact of mentoring on undergraduate researchers in the sciences CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15 36 1 9 https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0016

Hall, D.M. & Stevenson, H.C. 2007 Double jeopardy: Being African-American and “doing diversity” in independent schools Teach. Coll. Rec. 109 1 1 23 https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810710900102

Hansen, N. , Ward, S. , Khosla, R. , Fenwick, J. & Moore, B. 2007 What does undergraduate enrollment in soil and crop sciences mean for the future of agronomy? Agron. J. 99 4 1169 1174 https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2006.0318

Hathaway, R.S. , Nagda, B. & Gregerman, S. 2002 The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study J. Coll. Student Dev. 43 5 614 631

Hazari, Z. , Sadler, P.M. & Sonnert, G. 2013 The science identity of college students: Exploring the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 42 5 82 91 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43631586 . [accessed 19 Oct 2022]

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

Hoffman, M. , Richmond, J. , Morrow, J. & Salomone, K. 2003 Investigating “sense of belonging” in first-year college students J. Coll. Stud. Retent. 4 3 227 256 https://doi.org/10.2190/DRYC-CXQ9-JQ8V-HT4V

Hurtado, S. & Carter, D.F. 1997 Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging Sociol. Educ. 70 4 324 345 https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270

Hurtado, S. , Eagan, M.K. , Cabrera, N.L. , Lin, M.H. , Park, J. & Lopez, M. 2008 Training future scientists: Predicting first-year minority student participation in health science research Res. High. Educ. 49 2 126 152 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9068-1

Inzlicht, M. & Good, C. 2006 How environments can threaten academic performance, self-knowledge, and sense of belonging 129 150 Levin, S. & van Laar, C. Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers Mahwah, NJ, USA

Kansas State University 2022 2025 Theme 2: Undergraduate educational experience – Strategic action plan https://www.k-state.edu/2025/documents/2025-2-undergraduate-final-action-plan.pdf . [accessed 26 Oct 2022]

Kansas State University, Horticulture and Natural Resources 2022 Concurrent BS & MS https://hnr.k-state.edu/academics/graduate-programs/concurrent-degree.html . [accessed 25 Oct 2022]

Kim, Y.K. & Sax, L.J. 2009 Student-faculty interaction in research universities: Differences by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status Res. High. Educ. 50 5 437 459 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-009-9127-x

Lopatto, D. 2004 Survey of undergraduate research experience (SURE): First findings Cell Biol. Educ. 3 4 270 277 https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045

Lopatto, D. 2007 Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning Cell Biol. Educ. 6 4 297 306 https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039

Madan, C.R. & Teitge, B.D. 2013 The benefits of undergraduate research: The student’s perspective Mentor. 15 https://doi.org/10.26209/mj1561274

McCabe, J. & Jackson, B.A. 2016 Pathways to financing college: Race and class in students’ narratives of paying for school Soc. Currents 3 4 367 385 https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496516636404

McCormick, M. , Barthelemy, R.S. & Henderson, C. 2014 Women’s persistence into graduate astronomy programs: The roles of support, interest, and capital J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng. 20 4 317 340 https://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014009829

Meeuwisse, M. , Severiens, S.E. & Born, M.P. 2010 Learning environment, interaction, sense of belonging and study success in ethnically diverse student groups Res. High. Educ. 51 6 528 545 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9168-1

Meyer, M.H. , Needham, D. , Dole, J. , Trader, B. , Fox, J. , Conley, M. , Neff, M. & Shaw, J. 2016 Importance of horticulture and perception as a career HortTechnology 26 2 114 120 https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.26.2.114

Nagda, B.A. , Gregerman, S. , Jonides, J. , von Hippel, W. & Lerner, J. 1998 Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention Rev. High. Educ. 22 1 55 72 https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.1998.0016

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2017 Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges and opportunities National Academies Press Washington, DC, USA https://doi.org/10.17226/24622

National Science Foundation 2019 Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/data-tables . [accessed 19 Oct 2022]

Newman, C.B. , Wood, J.L. & Harris, F. III 2015 Black mens’ perceptions of sense of belonging with faculty members in community colleges J. Negro Educ. 84 4 564 577 https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.4.0564

O’Donnell, K. , Botelho, J. , Brown, J. , González, G.M. & Head, W. 2015 Undergraduate research and its impact on student success for underrepresented students New Dir. Higher Educ. 169 27 38 https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20120

Oregon State University Graduate School 2022 Accelerated Master’s platform https://gradschool.oregonstate.edu/accelerated-masters-platform . [accessed 25 Oct 2022]

Pietri, E.S. , Johnson, I.R. , Ozgumus, E. & Young, A.I. 2018a Maybe she is relatable: Increasing women’s awareness of gender bias encourages their identification with women scientists Psychol. Women Q. 42 2 192 219 https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317752643

Pietri, E.S. , Johnson, I.R. & Ozgumus, E. 2018b One size may not fit all: Exploring how the intersection of race and gender and stigma consciousness predict effective identity-safe cues for Black women J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 74 1 291 306 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.021

van der Rijst, R.M. & Visser-Wijnveen, G.J. 2011 Undergraduate research and inquiry in the Netherlands Counc. Undergrad. Res. Q. 32 2 32 36 https://hdl.handle.net/1887/44766 . [accessed 19 Oct 2022]

Russell, S.H. , Hancock, M.P. & McCullough, J. 2007 Benefits of undergraduate research experiences Science 316 5824 548 549 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140384

Shehab, R. , Murphy, T. , Davidson, J. , Foor, C. , Reed Roads, T. , Trytten, T. & Walden, S. 2007 AC 2007-1691: Experiences as a non-majority engineering student Proc Amer Soc Eng Educ. https://www.academia.edu/19359368/AC_2007_1691_EXPERIENCES_AS_A_NON_MAJORITY_ENGINEERING_STUDENT?from_sitemaps=true . [accessed 25 Oct 2022]

Shortlidge, E.E. , Bangera, G. & Brownell, S.E. 2015 Faculty perspectives on developing and teaching course-based undergraduate research experiences Bioscience 66 1 54 62 https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv167

Sinclair, S. , Carlsson, R. & Björklund, F. 2014 The role of friends in career compromise: Same-gender friendship intensifies gender differences in educational choice J. Vocat. Behav. 84 2 109 118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.007

Slovacek, S. , Whittinghill, J. , Flenoury, L. & Wiseman, D. 2012 Promoting minority success in the sciences: The minority opportunities in research programs at CSULA J. Res. Sci. Teach. 49 2 199 217 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20451

Strayhorn, T.L. 2008 Sentido de pertenencia. A hierarchal analysis predicting sense of belonging among Latino college students J. Hisp. High. Educ. 7 4 301 320 https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192708320474

Stroshine, M.S. & Brandl, S.G. 2011 Race, gender, and tokenism in policing: An empirical elaboration Police Q. 14 4 323 343 https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611111423738

Terenzini, P.T. , Cabrera, A.F. & Bernal, E.M. 2001 Swimming against the tide: The poor in American higher education https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562879.pdf . [accessed 19 Oct 2022]

Thompson, J.J. & Jensen-Ryan, D. 2018 Becoming a “science person”: Faculty recognition and the development of cultural capital in the context of undergraduate biology research CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17 62 1 17 https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-11-0229

Tsui, L. 2007 Effective strategies to increase diversity in STEM fields: A review of the research literature J. Negro Educ. 76 4 555 581 https://www.jstor.org/stable/40037228 . [accessed 19 Oct 2022]

Wilcox, P. , Winn, S. & Fyvie-Gauld, M. 2005 ‘It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people’: The role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education Stud. High. Educ. 30 6 707 722 https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070500340036

Wuetherick, B. 2020 Transforming undergraduate research at Canadian Universities 265 280 Hensel, N.H. & Blessinger, P. International perspectives on undergraduate research. Palgrave Macmillan Cham, Switzerland https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53559-9_15

Zalaquett, C.P. 1999 Do students of noncollege-educated parents achieve less academically than students of college educated parents? Psychol. Rep. 85 2 417 421 https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.417

Zaniewski, A.M. & Reinholz, D. 2016 Increasing STEM success: A near-peer mentoring program in the physical sciences Int. J. STEM Educ. 3 14 1 12 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0043-2

Zydney, A. , Bennett, J. , Shahid, A. & Bauer, K.W. 2002 Faculty perspectives regarding the undergraduate research in science and engineering J. Eng. Educ. 91 3 291 297 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2002.tb00706

Contributor Notes

C.T.M. is the corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] .

  Headquarters:

  1018 Duke Street

  Alexandria, VA 22314

  Phone : 703.836.4606

  Email : [email protected]

© 2018-2024 American Society for Horticultural Science

• [66.249.64.20|185.80.151.41]
• 185.80.151.41

Character limit 500 /500

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• CAREER COLUMN
• 15 March 2019

A student’s guide to undergraduate research

• Shiwei Wang 0

Shiwei Wang is a junior undergraduate student studying Integrated Science and Chemistry at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois. Twitter: @W_Shiwei

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

I have thoroughly enjoyed my experience working in a materials-chemistry laboratory at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, for the past two years. Being able to mix an undergraduate education with original research in a proper laboratory has been a fantastic opportunity.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00871-x

This is an article from the Nature Careers Community, a place for Nature readers to share their professional experiences and advice. Guest posts are encouraged. You can get in touch with the editor at [email protected].

Wang, S. et al. Preprint at ChemRxiv https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv.7824707.v2 (2019).

Download references

Related Articles

Bring training forward for undergraduate researchers

Breaking ice, and helicopter drops: winning photos of working scientists

Career Feature 23 APR 24

Londoners see what a scientist looks like up close in 50 photographs

Career News 18 APR 24

Deadly diseases and inflatable suits: how I found my niche in virology research

Spotlight 17 APR 24

Ecologists: don’t lose touch with the joy of fieldwork

World View 24 APR 24

Chemistry lab destroyed by Taiwan earthquake has physical and mental impacts

Correspondence 23 APR 24

Technician - Senior Technician in Cell and Molecular Biology

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 24.05.2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a distinguished life science research institute founded and supported by the Italian ...

Human Technopole

Postdoctoral Fellow

The Dubal Laboratory of Neuroscience and Aging at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) seeks postdoctoral fellows to investigate the ...

San Francisco, California

University of California, San Francsico

Postdoctoral Associate

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoctoral Research Fellow

Description Applications are invited for a postdoctoral fellow position at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health, to participate...

Toronto (City), Ontario (CA)

Sinai Health

Postdoctoral Research Associate - Surgery

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

How Undergraduates Benefit From Doing Research

Undergraduate research isn't just for STEM subjects.

Benefits of Undergraduate Research

Getty Images

Studies show students who participate in research earn better grades, are more likely to graduate and are better equipped for graduate school or careers.

Jessica Stewart understands from personal experience the value of doing research as a college undergraduate. In her junior year at the University of California, Berkeley , Stewart worked with art historian Darcy Grimaldo Grigsby on her book, "Colossal," researching the Suez Canal, Eiffel Tower and other massive art and engineering monuments.

She loved the research so much that she went on to get her Ph.D. in art history. Almost 20 years after working on "Colossal," Stewart now directs the program that gave her the opportunity: UC Berkeley’s Undergraduate Research Apprenticeship Program.

But the initial benefit of doing undergraduate research was even more practical. When she was deciding which projects to apply for as an undergraduate, she got to explore many academic disciplines. This process opened her eyes.

“From the moment I set foot on campus, URAP allowed me to see what kinds of ideas I could study,” Stewart says. “The research and credit are great, but there’s this wayfinding side, too, where students can learn who researchers are, what research looks like and fields they may not have had any exposure to.”

A long tradition at some universities, mentored research projects are now offered at undergraduate institutions around the U.S. While many programs started out focused on science, today most universities offer opportunities across disciplines, including all aspects of STEM as well as architecture, business and theater arts.

No matter the subject area, research participation is an asset for undergrads. Studies show students who participate earn better grades , are more likely to graduate and are better equipped for graduate school or careers.

“It’s often most transformative for nontraditional learners and underrepresented students,” Stewart says. “They learn to triangulate life experience and studies in ways that may not have been intuitive for them. It greatly improves academic performance, retention and persistence.”

Research Roots in STEM

Every year, 6,000 undergraduates participate in research experiences through the National Science Foundation, mostly during the summer. Projects span nearly 20 subject areas , such as astronomy and ocean sciences. Most take place in the U.S., but some research is done abroad, including a marine sciences project at the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences.

Experiences like these increase students’ confidence in their research skills and boost awareness of what graduate school will be like, according to a 2018 study . They also help students identify whether they want to pursue a science career.

“It’s one of the best ways to recruit students into STEM careers and retain them,” says Corby Hovis, a program director at the NSF's Division of Undergraduate Education. “That’s why we do it. It’s an effective way to get students from classrooms into doing STEM.”

The NSF is especially interested in applications from students who might not have had past opportunities to do research, including those who are the first in their families to attend college, and Black and Latino students.

Research institutions apply for NSF grants to mentor undergraduate students and guide them through participation in an ongoing project. For students, the experience includes orientation and training, as well as a stipend and allowances for housing and travel. In most cases, students write a paper about their contribution to research and may even present at a conference or seminar.

Some opportunities require that students have specific math courses under their belts, but all focus on helping students build other skills, aside from lab or research techniques, that they’ll need for future academic work or careers.

“Communicating clearly the results of research is a skill that could carry over into any field,” Hovis says. “The teamwork and cohort experience not only encourages them to continue in science, but (is) translatable to any number of other activities they will do later on.”

Connecting With Faculty

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , research has been part of the undergraduate experience for more than 50 years. Some students choose the school specifically for this reason, and more than 90% of students participate. As at other schools, research is part of a bigger initiative around experiential learning, which also includes service learning and study abroad .

The biggest challenge for students is usually figuring out what kind of research they’re interested in.

“We depend on students to do some of that footwork,” says Michael Bergren, director of MIT's Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program. “There are a lot of supports, but at the end of the day a student needs to understand what they’re interested in, who's doing the work they’re interested in and what the steps are to participating in that research.”

But there is hand-holding, if needed. Before applying to work on a project, students have to approach the lead faculty member and introduce themselves.

“This is really intimidating. We don’t take that for granted,” Bergren says. “Part of life skills development is approaching a lab or faculty member and advocating for themselves.”

Peers offer tips about how to navigate that face-to-face encounter, such as find out a faculty member's office hours, send an email with a resume attached and attend a departmental event.

The networking doesn’t stop there. Get to know which graduate students work on the project, talk to other students who might be exploring the same opportunities and make sure you know what the work involves.

“As the research progresses, deliverables amp up,” Bergren says. “You may find you need to put more time into this right when finals are happening.”

The Future of Undergraduate Research

Some undergraduate researchers might share their work at academic conferences or seminars, or even be published in journals. Some might participate in the Council on Undergraduate Research annual conference , the largest symposium of its kind. Every year, more than 4,000 students attend a graduate school and career fair and present work that spans the disciplines.

Students have come to expect that they’ll get a chance to do research as undergrads, says Lindsay Currie, the council's director.

“More recent generations grew up in a different climate. They learned by doing in classrooms,” Currie says. “That, combined with a workforce that expects people to have lived experience, means students want to be able to say that they’ve already done research as part of their coursework.”

What’s next, Currie says, is universities that integrate research into coursework so that students start a project their first year and continue through their time in college. Working with a network of universities, the Council on Undergraduate Research has completed a study of how schools can modify their curricula to incorporate research from the very beginning.

“Starting as freshmen, students would work on research that would build,” Currie says. “This would be significantly more advanced projects that would be consistent across the particular department. This is how they’re going to teach, because they know students benefit from doing.”

Tips to Make Your Final College Choice

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

College Admissions: Get a Step Ahead!

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S. News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Ask an Alum: Making the Most Out of College

You May Also Like

Protests boil over on college campuses.

Lauren Camera April 22, 2024

Supporting Low-Income College Applicants

Shavar Jeffries April 16, 2024

Supporting Black Women in Higher Ed

Zainab Okolo April 15, 2024

Law Schools With the Highest LSATs

Ilana Kowarski and Cole Claybourn April 11, 2024

Today NAIA, Tomorrow Title IX?

Lauren Camera April 9, 2024

Grad School Housing Options

Anayat Durrani April 9, 2024

How to Decide if an MBA Is Worth it

Sarah Wood March 27, 2024

What to Wear to a Graduation

LaMont Jones, Jr. March 27, 2024

FAFSA Delays Alarm Families, Colleges

Sarah Wood March 25, 2024

Help Your Teen With the College Decision

Anayat Durrani March 25, 2024

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, encouraging or obstructing assessing factors that impact faculty engagement in undergraduate research mentoring.

• 1 Department of Sociology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States
• 2 Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry and STEM Accelerator, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States
• 3 College of Education, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States
• 4 School of Integrative Studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States

At colleges and universities around the world, faculty serve a critical role in supporting the well-documented practice of undergraduate research, scholarly and creative activity. Using unique data from an online survey of faculty members ( n = 223) at three colleges and universities in the United States, we investigate the individual and institutional factors that facilitate or inhibit faculty members' willingness to provide undergraduate students with research opportunities. We focus our quantitative analysis on individual and institutional variables associated with faculty participation. Our work confirms prior qualitative research, indicating the significance of institutional support for faculty engagement in undergraduate research mentoring.

Introduction

The integration of research and creative activity into the undergraduate collegiate experience has been an international paradigm shift in higher education ( Moore and Felten, 2018 ). Undergraduate research and creative scholarly activities (URSCA) have been well documented in the literature as high impact practices ( Gregerman et al., 1998 ; Hathaway and Nagda, 2002 ; Lopatto, 2004 , 2006 ; Elgren and Hensel, 2006 ; Hu et al., 2008 ; Kuh, 2008 , 2015 Healey and Jenkins, 2009 ) with both faculty and other members of the academy playing key roles in supporting this educational model ( Behar-Horenstein et al., 2010 ; DeAngelo et al., 2016 ; Healey and Jenkins, 2018 ; Moore and Felten, 2018 ). This paper assesses some of the factors that impact faculty engagement in mentoring undergraduate research and offers a data-informed perspective for those in academic development working to advance undergraduate research at their institutions. Using unique data from across three institutions in the United States, we investigated demographic differences in mentor participation as well as faculty reports of institutional supports for their mentoring efforts.

Faculty as Mentors

At colleges and universities around the world, participation in research and scholarly activity is considered one of the three primary areas of faculty responsibility, the others being teaching and service. Faculty time is often divided into these separate areas, but there are advantages to facilitating overlap among them. Research has shown that engaging students in undergraduate research projects positively benefits a faculty member's own research and teaching goals ( Elgren and Hensel, 2006 ; Potter et al., 2009 ; Wilson et al., 2012 ; Adedokun et al., 2013 ). Although mentoring undergraduate researchers benefits both faculty and students, it also presents substantial challenges ( Bullough and Draper, 2004 ; Dolan and Johnson, 2010 ; Marquis et al., 2017 ). Additionally, the findings from Hattie and Marsh's meta-analysis that explored the relationship between research and teaching suggest that universities should aim to maximize the nexus between them ( Hattie and Marsh, 1996 ). Inquiry-based learning is another paradigm that has been successfully utilized to link research and teaching ( Healey, 2005 ; Justice et al., 2007 , 2009 ; Jenkins and Healey, 2015 ). The departmental ecosystem plays an important role in student learning and cognitive development. Volkwein and Carbone (1994) asserted that “a combination of strong research and a positive mate appears to make significant contributions both to the academic integration of undergraduate majors and to their intellectual growth and disciplinary skills” ( Volkwein and Carbone, 1994 ). We maintain that there are distinct advantages for engaging in mentoring as a means of improving a faculty member's teaching and research.

Nonetheless, mentoring is often considered “extra-role behavior” and is frequently not a part of the formal reward system for faculty. Using interview data from faculty within the California State University system, DeAngelo et al. (2016) found that institutional norms is a common hindrance to mentoring. The results of a quantitative study of research productivity of faculty at the University of Minnesota Medical School—Twin Cities demonstrated that a faculty member's productivity is related to a combination individual and institutional characteristics, which were primarily under the auspices of administrators ( Bland et al., 2005 ). Across the various institutions in their study, Milem et al. (2000) observed evidence of isomorphism, with research universities demanding more time related to teaching and primarily undergraduate universities demanding that faculty devote more time to research. Another prime finding of their study was the identification of the contradiction between “what we value in higher education and what we reward” in that faculty are often not rewarded for work that specifically improves student outcomes. If a university seeks to build a “mentoring culture,” there should be substantial support from administration and targeted efforts to address barriers to that end.

Various studies have also explored the motivating and inhibiting factors related to mentoring the high-impact practice of undergraduate research. Traditional one-on-one mentoring is a time-intensive practice and a limited number of students can be served in this manner ( Wei and Woodin, 2011 ). In their research, Aikens et al. (2016) showed that students who engage both a faculty and post-graduate mentor showed greater outcomes than those who only worked with one mentor. However, the specific aspects of the mentoring relationship that were most beneficial remain understudied. The developing mentoring skills of the post-graduate was another variable that affected student outcomes ( Dolan and Johnson, 2010 ). Hardré et al. (2011 ) found that perceived departmental support is a critical to faculty motivation to conduct research. In terms of faculty mentoring of undergraduate research, research has demonstrated that time constraints, funding, and inconsistent valuation are variables that significantly influence level of engagement ( Jones and Davis, 2014 ).

Other researchers have focused on defining and exploring the “mentor variable” ( Eagan et al., 2011 ; Baker et al., 2015 ; Johnson et al., 2015 ). By analyzing data from the Higher Education Research Institute's Faculty Survey, Eagan et al. (2011) found that faculty with external funding who worked in the life sciences were most likely to mentor undergraduates. They also observed that faculty at liberal arts or historically-black colleges are more likely to mentor undergraduates than their peer faculty at research universities and those that regard their work as valued are more willing to participate ( Eagan et al., 2011 ). Recognizing the need to examine these issues from the faculty perspective, Baker et al. (2015) conducted focus groups of faculty and administrators from five diverse universities and Brew and Mantai (2017) interviewed 20 academics at one Australian university. The qualitative results from these studies were consistent with previously published findings ( Jones and Davis, 2014 ), but the small sample sizes resulted in insufficient power to resolve inconsistencies with prior quantitative research. The research presented in the current study offers a larger sample to more thoroughly explore these issues.

Theoretical Framework

When considering the larger institutional context in which faculty engagement takes place, our work was informed by the Model of Faculty Research Productivity advanced by Bland et al. (2005) , which posits that high faculty productivity is achieved when well-prepared individuals work in a supportive institutional environment with leaders who use an assertive, participative style of leadership. The model further identifies the specific individual, environmental, and leadership factors that have been shown to optimize faculty productivity. Recognizing Bland's empirical precedent, Stupnisky et al. (2019) explored faculty motivation through the lens of self-determination theory. Their work, as well as that of Carli et al. (2019) , explores how individual and contextual factors correlate with research excellence. Yates (2018) build on Bland's research in the medical school setting by exploring the prioritization of research in veterinary schools. A productive research organization takes advantage of the resources, rewards, instrumental support, and mentoring available at the institution. Adding to these institutional factors are individual characteristics of faculty members, such as motivation, training, expertise, and leadership ability. Relying on the Bland model and the assertion that institutional characteristics are at the center of the “productive research organization” (ibid, p. 233), the current study investigates the extent to which the availability of a supportive institutional mentoring environment influences faculty members' engagement in mentoring undergraduate students. In this work, we move beyond the current approach to understanding faculty research productivity in terms of the quality and quantity of the articles, books, grants, awards, and other individual accomplishments of faculty members. We believe that faculty members' own mentoring behaviors represent an important aspect of research productivity as it encourages proximal relationships between faculty and students and, for many students, the beginning of their own journeys as scholars.

The Present Study

Without faculty to mentor students, undergraduate research experiences as a high-impact practice would not be possible. Many previous studies have focused on the experiences of undergraduate student researchers themselves. However, more recent investigations have begun to identify the factors that shape faculty participation as research mentors ( Eagan et al., 2011 ; Jones and Davis, 2014 ; Jenkins and Healey, 2015 ; Aikens et al., 2016 ; Brew and Mantai, 2017 ). As the research literature investigating faculty mentoring of undergraduate researchers expands, there is a growing need to understand the extent to which faculty members' decisions to engage in mentoring are shaped by individual characteristics vs. characteristics of the institutions where faculty members (and students) are located. This study places faculty members into institutional contexts and to ask two important questions: (1) What individual demographic factors are correlated with faculty participation as undergraduate research mentors? and (2) How does perceived institutional support shape mentoring participation?

Participants and Procedure

The study sample draws from the Pathways to Undergraduate Research Experiences (PURE) multi-institutional study faculty survey ( Morrison et al., 2018 ). Conceived by a collaborative group of faculty and administrators, a survey was developed to assess and understand the factors that potentially influence how faculty members participate in UR experiences across diverse institutional contexts. Approval from the three participating universities' Human Subjects Review Boards was granted for this research.

All faculty members at each of the three institutions were recruited via email to complete an online questionnaire via SurveyMonkey ( SurveyMonkey, 2018 ) in Spring 2015. A total of 276 faculty members (total population = 1372, response rate 20.1%) completed the questionnaire. Additional information regarding this instrument and qualitative evaluation of the responses has been previously reported ( Morrison et al., 2018 ). Due to non-responses on key items, our working sample is 223. Demographic characteristics (race and gender) of the faculty in the study sample are comparable to the general faculty population from which the sample was drawn; however, more than double the faculty in the study sample are tenured compared to the larger faculty population (72.5% in sample compared to 38% in population).

Institutional Contexts

Three institutions, hereafter referred to as R3, M3, and A&S, participated in the study. All schools are located in the United States and each are described, in brief, below. We used the Carnegie Classification ( Center for Postsecondary Research Indiana University School of Education, 2019 ) and the Common Data Set from 2014 to 2015 ( Common Data Set Initiative, 2019 ) to corroborate our characterizations of the institutions.

R3 is private doctoral university in the Midwest region. This university has a Moderate Research Activity Carnegie classification, a smaller student enrollment (~10,000), and an 86.6% admissions rate. R3 is also primarily residential, majority undergraduate and considered to be balanced in arts & sciences/professions. During the 2014–2015 academic year, the total number of instructional faculty was 332 (31% non-white, 46% women, and 54% men).

M3 is a public Master's College with a medium student population (~7,400) that is very high in undergraduate enrollment. Located in the northeast, this school is balanced in the arts & sciences/professions, has a 49% admissions rate and low transfer rate. The total number of instructional faculty during 2014–2015 was 820 (14% non-white, 52% women, and 48% men).

A&S is a private, small (~1,700) baccalaureate college. As an arts and sciences focused university, A&S is also highly residential, has a 64.5% admission rate and very low transfer rate. This university is located in the mid-south region. The total number of instructional faculty during 2014-2015 was 220 (11% non-white, 41% women, and 59% men).

The survey instrument built on previously published work ( Jones and Davis, 2014 ) and has been described in another publication ( Morrison et al., 2018 ). In addition to collecting basic demographic information such as gender, race, and rank, the questionnaire asked faculty members to report on their research and scholarly activities, to include mentoring URSCA, and institutional environment. The mentoring and institutional measures are described below.

Faculty member engagement in mentoring URSCA was included as a dichotomous variable (1 = currently or have previously included undergraduates in their scholarly activity, 0 = have not and do not plan to include undergraduates in their scholarly activity).

Institutional Support

Our interest in institutional variation extends beyond whether there are differences in participation across institutions. To capture variation in perceived institutional support for mentoring undergraduates, we averaged responses to the following four items that asked faculty members whether they agreed or disagreed (Cronbach's α = 0.78): “Faculty are encouraged to submit grants that involve undergraduate students”; “Undergraduates in my college/school have opportunities to communicate the results of their research or creative activities”; “My dean and administrators support faculty efforts to involve undergraduates in scholarly work”; and “Involving undergraduates in student scholarship is valued for tenure and promotion decisions.” Higher values reflect perceiving more institutional support for mentoring undergraduate researchers. These items are based on prior qualitative research, which has shown that institutional support for mentoring undergraduate researchers is indicated by recognition of this work in promotion and tenure, student incentives in the form of funding opportunities, and student opportunities for writing, research, and presentation/dissemination ( Baker et al., 2015 ).

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics for the study variables are reported in Table 1 . Faculty demographic characteristics included gender, race, and tenure status. Given the nature of the sample, faculty gender was included as a dummy variable ( 1 = female, 0 = male), with men as the reference category in the logistic regression analysis. Race was included as a dummy variable [ 1 = non-White, 0 = White (non-Hispanic)], with white (non-Hispanic) as the reference category in the logistic regression analysis. Tenure status was included as a dummy variable ( 1 = tenured, 0 = tenure-track), with tenured faculty members as the reference category in our logistic regression analysis. Given the categorical nature of the data, we performed a fixed-effects logistic regression analyses to predict the likelihood of a faculty member being involved in mentoring UR students. By performing fixed-effects logistic regression, we control for the unmeasured similarities across faculty members within each of the institutions included in this study ( Allison, 2009 ). In this analysis, institutional support and faculty demographic characteristics, including gender, race, and tenure status were included as the predictor variables. For these analyses, we report odds ratios and the Nagelkerke R -squared, which is analogous to the R -square in a linear regression model ( Norusis, 1997 ). Through these analyses, we considered the unmeasured characteristics of the three institutions that may shape faculty member participation.

Table 1 . Descriptive statistics ( N = 223).

A description of the faculty in the study sample are shown in Table 1 . Participants were distributed almost equally across the three institutions. Over 79% of the faculty surveyed engage undergraduates in scholarly activity. The faculty members in the sample were overwhelmingly white (92.5%) and tenured (72.5%); slightly more women than men participated in the study (53.2 vs. 46.8%). Table 2 presents the zero-order correlations among the analytic variables. Higher levels of perceived institutional support were found correlate with faculty members reporting they had mentored undergraduates. Additionally, faculty at the R3 institution were significantly less likely to report having mentored undergraduates. The only other significant correlation to note is that non-white faculty members reported having lower levels of perceived institutional support than did white faculty members. Table 3 reports the results of the multivariate analysis. This analysis demonstrated that perceived institutional support was the only characteristic that predicted the likelihood of mentoring an undergraduate.

Table 2 . Zero-order correlations for analytic variables.

Table 3 . Fixed effects regression coefficients predicting likelihood of mentoring undergraduates across three institutions.

Faculty members who reported greater levels of perceived institutional support were significantly more likely to be involved in mentoring undergraduates, even after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. After accounting for gender, race, rank, and institution, greater perceived institutional support was associated with higher odds of participating in URSCA mentoring; the odds of currently or previously including undergraduates in their scholarly activity was 2.157 times higher. It is also important to note that no sociodemographic characteristics were significantly related to participation in undergraduate research mentoring, and there were no differences by institution.

Extensive evidence suggests that institutional context, including college or university type, mission, size, faculty research requirements, and pressures for accountability from interested constituents shapes faculty workload ( Hattie and Marsh, 1996 ; Wright et al., 2004 ; Terosky and Gonzales, 2016 ). Faculty workload predicts burnout and the time that faculty invests in various work-related activities ( Lackritz, 2004 ) and, in particular, has been shown to reduce faculty interest in mentoring undergraduate students ( Johnson, 2002 ; Prince et al., 2007 ) or make the development of high-quality faculty-student mentoring relationships more challenging ( Johnson, 2015 ).

Strong faculty mentoring relationships are an essential element of a high-quality URSCA experience ( Lopatto, 2003 ; Healey and Jenkins, 2009 ; Behling et al., 2015 ). Mentoring undergraduate researchers, especially outside the confines of a formal course, is typically not considered a part of a faculty member's work requirements. However, as studies have begun to document, a substantial number of faculty across institutional types choose to mentor undergraduates in the creation of authentic scholarly and creative activities ( Baker et al., 2015 ; Morales et al., 2016 ). The current study integrates research focusing on individual characteristics ( Lackritz, 2004 ) with those examining institutional factors ( Lunsford et al., 2016 ) to simultaneously examine factors that may predict faculty's propensity to mentor undergraduate researchers.

Interestingly, our results demonstrated that the only factor that was correlated with faculty participation in mentoring undergraduates was perceived institutional support. Our results are consistent with other research that has shown that institutional reward structures that discourage mentoring of undergraduate researchers are less likely than their counterparts to show interest in serving mentors ( DeAngelo et al., 2016 ; Morales et al., 2017 ). To begin, this finding highlights the importance and value of institutions beyond the overall type, history, mission, and demographic makeup of the student body in shaping faculty workload choices, especially as it relates to mentoring of undergraduate research. Second, our findings seem to suggest that faculty members may differ with regard to how they view see variation in the extent to which there are institutional and structural supports and allocate their time accordingly. College and university administrators may believe that providing undergraduate students with authentic scholarly experiences is important, but faculty will not facilitate those experiences through mentoring students if there is not a demonstrated incentive for doing so, including faculty rewards in the form of tenure and promotion, positive annual evaluations, and other faculty awards and recognition. Institutions that encourage faculty members to include undergraduates in their work may find that faculty members will respond by increasing their engagement in these activities. Given that we focus on three institutions that themselves are very different from one another, future research should examine the robustness of this finding at a variety of other institutions. Regardless, our results suggest that, without direct and explicit support from department chairs, deans, and other senior-level administrators, faculty members are significantly less likely to mentor undergraduate students.

The sociodemographic characteristics of the faculty did not explain unique variance in faculty's decision to mentor undergraduate researchers, when considered along with faculty perceptions of institutional support for mentoring in this context. We were surprised by this as previous research has found some differences based on gender, race, and tenure status ( Davis et al., 2015 ). It is possible that our lack of findings for these variables in the current study may be the result of selection bias. That is, for the most part, the institutions that were included in or sample emphasized undergraduate education and have strong policies in place for undergraduate research. Accordingly, it could be that the faculty employed by the institutions we sampled were prone to hiring faculty members who are more likely to mentor undergraduates, regardless of their own demographic characteristics. When interpreted in light of the fact that the participating institutions emphasized undergraduate education as part of their core mission, our finding that perceived institutional support was the only predictor of faculty mentoring behavior may be especially important. The faculty members we surveyed, regardless of their gender or race, may have elected to work at institutions that encourage and appropriately reward their work with undergraduates at the institutional level.

Conclusions

This work contributes to the growing literature on mentoring relationships in undergraduate faculty-student relationships by demonstrating that perceived institutional supports are significantly and substantively influential in shaping faculty members' behavior ( Brew and Mantai, 2017 ). Brew and Jewell argued that “academic developers have a key role in informing institutional policy concerning the integration of research and inquiry” ( Brew and Jewell, 2012 ). Our findings confirm this assertion, revealing that the one statistically significant relationship influencing participation in mentoring is perceived intuitional support.

Individuals may be employed at institutions that center around undergraduate education, but will not themselves engage in high impact practices such as mentoring undergraduate researchers if they do not feel their work is valued by administrators. Institutional actors tasked with shaping the educational experience unique to an institution should be mindful of the need to be explicit in policies and procedures that support, rather than exploit, faculty in their efforts to mentor undergraduates in research experiences.

An important limitation of our study is the relative lack of racial/ethnic diversity of our sample. Higher education, in general, itself is not as diverse as the students we serve ( Nelson, 1996 ; Orfield, 1999 ; Ofori-Dankwa and Lane, 2000 ; Stephens et al., 2012 ). It is possible that greater diversity of faculty members across the three institutions may have yielded different results. In our data, a high percentage of the faculty surveyed were tenured and participated in URSCA; thus, our study sample may not be representative of a more general faculty population.

As this study is based on questionnaire responses, it is possible that some responses reflect social desirability or other psychological mechanisms that would lead to reduced reliability of responses. This specific limitation would best be addressed through investigation of similar research questions using a multi-method approach, allowing researchers to probe questionnaire responses through qualitative interviews. Further multi-method research could also develop additional items measuring perceived institutional support that could be used to build more robust measurement of this construct, as our four items may not fully encompass all components of this construct. Additional items could yield a nuanced measurement model that could be confirmed, validated, and deployed subsequently in this area of inquiry.

Our findings highlight the embedded nature of undergraduate research within higher education as a social institution: institutional characteristics shape individual behavior. Future research should continue to collect and examine data from multiple institutions simultaneously in order to move beyond institutional-specific contextual practices that cannot be transferred to other institutional settings. Comparative work examining institutional practices that support faculty members will illuminate how higher education can expand opportunities for students to excel and thrive.

Academic leaders have a unique opportunity to shift the paradigm of faculty, who may consider their teaching and research as separate silos, and help them develop as mentors ( Shanahan et al., 2015 ; Healey and Jenkins, 2018 ). This quantitative study offers confirmation of just how important this work remains, as faculty who do not perceive the support of their institution are less likely to mentor undergraduate scholars.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request to the corresponding author.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by George Mason University Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent for participation was not required for this study in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.

Author Contributions

SD and RJ planned the study. DM took the lead in preparing the dataset for analysis. SD and RJ took the lead in writing the manuscript. DM and PG substantially contributed to analyzing and interpreting the results. SD, RJ, DM, and PG contributed to writing the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Adedokun, O. A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkham, L. L., and Burgess, W. D. (2013). Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students' aspirations for research careers: mediating effects of research self-efficacy. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 50, 940–951. doi: 10.1002/tea.21102

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Aikens, M. L., Sadselia, S., Watkins, K., Evans, M., Eby, L. T., and Dolan, E. L. (2016). A social capital perspective on the mentoring of undergraduate life science researchers: an empirical study of undergraduate-postgraduate-faculty triads. Cell Biol. Education 15, ar16–ar16. doi: 10.1187/cbe.15-10-0208

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Allison, P. D. (2009). Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences: Fixed effects Regression Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Google Scholar

Baker, V. L., Pifer, M. J., Lunsford, L. G., Greer, J., and Ihas, D. (2015). Faculty as mentors in undergraduate research, scholarship, and creative work: motivating and inhibiting factors. Mentoring Tutoring 23, 394–410. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126164

Behar-Horenstein, L. S., Roberts, K. W., and Dix, A. C. (2010). Mentoring undergraduate researchers: An exploratory study of students' and professors' perceptions. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership Learn. 18, 269–291. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2010.492945

Behling, L. L., Brad Johnson, W., Miller, P., and Vandermaas-Peeler, M. (2015). Guest editors' overview: undergraduate research mentoring. Mentoring Tutoring 23, 355–358. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126161

Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., and Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Acad. Med. 80, 225–237.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Brew, A., and Jewell, E. (2012). Enhancing quality learning through experiences of research-based learning: implications for academic development. Intern. J. Acad. Dev. 17, 47–58. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2011.586461

Brew, A., and Mantai, L. (2017). Academics' perceptions of the challenges and barriers to implementing research-based experiences for undergraduates. Teaching Higher Educ. 22, 551–568. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1273216

Bullough, R. V., and Draper, R. J. (2004). Making sense of a failed triad: mentors, university supervisors, and positioning theory. J. Teach. Educ. 55, 407–420. doi: 10.1177/0022487104269804

Carli, G., Tagliaventi, M. R., and Cutolo, D. (2019). One size does not fit all: the influence of individual and contextual factors on research excellence in academia. Stud. Higher Educ. 44, 1912–1930. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1466873

Center for Postsecondary Research Indiana University School of Education (2019). Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education . Available online at: http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/

Common Data Set Initiative (2019). Available online at: http://www.commondataset.org/

Davis, S. N., Jacobsen, S. K., and Ryan, M. (2015). Gender, race, and inequality in higher education: an intersectional analysis of faculty-student undergraduate research pairs at a diverse university. Race Gender Class 22, 7–30.

DeAngelo, L., Mason, J., and Winters, D. (2016). Faculty engagement in mentoring undergraduate students: how institutional environments regulate and promote extra-role behavior. Innovative High. Educ. 41, 317–332. doi: 10.1007/s10755-015-9350-7

Dolan, E. L., and Johnson, D. (2010). The undergraduate-postgraduate-faculty triad: unique functions and tensions associated with undergraduate research experiences at research universities. Cell Biol. Educ. 9, 543–553. doi: 10.1187/cbe.10-03-0052

Eagan, M. K., Sharkness, J., Hurtado, S., Mosqueda, C. M., and Chang, M. J. (2011). Engaging undergraduates in science research: not just about faculty willingness. Res. Higher Educ. 52, 151–177. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9189-9

Elgren, T., and Hensel, N. (2006). Undergraduate research experiences: synergies between scholarship and teaching. Peer Rev. 8, 4–7.

Gregerman, S. R., Lerner, J. S., von Hippel, W., Jonides, J., and Nagda, B. A. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Rev. High. Educ. 22, 55–72. doi: 10.1353/rhe.1998.0016

Hardré, P. L., Beesley, A. D., Miller, R. L., and Pace, T. M. (2011). Faculty motivation to do research: across disciplines in research-extensive universities. J. Professoriate 5, 35–69.

Hathaway, R. S., Nagda, B., (Ratnesh), A., and Gregerman, S. R. (2002). The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: an empirical study. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 43, 614–631

Hattie, J., and Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: a meta-analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 66:507. doi: 10.3102/00346543066004507

Healey, M. (2005). “Linking research and teaching exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning,” in Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching , 67–78.

Healey, M., and Jenkins, A. (2009). Developing Undergraduate Research and Inquiry . York: The Higher Education Academy.

Healey, M., and Jenkins, A. (2018). The role of academic developers in embedding high-impact undergraduate research and inquiry in mainstream higher education: twenty years' reflection. Intern. J. Acad. Dev. 23, 52–64. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2017.1412974

Hu, S., Scheuch, K. L., Schwartz, R., Gayles, J. G., and Li, S. (2008). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: Engaging College Students in Research and Creative Activities , Vol. 33, eds K. Ward and L. E. Wolf-Wendel. Wiley/Jossey-Bass.

Jenkins, A., and Healey, M. (2015). International perspectices on strategies to support faculty who teach students via research and inquiry. CUR Q. 35, 31–37.

Johnson, W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring. Prof. Psychol. 33, 88–96. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.33.1.88

Johnson, W. B. (2015). On Being a Mentor: A Guide for Higher Education Faculty, 2nd Edition . New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, W. B., Behling, L. L., Miller, P., and Vandermaas-Peeler, M. (2015). Undergraduate research mentoring: Obstacles and opportunities. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership Learn. 23, 441–453. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126167

Jones, R. M., and Davis, S. N. (2014). Assessing faculty perspectives on undergraduate research: implications from studies of two faculties. CUR Q. 34, 37–42.

Justice, C., Rice, J., and Warry, W. (2009). Academic skill development-inquiry seminars can make a difference: evidence from a quasi-experimental study. Int. J. Sch. Teach. Learn. 3:9.

Justice, C., Rice, J., Warry, W., Inglis, S., Miller, S., and Sammon, S. (2007). Inquiry in higher education: reflections and directions on course design and teaching methods. Innovative High. Educ. 31, 201–214. doi: 10.1007/s10755-006-9021-9

Kuh, G. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. American Association of American Colleges & Universities.

Kuh, G. D. (2015). Using Evidence of Student Learning to Improve Higher Education. Jossey-Bass.

Lackritz, J. R. (2004). Exploring burnout among university faculty: incidence, performance, and demographic issues. Teach. Teacher Educ. 20, 713–729. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2004.07.002

Lopatto, D. (2003). The essential features of undergraduate research. Council Undergrad. Res. Q. 24, 139–142.

Lopatto, D. (2004). Survey of undergraduate research experiences (SURE): first findings. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 270–277. doi: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0045

Lopatto, D. (2006). Undergraduate research as a catalyst for liberal learning. Peer Rev. 8, 22–25.

Lunsford, L. G., Greer, J., Pifer, M., Ihas, D., and Baker, V. (2016). Characteristics of faculty who mentor undergraduates in research, scholarship, and creative work. Council Undergrad. Res. Q. 36:3. doi: 10.18833/curq/36/3/5

Marquis, E., Black, C., and Healey, M. (2017). Responding to the challenges of student-staff partnership: The reflections of participants at an international summer institute. Teach. High. Educ. 22, 720–735. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1289510

Milem, J. F., Berger, J. B., and Dey, E. L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: a study of change over twenty years. J. High. Educ. 71, 454–475. doi: 10.2307/2649148

Moore, J. L., and Felten, P. (2018). Academic development in support of mentored undergraduate research and inquiry. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 23, 1–5. doi: 10.1080/1360144X.2018.1415020

Morales, D. X., Grineski, S. E., and Collins, T. W. (2016). Influences on faculty willingness to mentor undergraduate students from another university as part of an interinstitutional research training program. CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15:39. doi: 10.1187/cbe.16-01-0039

Morales, D. X., Grineski, S. E., and Collins, T. W. (2017). Faculty motivation to mentor students through undergraduate research programs: a study of enabling and constraining factors. Res. Higher Educ. 58, 520–544. doi: 10.1007/s11162-016-9435-x

Morrison, J. A., Berner, N. J., Manske, J. M., Jones, R. M., Davis, S. N., and Garner, P. W. (2018). Surveying faculty perspectives on undergraduate research, scholarship, and Creative activity: a three-institution study. Schol. Practice Undergrad. Res. 2, 43–54. doi: 10.18833/spur/2/1/1

Nelson, C. E. (1996). Student diversity requires different approaches to college teaching, even in math and science. Am. Behav. Sci. 40, 165–175. doi: 10.1177/0002764296040002007

Norusis, M. J. (1997). SPSS Professional Statistics 7.5 . Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

Ofori-Dankwa, J., and Lane, R. W. (2000). four approaches to cultural diversity: implications for teaching at institutions of higher education. Teach. Higher Educ. 5, 493–499. doi: 10.1080/713699171

Orfield, G. (1999). Affirmative Action Works—But Judges and Policy Makers Need to Hear That Verdict. The Chronicle of Higher Education . Available online at: http://www.chronicle.com/article/Affirmative-Action-Works-/30747

Potter, S. J., Abrams, E., Townson, L., and Williams, J. E. (2009). Mentoring undergraduate researchers: Faculty mentors' perceptions of the challenges and benefits of the research relationship. College Teach. Learn. 6, 17–30.

Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., and Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate teaching? an analysis of existing and potential synergies. J. Eng. Educ. 96, 283–294. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00939.x

Shanahan, J. O., Ackley-Holbrook, E., Hall, E., Stewart, K., and Walkington, H. (2015). Ten salient practices of undergraduate research mentors: a review of the literature. Ment. Tutoring 23, 359–376. doi: 10.1080/13611267.2015.1126162

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., and Covarrubias, R. (2012). Unseen disadvantage: how American universities' focus on independence undermines the academic performance of first-generation college students. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 1178–1197. doi: 10.1037/a0027143

Stupnisky, R. H., BrckaLorenz, A., and Laird, T. F. N. (2019). How does faculty research motivation type relate to success? A test of self-determination theory. Int. J. Educ. Res. 98, 25–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.08.007

SurveyMonkey (2018). Available online at: https://www.surveymonkey.com

Terosky, A. L., and Gonzales, L. D. (2016). Re-envisioned contributions: experiences of faculty employed at institutional types that differ from their original aspirations. Rev. Higher Educ. 39, 241–268. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2016.0005

Volkwein, J. F., and Carbone, D. A. (1994). The impact of departmental research and teaching climates on undergraduate growth and satisfaction. J High. Educ. 65, 147–167. doi: 10.2307/2943921

Wei, C. A., and Woodin, T. (2011). Undergraduate research experiences in biology: alternatives to the apprenticeship model. Cell Biol. Educ. 10, 123–131. doi: 10.1187/cbe.11-03-0028

Wilson, D. S., Fang, B., Dalton, W. S., Meade, C. D., and Koomen, J. M. (2012). An ET-CURE pilot project supporting undergraduate training in cancer research, emerging technology, and health disparities. J. Cancer Educ. 27, 418–427. doi: 10.1007/s13187-012-0362-z

Wright, M. C., Assar, N., Kain, E. L., Kramer, L., Howery, C. B., McKinney, K., et al. (2004). Greedy institutions: the importance of institutional context for teaching in higher education. Teach. Sociol. 32, 144–159. doi: 10.1177/0092055X0403200201

Yates, R. M. (2018). Strategic research prioritisation in veterinary schools: a preliminary investigation. J. Higher Educ. Policy Managem. 40, 175–189. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2018.1428057

Keywords: faculty, mentoring, faculty development, undergraduate research, higher education

Citation: Davis SN, Jones RM, Mahatmya D and Garner PW (2020) Encouraging or Obstructing? Assessing Factors That Impact Faculty Engagement in Undergraduate Research Mentoring. Front. Educ. 5:114. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2020.00114

Received: 14 March 2020; Accepted: 12 June 2020; Published: 17 July 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Davis, Jones, Mahatmya and Garner. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Shannon N. Davis, sdaviso@gmu.edu

Searching for a Prominent Role of Research in Undergraduate Education: Project Interface

• Stefka Nikolova Eddins Author
• Douglas Williams Author
• Dave Bushek Author
• Dwayne Porter Author
• Gail Kineke Author

Current guidelines for excellence in higher education call for merging student learning experiences with the ongoing practice of skills through activities such as collaboration, active learning, and out-of-class contact with faculty. These guidelines form the core of our research-based learning model, Project Interface, which joins independent study with team-based, multi-disciplinary research to enhance student learning in a collaborative student-faculty environment. Project Interface has demonstrated that undergraduate research can be used to enhance student learning. During the three-semester test of Project Interface, 11 marine science undergraduates mastered complex scientific concepts and important professional skills such as critical and independent thinking, teamwork, and problem solving. Not only did student-faculty and student-student interactions improve, but students gained statewide visibility in the scientific and business communities.

• Requires Subscription PDF

Access Agreement Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

Before proceeding you must agree to the terms and conditions of usage as outlined below by clicking on the Accept button and/or by both parties’ signatures below. You will have to do this only once. After agreement, you will be redirected back to the main Journal page. A pdf copy of the terms is available for download.

This Access Agreement (the "Agreement") is effective upon processing of payment ("Effective Date") and is entered into by and between the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching (“JECT”) and the Customer (“Customer").

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and supersedes and voids all prior communications, understandings, and agreements relating to the Product(s), including any terms of use displayed to Authorized Users via the online site of the Product(s). Alterations to the Agreement and to any Addendum to the Agreement are only valid and binding if they are recorded in writing and signed by both parties

. I. Definitions

"Authorized Users" shall mean individuals who are authorized by the Customer (which shall include those individuals authorized by the Institutions hereunder) to access the Customer's information services whether on-site or off-site via secure authentication and who are affiliated with the Customer as a student (undergraduates and postgraduates), employee (whether on a permanent or temporary basis), or a contractor of the Customer. Individuals who are not a current student, employee, or a contractor of the Customer, but who are permitted to access the Customer's information services from computer terminals within the physical premises of the Customer ("Walk-In Users"), are also deemed to be Authorized Users, but only for the time they are within the physical premises of the Customer. Walk-In Users may not be given means to access the Product(s) when they are not within the physical premises of the Customer.

"Commercial Use" shall mean use for the purpose of monetary reward (whether by or for the Customer or an Authorized User) by means of the sale, resale, loan, transfer, hire, or other form of exploitation of the Product(s). For the avoidance of doubt, neither recovery of direct cost by the Customer from Authorized Users, nor use by the Customer or Authorized Users of the Product(s) in the course of research funded by a commercial organization, shall be deemed to constitute Commercial Use.

"Educational Purposes" shall mean for the purpose of education, teaching, distance learning, private study and/or research as described in Section II below.

"Institutions" shall mean the Customer's participating institutions, if applicable.

"License" shall mean the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and use the Product(s) pursuant to the specific terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

"Product(s)" shall mean the products, materials and/or information contained therein that are subject to this Agreement. Product(s) include the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching and the archive of the Learning Communities Journal.

"Reasonable Amount" shall be determined based on guidelines set forth by 17 U.S. Code § 107 (Limitations on exclusive rights, Fair use).

"Secure Authentication" shall mean access to the Product(s) by Internet Protocol ("IP") ranges or by another means of authentication agreed between the Publisher and Customer or Institutions (if applicable) from time to time.

II. Authorized Use of Product(s)

Customer, the Institutions (if applicable), and Authorized Users may use the Product(s) for Educational Purposes as follows:

Analysis . Authorized Users shall be permitted to extract or use information contained in the Product(s) for Educational Purposes, including, but not limited to, text and data mining, extraction and manipulation of information for the purposes of illustration, explanation, example, comment, criticism, teaching, research, or analysis.

Course Packs . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may use a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s) in the preparation of course packs or other educational materials.

Digital Copy . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may download and digitally copy a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s).

Display . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users shall have the right to electronically display the Product(s) to the extent necessary to further the intent and purpose of this Agreement.

Electronic Reserve . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may use a Reasonable Amount of each of the Product(s) in connection with specific courses of instruction offered by Customer.

Interlibrary Loan . The Customer and the Institutions shall be permitted to use Reasonable Amounts of the Content to fulfill occasional requests from other, non-participating institutions, a practice commonly called Interlibrary Loan ("ILL"). Customer and the Institutions shall fulfill such requests in compliance with Section 108 of the United States Copyright Law (17 USC S108, "Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives") and the Guidelines for the Proviso of Subsection 108(2g)(2) prepared by the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU).

The electronic form of the Product(s) may be used as a source for ILL. Customer and the Institutions shall include copyright notices on all ILL transmissions. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event shall any non-secure electronic transmission of files be permitted.

Print Copy . Customer, the Institutions, and Authorized Users may print a Reasonable Amount of the Product(s).

Recover Copying Costs . Customer and the Institutions may charge a reasonable fee to cover costs of copying or printing portions of Product(s) for Authorized Users.

Scholarly Sharing . Authorized Users may transmit to a third party colleague in hard copy or electronically, Reasonable Amounts of the Product(s) for personal use, professional use, or Educational Purposes but in no event for Commercial Use. In addition, Authorized Users have the right to use, with appropriate credit, figures, tables, and brief excerpts from the Product(s) in the Authorized User's own scientific, scholarly, and educational works.

Text Mining . Authorized Users may use the licensed material to perform and engage in text mining/data mining activities for legitimate academic research and other Educational Purposes. Those uses beyond educational use shall require permission from the Publisher.

III. Restrictions

Except as provided herein, the institution shall make reasonable efforts to inform its authorized users not to use, alter, decompile, modify, display, or distribute the Product(s) as follows:

Alter Identification . Remove, obscure, or modify copyright notices, text acknowledging, attributions, or other means of identification or disclaimers as they appear. Alter Product(s).

Alter, decompile, adapt, or modify the Product(s), except to the extent necessary to make it perceptible on a computer screen, or as otherwise permitted in this Agreement. Alteration of words or their order is strictly prohibited.

Commercial Use . No Commercial Use of the Product(s) shall be permitted unless the Customer or an Authorized User has been granted prior written consent by an authorized representative of the Product(s). Use of all or any part of the Product(s) for any Commercial Use or for any purpose other than Educational Purposes.

Distribution . Display or distribute any part of the Product(s) on any electronic network, including without limitation, the Internet, and any other distribution medium now in existence or hereinafter created, other than by a Secure Authentication; print and distribute any portion(s) of the Product(s)s to persons or entities other than the Customer or Authorized Users, except as provided in Section II.

JECT acknowledges that the Customer cannot police or control the actions of its students, faculty, and other Authorized Users with respect to their use of the Product(s). In the event of abuse, the institution shall make prompt and reasonable efforts to heal the breach and notify the publisher.

IV. Term and Termination

This agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall remain in effect unless and until terminated as permitted herein (the "Term"). There is no perpetual electronic access to content made available during the term of the agreement.

JECT may terminate this Agreement if Customer violates any of the terms and conditions set forth herein. In the event of any termination of access, JECT will promptly notify the Customer of the basis for termination.

The Customer may terminate this Agreement if sufficient funds are not provided or allotted in future government-approved budgets of the Customer (or reasonably available or expected to become available from other sources at the time the Customer’s payment obligation attaches) to permit the Subscriber, in the exercise of its reasonable administrative discretion, to continue this Agreement.

In the event of any unauthorized use of the Product(s) by an Authorized User, Customer shall cooperate with JECT in the investigation of any unauthorized use of the Product(s) of which it is made aware and shall use reasonable efforts to remedy such unauthorized use and prevent its recurrence. JECT may terminate such Authorized User's access to the Product(s) after first providing reasonable notice to the Customer (in no event less than two (2) weeks) and cooperating with the Customer to avoid recurrence of any unauthorized use. In the event of any termination of access, JECT will promptly notify the Customer

. V. Refunds

In the event that a subscription is canceled by the Customer prior to the subscription end date, the following will be used as guidelines for refunds.

Electronic subscriptions . The Customer shall be entitled to a full refund within 14 days of the start of the most recent subscription term. Refunds requested after 14 days but no later than 60 days from the start of the most recent subscription term will be allowed, minus a 30% processing fee. Refunds will not be granted if requested more than 60 days after the start of the most recent subscription term.

Journal on Excellence in College Teaching Center for Teaching Excellence Miami University 317 Laws Hall Oxford, Ohio 45056

All rights reserved | Miami University | The Journal on Excellence in College Teaching

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• CBE Life Sci Educ
• v.19(2); Summer 2020

Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference: A Meeting Report

Erin l. dolan.

1 Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602

Michelle Borrero

2 Department of Biology, University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras Campus, San Juan, PR 00931

Kristine Callis-Duehl

3 Education Research and Outreach, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO 63123

Miranda M. Chen Musgrove

4 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996

Joelyn de Lima

5 Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Isi Ero-Tolliver

6 Department of Biological Sciences, Hampton University, Hampton, VA 23666

Laci M. Gerhart

7 Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616

Emma C. Goodwin

8 Department of Biology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201

Lindsey R. Hamilton

9 Department of Psychology, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO 80217

Meredith A. Henry

10 Department of Chemistry, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322

Jose Herrera

11 Office of the Provost, Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

Bethany Huot

12 Biological Sciences Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Stacey Kiser

13 Science Division, Lane Community College, Eugene, OR 97405

Melissa E. Ko

14 Thinking Matters Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

Marcy E. Kravec

15 Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199

16 Department of Biology, Spelman College, Atlanta, GA 30314

Lisa B. Limeri

Melanie e. peffer.

17 Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309

Debra Pires

18 Department of Life Sciences Core Education, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095

Juan S. Ramirez Lugo

Starlette m. sharp.

19 Department of Curriculum and Instruction–Science Education, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

Nicole A. Suarez

20 Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, University of California, San Diego, and San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92120

The 2019 Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference (UBER GRC), titled “Achieving Widespread Improvement in Undergraduate Education,” brought together a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working to identify, promote, and understand widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching, learning, and success strategies in undergraduate biology. Graduate students and postdocs had the additional opportunity to present and discuss research during a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) that preceded the GRC. This report provides a broad overview of the UBER GRC and GRS and highlights major themes that cut across invited talks, poster presentations, and informal discussions. Such themes include the importance of working in teams at multiple levels to achieve instructional improvement, the potential to use big data and analytics to inform instructional change, the need to customize change initiatives, and the importance of psychosocial supports in improving undergraduate student well-being and academic success. The report also discusses the future of the UBER GRC as an established meeting and describes aspects of the conference that make it unique, both in terms of facilitating dissemination of research and providing a welcoming environment for conferees.

There is a preponderance of evidence regarding how to teach and mentor diverse groups of students in ways that promote their conceptual understanding, their development as scientists, and their success in college and beyond ( Hrabowski, 2011 ; Singer and Smith, 2013 ; Freeman et al. , 2014 ; Gentile et al ., 2017 ). Yet there remains only modest uptake of these evidence-based practices ( Stains et al. , 2018 ). This year’s Undergraduate Biology Education Research Gordon Research Conference (UBER GRC), titled “Achieving Widespread Improvement in Undergraduate Education,” addressed this issue by bringing together a diverse group of researchers and practitioners working to identify, promote, and understand widespread adoption of evidence-based teaching, learning, and success strategies in undergraduate biology. For this conference, “improvement” meant a shift toward widespread use of effective and inclusive teaching, training, and mentoring in undergraduate biology education, also called “second-order change” ( Argyris and Schon, 1974 ; Kezar, 2014 ; Corbo et al ., 2016 ).

Although there are other national conferences focused on undergraduate biology education research (e.g., the annual meeting of the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research [SABER]; Lo et al. , 2019 ), there are a few unique features and a different organizational structure that make the UBER GRC distinctive. The meeting offers a combination of presentations on big picture issues, themes, and directions for the field, as well as talks and posters on research and evaluation studies in biology education. For example, representatives of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and several professional societies have attended and presented at the meeting since its inception ( Tables 1 and ​ and2). 2 ). The meeting is longer in duration, following the 5-day, nine-session GRC structure in which the entire group gathers for every session, meals, and social events. The meeting program features diverse types of sessions, including a combination of plenary talks, research talks, and poster sessions highlighting unpublished work; discussions facilitated by leaders in undergraduate biology education; and networking among established and up-and-coming scholars. The meeting also includes sessions geared to discussion about the experiences of women and other historically marginalized groups in science (Power Hour, described later in this report) and to support early-career scholars (Gordon Research Seminar, described later in this report). GRC has a strict confidentiality policy that prohibits any recording of talks or other forms of documentation or dissemination of data shared during the meeting. This policy is part of what makes the GRC a unique conference, because it is meant to encourage participants to share unpublished results, works in progress, and negative results that might not otherwise be available to the community.

Meeting participant summary: Counts of individuals who applied and were accepted to the three UBER GRCs held thus far, including how many ultimately participated and counts and percent representation by gender and position type, compared with available information for the most recent SABER meeting

a NA, not applicable; n.d., no data available. Totals may not combine to 100% for counts with missing data.

Institutional representation summary: Counts and percentages of individuals who were speakers, poster presenters, and attendees at the three UBER GRCs held thus far, compared with available information for the most recent SABER meeting

a For the SABER 2019 meeting, information was available only for 2-year college affiliates.

The 195 conferees at the 2019 UBER GRC represented a range of disciplinary backgrounds beyond biology, biology teaching, and biology education research. 1 For instance, conferees identified as developmental psychologists, learning scientists, and members of other professions in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education not limited to biology. Conferees also represented a range of position types and career stages, including graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, faculty in contingent and tenure-track positions, administrators of diverse ranks (department heads, deans, provosts, directors of centers for teaching and learning), and representatives of funding agencies and education-focused nonprofit agencies ( Tables 1 and ​ and2). 2 ). In general, conferees came to the meeting to achieve multiple goals, including building their awareness and understanding of current educational research and resources as well as to network and form collaborations with both established and up-and-coming researchers and practitioners.

While GRC rules strictly prohibit photographing or otherwise documenting presentations, many posters included brochures, QR codes, paper citations, contact information, and social media handles, allowing participants to learn more about these projects through publicly available information and to connect outside of the GRC for possible future collaborations. GRC gave permission to publish this report of the meeting topics, atmosphere, and participant numbers and demographics, with the stipulation that none of the data presented during the meeting be included in the report.

In this meeting report, we provide a brief overview of the meeting and its history. We also highlight multiple themes that emerged across the presentations and discussions as well as preliminary plans for the 2021 UBER GRC.

HISTORY OF THE MEETING

The UBER GRC was first offered in 2015 with leadership from Gordon Uno (University of Oklahoma) and Susan Elrod (Indiana University South Bend). To broadly appeal to potential speakers and conferees in the biology education space, the organizers specified no theme aside from the focus on undergraduate biology education. A wide range of topics were presented at the 2015 meeting, including curricular design, student success, teaching improvement, and measuring student outcomes. Driven by suggestions from the community, the 2017 UBER GRC focused on improving diversity, equity, and learning in undergraduate biology education. Presentations and discussions centered around describing the diversity landscape, including trends in student populations, teaching practices, and equity and diversity policies. Other topics discussed at the 2017 meeting included creating more inclusive environments; evaluating strategies and programs for improving diversity, equity, and inclusion; and understanding mechanisms of change in higher education. The 2019 UBER GRC theme emerged from this last topic, with the aim of promoting deeper discussion and sharing of data and ideas related to fostering widespread change in higher education toward effective and inclusive undergraduate biology education.

MEETING OVERVIEW

Sylvia Hurtado (University of California, Los Angeles) and David Asai (Howard Hughes Medical Institute [HHMI]) kicked off the 2019 meeting by offering different perspectives on change in undergraduate biology education. Hurtado proposed a new model on instructional change that outlined how data can be used to change minds and ultimately change behavior. She further emphasized that, for educational data to change minds and behaviors, it needs to be coupled with external pressures and incentives, training and development, buy-in through collegial relationships, accountability, and leadership support. Asai moved the focus to boots on the ground by taking up the charge of developing a new introductory biology curriculum that moved away from content coverage and toward core concepts and science practice. This focus on rethinking introductory science course work is one of the themes of HHMI’s Inclusive Excellence 3 funding initiative, now underway. 2

Given the theme of the meeting, a major focus of the talks and posters was on individual- and institution-level supports for and constraints on greater use of evidence-based instruction. Speakers shared insights into how tangible institutional structures, such as annual review, promotion, and tenure, and intangible elements, such as teaching beliefs and trust between students and instructors, can influence the degree to which instructors effectively apply active learning and to which students reap the benefits. Collectively, the scientific content of the meeting indicated that the field of biology education research is beginning to move beyond the mechanics of active learning to the need to examine and account for the culture of higher education to achieve more effective and inclusive instruction.

Both practitioners and researchers emphasized the importance of action from all levels of the academic institution, from faculty and department heads to senior leadership, in order to achieve widespread improvement of undergraduate education. One strategy offered by speakers included meeting and communicating often with stakeholders to receive and offer guidance on elements that influence progress toward change, such as during faculty teaching evaluations, recruitment and hiring, and resource allocation. Speakers also emphasized the importance of maximizing the effectiveness of change initiatives by involving teams, rather than single change agents.

INNOVATIVE USES OF DATA

Several speakers presented work on large data sets, which they argued have largely untapped potential for maximizing student success within courses and degree programs. For instance, David Micklos (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) spoke about how existing scientific data sets can be used in courses to engage students in research. Tim McKay (University of Michigan) and Tim Renick (Georgia State University) both spoke about the ways their institutions use course-level or student-level data to identify anomalies in student performance and tailor interventions to reduce performance gaps and better support students in making progress toward degree completion.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Community colleges (CCs) represent a wide array of institutional environments with student profiles that closely reflect the ongoing shift in student demographics toward an older and more ethnically and socially diverse student population. More than half of the students who ultimately receive a STEM undergraduate degree spend part of their student experience at a CC. Yet, by most generous estimates, only 3% of research articles in undergraduate biology education include CC contexts ( Schinske et al. , 2017 ). Talks both within a CC-focused session and by CC faculty speakers during other sessions sought to address this gap by highlighting initiatives designed to support CC students in successfully pursuing their desired educational and career paths. James Hewlett (Finger Lakes Community College) spoke about the Community College Undergraduate Research Initiative (CCURI 3 ), which is a network of community colleges across the country that engage undergraduates in research experiences in the form of course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs), program-wide undergraduate research experiences, and summer undergraduate research experiences. CCURI institutions have experienced varying levels of success in creating sustainable undergraduate research programs. Research is currently underway to identify factors that promote or constrain CCs in shifting from a culture of “no research” to one in which research is an integral part of the CC student experience.

Jenny McFarland (Edmonds Community College) shared data on a STEM support program that assists CC college students in moving past early failure in gateway STEM courses, and Erin Shortlidge (Portland State University) presented data from a STEM support program aimed to reduce transfer shock for CC students moving from 2- to 4-year institutions. Elements that appeared to be important in these success programs include peer support, cocurricular activities, and participation in undergraduate research experiences, which improved student perceptions of inclusion in the scientific and academic community. Jeff Schinske (Foothill College) presented the Community College Biology Instructor Network to Support Inquiry into Teaching and Education Scholarship, which engages CC faculty in designing and carrying out education research in CC settings with CC students through a combination of professional development, mentorship, and networking. 4 The success of these and other initiatives was apparent in the many posters on display at the GRC that detailed the efforts of CCs to improve undergraduate biology education and to provide research experiences to their students.

UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH

Undergraduate research was a prevalent topic in talks and posters, with an emphasis on how undergraduate research experiences can maximize diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. Many posters presented studies of the effectiveness of CUREs in increasing students’ computational proficiency as well as their confidence and identities as scientists. Other posters about CUREs focused on their potential to increase gender equity; decrease “plant blindness”; and enable hands-on, inquiry-based elements for online courses. There were several examples of the impact of CUREs on self-efficacy and in promoting equity for different student populations (majors, nonmajors, first years, underrepresented minorities, etc.). These were implemented in multiple scenarios using a wide range of research projects, some of which involved the use of CRISPR/Cas9 technology and microbe identification. Other poster presenters examined how students developed scientific skills such as scientific argumentation, reasoning, and critical thinking in formats other than undergraduate research. These approaches included guided-inquiry learning and online platforms such as Quizfolio.

CUSTOMIZING CHANGE INITIATIVES

Many of the speakers and poster presenters related their work to Vision and Change core concepts and competencies and took a community-centric approach in their design and development ( American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2011 ). Yet multiple speakers and presenters also emphasized the need to customize change initiatives. For example, Mark Lee (Spelman College) spoke about his approach to inclusive hiring and retention, which draws from the self-determination theory of motivation ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). This theory posits that individuals are more motivated if they have some control over their situations (autonomy), they feel capable of being successful (competence), and they feel connected to the people around them (relatedness). He argued for keeping new faculty teaching loads light for the first semester while they gained teaching competence, which also functioned to give them autonomy in developing their research agenda before taking on additional teaching and service duties. Susan Elrod (Indiana University South Bend) provided her perspective on the challenges of institutional change, especially at a large institution. She argued that a university is a system and that faculty may not have a good understanding of what makes this system work. She posited that, when change leaders understand the inputs, workings, and outputs of the system, they can work within it or alter it to achieve desired changes. Elrod then spoke about “moves” that change leaders need to make and how these “moves” might differ by the level at which the change has to occur. Alix Fink (Longwood University) concluded the session by giving a practical example of customized change. She spoke about the Partnership for Undergraduate Life Sciences Education (PULSE) Ambassadors program. 5 This program works with departments to identify the capacities of a department, envision outcomes of transformation, and develop strategies to use available capacities in order to achieve transformation. All three speakers commented on the need to first determine what individuals, departments, and institutions need to achieve change, and then figure out how to change the existing system to meet needs.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Elisabeth Schussler (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), Brian Sato (University of California, Irvine), Gili Marbach-Ad (University of Maryland, College Park), and Katerina Thompson (University of Maryland, College Park) spoke about effective professional development at all levels of undergraduate biology education, including graduate student teaching assistants, faculty, and administrators. Collectively, they emphasized that institutions can support professional development by establishing reward structures for participation and by making even modest gestures that indicate professional development is valued, such as providing food at professional development meetings. They also emphasized the importance of relating professional development to personal experience and of building a strong sense of community among the participants. They argued that the goals of professional development sessions should be to build awareness about students, to stimulate conversation and sharing of resources related to teaching and learning, and to foster connections between teaching centers and departments.

An important trend was the significant role of organizations and entities other than colleges and universities as catalysts for change. Among these were BioQUEST, CBE—Life Sciences Education , CourseSource , the National Association of Biology Teachers, and Quantitative Undergraduate Biology Education and Synthesis. 6 The general perception was that these entities are continually developing and improving their platforms to provide faculty with support to teach effectively and inclusively. The speakers explained that making effective use of resources from these organizations requires professional development at all levels. Highlighted initiatives to provide this professional development included: undergraduate peer-learning assistants and graduate teaching assistants, Science Teaching Experience for Postdoctoral scholars, faculty development on active learning, and support for departmental change through the PULSE network.

UNDERSTANDING AND MAXIMIZING DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

Presenters also addressed a range of issues regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. Speakers discussed the need for diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments at both the student and faculty levels, within research environments, and at all types of institutions. Several conferees presented on specific active-learning strategies that fostered students’ sense of belonging in the classroom and in the STEM disciplines. Many different departmental interventions and organizations were discussed that aimed to create diverse and well-resourced faculty, including Aspire Alliance 7 and Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities. 8

Speakers Sarah Eddy (Florida International University), Isi Ero-Tolliver (Hampton University), and Michael Feder (AAAS) challenged attendees to think beyond traditional and current approaches to diverse and equitable education. Eddy highlighted the need to consider values and aspirations of individual students, rather than just the context of their learning, in order to promote learning and success of all students. Ero-Tolliver focused on bringing CUREs to underserved institutions such as historically black colleges and universities. Feder presented on the work being done by the AAAS to promote inclusive teaching through reward and research structures, such as the STEM Equity Achieving Change (SEA-Change) program. 9 In framing this challenge, the speakers emphasized the importance of teaching-focused professional development and the role of change agents in conceptualizing and tackling departmental and institutional change. These same topics were echoed in many of the other talks over the course of the meeting.

Tracie Addy (Lafayette College), Ellen Carpenter (NSF), and Kimberly Tanner (San Francisco State University) concluded the meeting with a session on inclusion in undergraduate biology education. Addy described work she is leading to identify factors that predict whether instructors implement inclusive teaching approaches as well as their reasoning for doing so. Echoing elements of HHMI’s Inclusive Excellence 3 initiative, Addy urged the community to define a vision for an inclusive institution, noting that shared vision is critical for institutional transformation ( Henderson et al ., 2011 ). Carpenter spoke about the NSF’s investment in undergraduate biology education and commended the community’s exemplary use of resources. She said that the NSF sought to support inclusive, creative, novel, and transformative research. The types of research suitable for funding include identifying what “works” (or not) in biology education, generating new knowledge about biology teaching and learning, broadening participation and maximizing inclusion in STEM, understanding adaptation of education-based practices, and facilitating sustainability in projects. Tanner spoke at a personal level about inclusion as a first-­generation college student herself, and how this informs her research and her efforts to foster inclusion in biology education. She argued that great science requires diverse perspectives, but that these perspectives are often excluded by traditional approaches to teaching and education. She spoke about the potential for a novel, relatively simple methodology, the Decibel Analysis for Research in Teaching, to reveal teaching patterns that faculty could use to reflect on their teaching and track changes over time ( Owens et al. , 2017 ).

In addition to the scientific content sessions, UBER GRC hosted a “Power Hour” facilitated by Rebecca Price (University of Washington Bothell). The Power Hour aims to be an open forum for discussing ways in which women are marginalized, although the discussion was inclusive of all individuals who are made to feel like they are not equal or valued or do not belong in higher education environments in STEM. The most notable themes that emerged were the discomfort and rage caused by marginalizing experiences and the fear of reporting or confronting perpetrators. These feelings were amplified by either the overt or implied hierarchy in which marginalizing experiences occurred. Specifically, the greater the hierarchical difference, the greater the fear of reporting the incident and the greater the likelihood that it would not be reported. The group discussed how graduate students in particular quickly opted to remain silent in fear of retribution. Discussions of remaining quiet or providing quiet support were contrasted with the value of clearly verbalizing the inappropriate behavior that occurred. The session concluded with practical advice on how to navigate marginalizing experiences, including acknowledging that if it feels wrong, it probably is (i.e., self-validating feelings) and finding allies to discuss and support as needed. Furthermore, the community must:

• address marginalizing behavior, because it will not “just go away”;
• recognize power differentials in order to bring the conversation out of the hierarchy and onto the human level;
• acknowledge that all are entitled to feel equal and there is a need to find ways to speak up and help change marginalizing cultures; and
• assume responsibility regardless of connection to the transgression.

GORDON RESEARCH SEMINAR

The UBER GRC included a Gordon Research Seminar (GRS) for the first time this year. This 2-day event, which immediately preceded the GRC, was designed to be a platform to increase participation of graduate students and postdoctoral scholars who represent the future of research in the discipline. The GRS featured four talk sessions and two poster sessions, all presented by early-career researchers.

The GRS began with a discussion of students’ social psychological experiences in the classroom fueled by talks from Katelyn Cooper (University of Central Florida) and Meredith Henry (Emory University). Cooper discussed students’ experiences with anxiety in the classroom and Henry discussed students’ experiences with failure. These talks highlighted the influence of factors other than cognitive skills in student well-being and success. They also highlighted the need to create environments that promote positive affect and social experiences in the classroom, especially with relation to failure experiences.

The second science session focused on graduate students’ teaching experiences and their teaching professional development. Miranda Chen Musgrove (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) began the session by characterizing how graduate students cope with both research and teaching anxiety. Joshua Reid (Middle Tennessee State University) then discussed how graduate students navigate their dual research and teaching identities. Collectively, these talks explored the unique challenges and experiences of educators who are also students themselves. Lorelei Patrick (University of Minnesota Twin Cities) and Rita Margarida Magalhaes (Rochester Institute of Technology) addressed factors that influence pedagogical decision making of both graduate students and faculty. These discussions emphasized the importance of professional development for early-career scholars as a lever for reforming undergraduate education.

The third science session focused on the development and application of instructional tools. This session was a unique blend of research and practice, relevant to the broad range of GRS participants’ interests and backgrounds. Alexa Clemmons (University of Washington, Seattle) presented BioSkills , 10 a guide to learning objectives aligned with Vision and Change core competencies. Megan Shiroda (Michigan State University) presented on Automated Assessment of Constructed Response, 11 a tool that summarizes the content of students’ responses to constructed-response questions. Both speakers discussed their research on the use of these tools as well as practical tips for implementation for practitioners.

The last science session focused on students’ psychosocial experiences in the classroom. Both talks emphasized the importance of considering students’ perspectives in the classroom and how they may differ from the perspectives of instructors or researchers. Staci Johnson (Clemson University) presented on her work on students’ learning approaches, highlighting how students may interpret the wording of a survey differently from the researchers who designed it and the instructors who implement it. Claire Meaders (Cornell University) presented her work on how students from different backgrounds may have different expectations when they enter their introductory college courses and the problems that may arise when their expectations are not met.

The GRS poster presentations showcased an array of research topics, including research on faculty promotion, incorporating quantitative and interdisciplinary pedagogical practices into CUREs, strategies for teaching professional development, and STEM career development. The range of topics highlighted the diversity in scholarship among the GRS community, including discipline-based education researchers tackling fundamental questions and primarily bench scientists engaging in the scholarship of teaching and learning.

GRS MENTORING SESSION

Professional development for early-career scientists was both a goal and a research theme for the GRS. To this end, the second day of the GRS began with a mentoring session, in which four field leaders led discussions and guided activities designed to advance the professional development of GRS participants. David Asai (HHMI) led a discussion about mentoring that focused on how to mentor students and how to manage relationships with one’s own mentors. Stacey Kiser (Lane Community College) led a discussion about conference networking, which focused on setting specific networking and professional development goals for a meeting. Rebecca Price (University of Washington Bothell) and Sarah Eddy (Florida International University) co-led a session about crafting job application materials to leverage one’s different professional identities (e.g., educator, researcher, biologist).

In each session, participants engaged in reflective activities about the topic to advance their professional development. For example, in the conference networking session, participants reflected on their career goals over the next 5 years, generated two to three concrete and measurable goals for the meeting, and discussed these in small groups. Participants’ feedback indicated that engaging in this reflective exercise before a conference helped them maintain focus and progress toward their networking and professional development goals.

MEETING VALUE

Although this meeting report is not intended as an evaluation of the meeting per se, it is informative to draw attention to what the UBER GRC participants saw as the unique value of the meeting. Statements about the value of the GRS and GRC reflect the perspectives of the authors of this meeting report and their informal conversations with other conferees rather than any systematic measurement of meeting value. Our intention in sharing these perspectives is to equip readers with information to make a more informed decision about whether to attend a future UBER GRC meeting.

Graduate students and postdoctoral scholars who had an interest in education research but little to no experience with it commented on how the meeting provided an opportunity to learn about the nature of this research and make connections with the researchers. Faculty who were transitioning from the natural sciences into discipline-based education research also found that the meeting provided a supportive introduction to the field and an environment that afforded opportunities to make connections.

The GRS offered newcomers to the field of undergraduate biology education research an opportunity to quickly build a network and become incorporated into a community of peers. The GRS consisted of a smaller group of attendees (∼50 compared with ∼200 at the GRC). Most of these individuals also attended the GRC, which allowed conferees several days (1.5-day GRS + 5-day GRC) to build networks and reinforce their sense of community during the larger GRC.

More experienced scholars appreciated that individuals working in UBER were using theories from psychology and other social science disciplines to frame their work. This progress was viewed as increasing the potential contributions that individuals outside biology could make in the undergraduate biology education space. The diversity of institutional types represented at the GRC was also perceived to be a rich source of knowledge for what works in education as well as how and why it works. The fact that the meeting included instructors and was not limited to scholars allowed for awareness building about the current and urgent matters educators are facing and the array of tools and resources that have been developed to address these matters. Ideas could be exchanged between researchers and practitioners about strategies for promoting student learning and development. Conferees found themselves on both sides of this conversation—sharing ideas and adapting strategies to different courses, institutions, or goals. Conferees felt these conversations were far more detailed and personalized than the recommendations that can be gleaned from a website or publication, and they frequently ended with an invite to reconnect via email after the conference. Prior UBER GRC participants commented on the strong sense of community that developed at the meeting and continued beyond it.

Regardless of disciplinary perspective, conferees noted several aspects of the UBER GRC that made it a unique conference environment. First, they appreciated that the conference focused on the use of data to make decisions in undergraduate biology education. Conferees found themselves surrounded by like-minded science educators who valued the power of evidence-based teaching practices and who could learn from one another. Conferees also found the meeting a friendly place to share preliminary work, and they appreciated the developmental nature of the discussions. Early-career scholars and individuals new to UBER noted that their participation and contributions felt valued. They also noted that the conference was useful for becoming familiar with current trends in the discipline and with establishing a foothold in the community.

All GRC meetings are designed to be immersive experiences that promote deep discussion about research and foster networking and collaboration. This is accomplished by holding meetings in secluded areas with on-site housing, communal meals, and ample time for discussion and by ensuring both early-career and established scholars are among the conferees. The meeting is small enough to deeply engage with others around the research, yet large enough to offer some diversity in terms of research interests. All participants attend the same sessions, so there is a strong shared experience. Communal meals allow for the ideas that are presented in the oral sessions and posters to be discussed in detail among the participants and with the presenters more informally. The poster sessions are more active and engaged than the majority of other conferences and frequently inspire discussion beyond the projects presented. Moreover, the length of the meeting affords the luxury of time to think about, explore, and cultivate ideas.

Finally, the leadership of GRCs is expected to fundraise in order to cover as many of the conference costs as possible. This includes writing proposals to federal and philanthropic agencies and seeking donations from industry and individuals to support costs not allowed by certain granting agencies. Depending on the success of these efforts, the funds enable participation of individuals who do not have dedicated grant or department funds for conference travel, which promotes the inclusivity of the meeting.

The UBER GRC was just promoted from “probationary” to “continuing” status, which means that it will now recur every 2 years, as long as attendance remains strong and evaluations positive. All GRCs are probationary for at least two offerings, and the decision to shift to a recurring meeting must be made after the third offering (i.e., 2019). This decision was based on multiple factors, including the number of applications, the number of participants, and the evaluation results, including feedback from conferees and on-site staff. The next UBER GRC is scheduled for June 27–July 2, 2021 at Bates College (Lewiston, ME); Erin Dolan (University of Georgia) and Stacey Kiser (Lane Community College) were elected to be cochairs, and Stanley Lo (University of California, San Diego) and Carrie Diaz Eaton (Bates College) were elected to be co–vice chairs. The associated GRS will be held June 25–26; Starlette M. Sharp (Pennsylvania State University) and Miranda Chen Musgrove (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) were elected as chair and vice chair of the 2021 GRS.

As in previous offerings of the UBER GRC, the 2021 meeting will focus on a topic that emerged from the community: navigating transitions in undergraduate biology education. This theme is grounded in research in undergraduate biology education that indicates that students, educators, and researchers must transition across learning environments, institutions, programming, and types of work to be successful. For instance, students transition from precollege to college education, from 2-year to 4-year colleges, from learning about discoveries in classrooms to producing discoveries in the lab and the field, and from being students to becoming professionals in their desired careers. Educators transition from doctoral and postdoctoral training that emphasizes development of biological expertise to careers that require expertise in curricula, instruction, and student development. Furthermore, biology education researchers transition from training in education or in biological research to studying teaching and learning in biology per se. Finally, students, educators, and researchers in undergraduate biology education can experience transitions that may align with or develop their identities or clash with or undermine their identities. The 2021 UBER GRC will feature cutting-edge, unpublished research from high-profile and emerging scholars studying these and other transition points in the undergraduate biology education space.

Acknowledgments

The UBER GRS and GRC were supported in part by funding from the HHMI, the National Institute of General Medicine Sciences of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number 1R13GM134534-01, and the NSF Division of Undergraduate Education Award 1922648. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the HHMI, NSF, or NIH. Thanks also to Mary Pat Wenderoth for providing participant information for the 2019 SABER meeting.

1 We have named speakers but not poster presenters in this report. The full program, including speaker names, organizations, and talk titles, can be found here: www.grc.org/undergraduate-biology-education-research-conference/2019 . Speakers can be contacted directly about the content of their presentations.

2 www.hhmi.org/science-education/programs/inclusive-excellence-new-competition-announcement .

3 www.ccuri.org .

4 https://qubeshub.org/community/groups/ccbioinsites .

5 www.pulsecommunity.org/page/ambassador-program-1 .

6 https://qubeshub.org .

7 http://aspirealliance.org .

8 http://sencer.net .

9 https://seachange.aaas.org .

10 https://qubeshub.org/qubesresources/publications/1305/3 .

11 https://beyondmultiplechoice.org .

• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action . Washington, DC. [ Google Scholar ]
• Argyris, C., Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness . Oxford, UK: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbo, J. C., Reinholz, D. L., Dancy, M. H., Deetz, S., Finkelstein, N. (2016). Framework for transforming departmental culture to support educational innovation . Physical Review Physics Education Research , 12 ( 1 ), 010113. 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010113 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 111 ( 23 ), 8410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentile, J., Brenner, K., Stephens, A. (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students : Successes, challenges, and opportunities . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved May 17, 2017, from www.nap.edu/catalog/24622/undergraduate-research-experiences-for-stem-students-successes-challenges-and-opportunities [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson, C., Beach, A., Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature . Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 48 ( 8 ), 952–984. 10.1002/tea.20439 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hrabowski, F. A. (2011). Expanding underrepresented minority participation: America’s science and technology talent at the crossroad . Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved December 18, 2016, from www.nap.edu/catalog/12984/expanding-underrepresented-minority-participation-americas-science-and-technology-talent-at [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kezar, A. (2014). Higher education change and social networks: A review of research . Journal of Higher Education , 85 ( 1 ), 91–125. 10.1080/00221546.2014.11777320 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lo, S. M., Gardner, G. E., Reid, J., Napoleon-Fanis, V., Carroll, P., Smith, E., Sato, B. K. (2019). Prevailing questions and methodologies in biology education research: A longitudinal analysis of research in CBE — Life Sciences Education and at the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 18 ( 1 ), ar9. 10.1187/cbe.18-08-0164 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owens, M. T., Seidel, S. B., Wong, M., Bejines, T. E., Lietz, S., Perez, J. R., …& Tanner, K. D. (2017). Classroom sound can be used to classify teaching practices in college science courses . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA , 114 ( 12 ), 3085–3090. 10.1073/pnas.1618693114 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions . Contemporary Educational Psychology , 25 ( 1 ), 54–67. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schinske, J. N., Balke, V. L., Bangera, M. G., Bonney, K. M., Brownell, S. E., Carter, R. S., … & Corwin, L. A. (2017). Broadening participation in biology education research: Engaging community college students and faculty . CBE—Life Sciences Education , 16 ( 2 ), mr1. 10.1187/cbe.16-10-0289 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer, S., Smith, K. A. (2013). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering . Journal of Engineering Education , 102 ( 4 ), 468–471. 10.1002/jee.20030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., … & Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities . Science , 359 ( 6383 ), 1468–1470. 10.1126/science.aap8892 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Center for Undergraduate Research and Engaged Learning

Distinguish Yourself

Undergraduate Research Journal

                                                                                                             2023 Undergraduate Research Journal

The University of California Riverside Undergraduate Research Journal provides a student-edited multi-disciplinary journal that features the very best faculty-mentored undergraduate research and scholarship accomplished on our campus. This peer-review process is managed by the Student Editorial Board (SEB) with guidance from the Faculty Advisory Board (FAB), and logistical support from the  Center for Undergraduate Research and Engaged Learning team . The Journal is sponsored by the Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Education.

Prior to submission , students should review all Journal Requirements including paper requirements, guidelines, and other submission information.

Publishing workshops are provided to clarify expectations for successful article submission:

• Students interested in submitting articles to the Journal are highly encouraged to read through the Author Workshop presentation . 
• Those students who are unable to attend should carefully review the Journal Formatting Guidelines (below).
• The workshops will be presented by a member of the Student Editorial Board who outline the expectations, will provide clarification, and answer specific questions about preparing an article for submission.

Article Submission:

Fall: Oct. 13, 2023 at 5pm

Winter: Jan. 8, 2024 at 5pm 

Spring: April 5, 2024 at 5pm

Submit Article Here

Cover Art Submission:

April 20, 2024 at 5pm

Student Editorial Board Applications:

Now accepting applications for the 2024-2025 academic year! Applications are due by 11:59pm on Friday, April 19.

Submissions for Articles and Cover Design Art

Submissions will be accepted throughout the academic year, however finalized selection of articles will be determined after the April 1 deadline for the annual spring publication.

• Article Submission
• Cover Art Submission

Submitting an Article

Articles submitted to the Journal must be original work written by currently enrolled undergraduate students at UCR, who are involved in faculty-mentored research, scholarship, and/or creative activity. All articles must be approved by the student researcher's faculty mentor(s) for submission to be complete. Once the student has submitted the article online, each faculty mentor will receive notification via email.  The faculty mentor will then have the option to approve, hold the article for edits, or not approve.  It is highly recommended that students acquire verbal approval from their mentor(s) before they submit online. The student will be notified of the mentor's action and is responsible for following up with the mentor if the article was not approved.  Only those submissions approved by faculty mentors will move forward to the editorial evaluation process. If appropriate, research must have approval from institutional oversight boards or committees. 

The UCR Undergraduate Research Journal is considered a campus journal.  The Journal is housed in the Rivera Library Special Collections and can be found in the UCR Library .  The submission of a paper to the Journal does not exclude the possibility of submitting similar work to an external journal unless the external journal's submission or publication restrictions prohibit it.  Students who are published in the Undergraduate Research Journal may also submit their work for publication in other journals. 

You are encouraged to review articles previously submitted and accepted. You can view the  most recent Journal to see examples.  

• Margins must be 1-inch on all sides.
• Abstract must be single-spaced .
• Article text must be double-spaced .
• All pages must be numbered .  Place page number in the center of the page at the bottom.
• References :  Follow the citation styles of your discipline. Some examples are MLA, APA, CSE, ACS, etc. Please work with your faculty mentors to determine which should be used.
• Articles must be submitted as a Word document (.dox or .docx format).
• The final page of your article should include your faculty mentor's bio. Please consult with your faculty to ensure that you are included the most updated bio.
• Name your file as "Submission Number - (XXXXX) - First Submission" - upon submission your article will be assigned a Submission Number, please use that number for future revised submissions.
• Document size cannot exceed 5MB.
• Maximum length of the article cannot exceed 15 pages, 12-point Times New Roman , including all figures, tables, graphs, footnotes, and references. It does not include the abstract and author information.
• Journal Template

The ideal structure of any article will depend on the discipline. Please consult with your faculty mentor to determine the paper structure that is most appropriate for your submission. It is recommended that all submissions contain the following elements: 

• One author should take primary responsibility for the work as a whole. The Primary Author is responsible for submission.
• Everyone who is listed as an author must have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work. For example, they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or interpretation of data, as well as to the actual writing of the article. 
• Please list authors in order of contribution. You are encouraged to discuss this with the team members prior to submission . The order that you provide in this submission is the order the authors will be listed.
• All authors should participate in the editing process by reviewing drafts and approving the final version before publication.
• Abstract --A single paragraph containing no more than 250 words. An abstract briefly defines the problem, purpose, or specific topic addressed by the research. It briefly indicates the methods and/or approach taken in inquiry and summarizes results or conclusion. It should be written in grammatically correct, logically connected sentences. It should be understandable by any audience with reasonable knowledge of its field. The abstract should not contain any charts, tables, graphs, figures, or spreadsheets. The abstract must be single spaced.
• Keywords -- 6-8 keywords relevant to the topic

PLEASE NOTE:   If your paper is accepted and you have photos/ graphs/images, we will ask that you submit the images in high resolution (300 DPI) for publication. For more information on each of these paper sections, please watch the Publishing in the Journal Workshop Video or attend a Submitting to the Journal workshop.  

• Is the research question clearly articulated?
• Is the research approach clearly defined?
• Does it make clear the results/relevance of this research?
• Well-defined position and motivation for research.
• Logical, step-wise method and methodology.
• Clarity of conclusions.
• Significance of results.
• Direction of study and broader implication of research.
• Grammar and spelling.
• Proper formatting and labeling of figures and graphs.
• Clarity of article presentation.
• Appropriate use of citations/references.  
• Year of Study
• Research and research mentor
• Awards/recognition (funding, research, honor societies, leadership roles)
• Future goals

It is important that care be taken with grammar and spelling in your biography, as it is considered part of your submission in the review process.

• Author: Connor Richards, Department of Physics and Astronomy
• Connor Richards is a third year Physics major. He studies physics beyond the standard model at the Large Hadron Collider. With funding from the Goldwater Scholarship, University of California Regents’ Scholarship, UC LEADS Fellowship, and Chancellor’s Research Fellowship, he has participated in research and outreach at the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN) for two years under the guidance of Dr. Owen Long. Currently Vice President of CNAS Science Ambassadors, Richards’ passions are research, science outreach, and STEM education. He plans to pursue a Ph.D. in High-Energy Physics and a faculty position.  

Library Research Guides  (Find citation styles for your discipline)  Managing your references UCR library Workshop Schedule UCR Library Specialist  

Submitting Cover Art

The Journal Editorial Team invites original art submissions for the Journal cover.  Authors and non-authors are encouraged to submit images that represent their research and/or creative work.  Images will be selected on a competitive basis based on creativity and/or relevance to research, scholarly, or creative activity. The image must be an original, unpublished work that does not contain, incorporate, or otherwise use any content, material, or element that is owned by a third party or that violates a third party’s intellectual property rights, including but not limited to the law of copyright or trademarks.

• Submissions must be your own artwork.
• Submissions must be unpublished (unless being used in the Journal).
• No less than 300 dpi set at their required size in: Photoshop, InDesign, or high resolution PDF, CMYK color setup.
• Preferred submission size is 8.75" x 11.25" (or scalable down to this size).
• You are allowed to submit up to 3 images.
• You must provide a description of no more than 80 words.  

Each entry will be judged by a panel consisting of the Faculty Editorial Board Chair, the Editor-In-Chief, the Associate Editors-In-Chief, and the Copy Editors.  The top 3-5 covers will be voted on by the entire Editorial Team, including the Faculty Advisory Board and the Student Editorial Board.  The winning design will be used on the cover of the Journal, which will also include a half-page about the winner and his or her work.  The winner will be recognized at the Journal Unveiling Ceremony.

The judges reserve the right not to award the prize if no entry is deemed fitting. The judges’ decisions will be final and no correspondence will be had in relation to their decisions or the competition.  

Additional Information

Dr. Morris Maduro, Biology; Faculty Advisory Board Chair Dr. Monica Carson, Biomedical Sciences Dr. Erica Heinrich, Biomedical Sciences Dr. Andrea Denny-Brown, English Dr. Vorris Nunley, English Dr. James Tobias, English Dr. Jonathan Eacott, History Dr. Wendy Saltzman, Biology Dr. William Grover, Bioengineering Dr. Xiaoping Hu, Bioengineering Dr. Joshua Morgan, Bioengineering Dr. Isgouhi Kaloshian, Nematology Dr. Matthew King, Religious Studies Dr. Leonard Mueller, Chemistry Dr. Catherine Larsen, Chemistry Dr. Ruoxue Yan, Chemical and Environmental Engineering Dr. John Briggs, University Writing Program Dr. Elizabeth Davis, Psychology Dr. Weiwei Zhang, Psychology  

SEB Board Members gain hands on experience in the publication of the Journal.  They work closely with the Faculty Advisory Board members as well as several undergraduate researchers and their faculty mentors. Serving on an editorial board is a wonderful experience for students contemplating careers in research and creative scholarship.

Students who are involved in faculty mentored research, scholarly or creative projects will be invited to submit their articles for the review by the Student Editorial Board, working with guidance from the Faculty Advisory Board.  

• Student Editorial Board Job Descriptions
• Peer-Review Process

Apply for the Student Editorial Board - Application Deadline, September 30

• Angelin Simon
• Sekirou Shimono
• Nicole D'souza
• Vanessa Hua
• Katherine Morrisette
• Kashish Rai
• Trusha Bhagwat
• Matthew Dimaandal
• Tara Keezhanjil
• Bobbi Monae Mandour
• Aurchana Manickavasagan
• Nandini Mannem
• Vishruth Nagam
• Elliot Randolph

The UCR Undergraduate Research Journal was first published in 2007. All current and past volumes of the Undergraduate Research Journal can be found in Special Collections in Rivera Library. Starting in 2018, all issues will be made available on Escholarship , the open-access publication source for the University of California. 

• Volume XVI (2022)
• Volume XV (2021)
• Volume XIV (2020)
• Volume XIII (2019)
• Volume XII (2018)
• Volume XI (2017)
• Volume X (2016)
• Volume IX (2015)
• Volume VIII (2014)
• Creative Works: Mosaic Art & Literary Journal
• Honors Audeamus Journal

• NSF NCAR Home
• Articles on Undergraduate Research
• GEO REU Resource Center

Index of Topics

Council for Undergraduate Research (CUR) Publications

Articles from the broader reu community.

Adekokum O.A. et al. 2014.  Effect of Time on Perceived Gains from an Undergraduate Research Program .  CBE Life Sciences. Vol. 13, 139–148.

Adedokun, O. A., Bessenbacher, A. B., Parker, L. C., Kirkam, L. L., & Burgess, W. D. 2013.  Research skills and STEM undergraduate research students’ aspirations for research careers: Mediating effects of research self-efficacy.  Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 940-951. 

Eagen, K. et al. 2014.  Making a Difference in Science Education: The Impact of Undergraduate Research Programs.  American Educational Research Journal, August 2013, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 683–713.  DOI: 10.3102/0002831213482038.

Gardner, G.H. 2015.  Undergraduate Research as an Innovative Learning Experience: Student Perspectives on Professional Impacts.  Society for College Science Teachers Monograph.

Haacker, R. 2015.  From recruitment to retention .  Nature Geoscience commentary. 8 (577-578).

Hurtado, S. et al. 2009.   Diversifying Science: Underrepresented Student Experiences in Structured Research Program . Res High Educ. Mar; 50(2): 189–214. 

Linn, M.C. et al. 2015.  Undergraduate research experiences: Impact and opportunities . Science, February 2015.

Lopatto, S., 2004.   Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences (SURE): First Findings.  CBE: Life Sciences Education.

Morales, D. 2016.  Faculty motivation to mentor students through undergraduate research programs: a study of enabling and constraining factors.  Research in Higher Education. DOI:10.1007/s11162-016-9435-x.

Russell, S.H. et al. 2007.  The Benefits of Undergraduate Research Experiences .  Science, May 2007.

1st GEO REU Workshop in San José, 2011  (titles and PDFs of 48 posters)

2nd GEO REU Workshop in Boulder, CO, 2014  (titles and PDFs for 32 posters)

3rd GEO REU Workshop in Boulder, CO, 2016  (titles and PDFs for 30 posters)

Council for Undergraduate Research  (CUR)  Publications

• Undergraduate Research at Community Colleges
• A Practical Handbook for Supporting Community-Based Research with Undergraduate Students
• Broadening Participation in Undergraduate Research: Fostering Excellence and Enhancing the Impact
• Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research
• Faculty Support and Undergraduate Research
• Reading, Writing & Research: Undergraduate Students as Scholars in Literary Studies

These publications are small books that cost between $11 - $65 and can be shipped to you.

The Project Ownership Survey: Measuring Differences in Scientific Inquiry Experiences

A Broadly Implementable Research Course in Phage Discovery and Genomics for First-Year Undergraduate Students

Assessment of Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences: A Meeting Report

Experiences of Mentors Training Underrepresented Undergraduates in the Research Laboratory

Here’s How Data Can Help Unlock Education Equity

Tc’s renzhe yu, alex bowers, and youmi suk break down their ongoing, different approaches to the same goal: high quality education for all.

Now more than ever, educational equity — ensuring all students have access to meaningful educational opportunities, from college preparation and career assistance to support resources to civic participation — is crucial across America. However, the journey towards educational equity demands a multifaceted approach, with cross-collaboration and data at the helm. That’s where a core aspect of TC’s educator preparation and overall ethos comes into play, seeking to narrow the opportunity gaps millions of U.S. students face. 

While The Center for Educational Equity , established in 2005, focuses on research and policy around fair school funding and civic participation, three TC faculty members are finding unique ways to leverage data for equity. Renzhe Yu , Assistant Professor of Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining, is leveraging data analytics to uncover the unintended consequences of the rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence. Alex Bowers , Professor of Education Leadership, is showcasing the power of learning analytics and interoperable data sets to identify and address critical indicators of equity. Youmi Suk , Assistant Professor of Applied Statistics, is harnessing big educational data and cutting-edge machine learning methods to address questions about equity and fairness in educational practice.

Renzhe Yu, Assistant Professor of Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining; Alex Bowers, Professor of Education Leadership; Youmi Suk, Assistant Professor of Applied Statistics (Photo: TC Archives)

• To reveal the bias and unintended consequences of generative artificial intelligence , Renzhe Yu performs large-scale data analytics.
• In order to identify issues of equity in a transparent way, Alex Bowers utilizes learning analytics and public data.
• Working to improve test fairness and curriculum planning , Youmi Suk draws connections between psychometrics, causal inference and algorithmic fairness.

(Image: iStock)

How Data Analytics Can Address the Growing Digital Divides

Stemming from Yu’s interest in learning how to “equip ourselves to better address existing issues related to education inequity,” his most pressing research focuses on understanding how the mass adoption of generative artificial intelligence has exacerbated digital divides in schools and institutions. Explored in a forthcoming working paper, the project uses large-scale text data from the education system to examine differences in everyday teaching and learning experiences as well as institutional attitudes toward generative AI.

“There are students who are more tech-savvy, there are instructors who are more experienced in using technologies, there are institutions that are more open-minded…and they have probably taken good advantage of ChatGPT and other generative AI tools in the past year,” explains Yu. But there’s also a significant number of students, parents, instructors, and institutions that don’t have that kind of access or awareness. “Although it’s just one year, the emergence of this technology may have widened these gaps,” says Yu.

To explore this growing divide, Yu and his research team focused on real-world data sources instead of conducting lab-controlled experiments in order to see how these relationships are playing out in real life. Because of his familiarity with the tech industry and the still-common impulse to innovate without considering the way that entire populations can be left behind, Yu says, “it’s really important to identify these unintended consequences in the early phase of life for these technologies.”

Yu’s other research interest in algorithmic bias — where he has long been exploring how algorithms used for decision making are treating learners differently based on race or other socio-demographic markers — is also made more urgent by the emergence of generative AI tools because if biased algorithms are “having dynamic conversations with students, [as is the case with generative AI,] the negative consequences of any bias in the process would be even more concerning.”

Ultimately, Yu hopes that his work provides perspective that is often ignored in the innovation process in order to create an education system that achieves equity with the help of advanced technology. 

How Data Can Inform Equity Efforts in School Policy and Conversation

Meanwhile, Bowers is looking at new ways school leaders can use reliable, evidence-based data practices to support equity efforts in schools nationwide. “One of my goals is to help bring communities together around the data that already exists for them—that’s already available, and help empower those communities,” he explains.

His recent work focuses on building collaboration with urban schools to identify data-driven equity practices and outcomes in education. In using a multidimensional framework, Bowers is hoping to facilitate more meaningful discussions with school communities by moving away from stigmatizing variables like standardized test scores and graduation rates.

“I think school districts are excited to have a definition of equity that they can bring into these community conversations, both with the school board, but also with teachers, parents, students.”

The project is fueled by his earlier research , which explores the value of interoperable, equitable datasets, along with a report that he co-authored with the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). The comprehensive report details the 16 indicators for assessing equity in education, including academic outcomes like test scores, graduation rates, behavioral data, and opportunities such as student engagement, access to quality learning, pre-K experiences, and more.These indicators give administrators and teachers a more transparent lens to examine school performance.

“It can help us move into a framework of, "How are we serving our students?" "Are we serving our communities?" It's moving away from fixating on the gaps and the outcomes and [instead] trying to problem solve as a collaborative opportunity through which we can bring in existing data.”

How Interdisciplinary Approaches to Analyzing Data Can Promote Fairness

For clearer reading.

Causal Inference: An interdisciplinary subfield that determines the cause of an observed effect by considering assumptions, design and estimation strategies.

Psychometrics: A subfield of psychology centered on theories and applications of measurement, assessment and testing.

A leading researcher exploring test accommodation effectiveness, Suk takes a multi-pronged approach to her main research goal of “developing and applying quantitative methods to address practical and important problems in the educational, social, and behavioral sciences.” One of her central projects is forging a connection between test fairness, a field of study that has been developed over 60 years, and algorithmic fairness, an emerging field with high stakes as algorithmic models are utilized in all aspects of life. 

“We can leverage the people, the methods and the concepts developed in test fairness in order to facilitate understanding of algorithmic fairness,” says Suk who is incorporating psychometrics and causal inference concepts into her work. “And it can go both ways. If there's any new discussion happening around algorithm fairness, we can leverage that discussion to make assessments and tests fairer.” As a part of this work, Suk is crafting new frameworks to investigate test fairness on the individual level instead of on the group level, based on the discussions on individual fairness within the algorithmic fairness research.

Her work is also directly informing her recent research on fair and personalized math curriculum recommendations for high school students, funded by the National Science Foundation. It’s known that students get the most benefit from personalized recommendations but “we have to be aware there may be some unconscious bias [in the recommendations],” explains Suk. To address this, Suk is applying algorithmic fairness constraints to create more equitable recommendations for high school students.

Through her varied research, Suk ultimately hopes to “create equitable and fair testing environments for all students and personalized curriculum plans that empower every student to succeed.”

— Sherri Gardner and Jaqueline Teschon

Tags: Evaluation & Learning Analytics Bias Education Leadership Evaluation & Learning Analytics

Programs: Applied Statistics Cognitive Science in Education Education Leadership Learning Analytics Measurement and Evaluation

Departments: Human Development Organization & Leadership

Published Monday, Apr 22, 2024

Teachers College Newsroom

Address: Institutional Advancement 193-197 Grace Dodge Hall

Box: 306 Phone: (212) 678-3231 Email: views@tc.columbia.edu

Undergraduate Research Experience and Post-graduate Achievement Among Students from Underrepresented Groups in STEM

• Research Article
• Published: 06 September 2023

Cite this article

• David C. Barker 1 ,
• Valory Messier 2 ,
• Dave E. Marcotte   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0222-9186 1 ,
• Lisa Hammersley 2 &
• Semarhy Quinones-Soto 2  

336 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Racial and ethnic disparities in STEM achievement are associated with weaker economic growth, greater social inequalities, and narrower parameters of scientific inquiry. Extant research suggests that undergraduate research experiences (URE) can reduce those disparities by enhancing perceptions of belonging and scientific self-efficacy among students from underrepresented groups. However, to date, very few studies have examined the relationship between URE and post-baccalaureate educational achievement gains among such students and those that have tend to be limited in terms of causal leverage and generalizability. In this study, we aim to make progress by analyzing data from the California State University system’s longstanding Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (CSU-LSAMP) program. Applying a quasi-experimental research design and drawing upon a large and representative sample of students whom we tracked over time, we observe that URE is strongly associated with post-baccalaureate enrollment and graduation in STEM disciplines among students from underrepresented backgrounds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

STEM Doctoral Completion of Underrepresented Minority Students: Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Participation in the Doctoral Workforce

Results from a 14-Year Intervention Program Designed to Impact Pursuit of a PhD in Research among Underrepresented Students in STEM Disciplines

The Effects of Gifted College Students’ Research Engagement on Their Academic Achievement: A Meta-analysis

The California State University, Impact of the CSU/Diversity . Available at: https://www2.calstate.edu/impact-of-the-csu/diversity .

California State University Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation STEM Pathways and Research Alliance, Year Two Report , June 2020, Institute for Social Research. Available at: https://www.csus.edu/college/natural-sciences-mathematics/csu-lsamp/_internal/_documents/csu-lsamp-spara-year-two-report.pdf .

For a full CSU-LSAMP program description, see the program’s website: https://www.csus.edu/college/natural-sciences-mathematics/csu-lsamp/program-goals.html .

We were able to obtain ERS data for 80% of CSU-LSAMP participants and NSC records for 68% of CSU-LSAMP participants. ERS data could not be obtained for CSU-LSAMP participants whose WebAMP records were missing SSN. Students were matched to NSC data using name and birthdate. Students can also decline to share their data with the NSC, which accounts for the lower match rate with NSC data.

We use a simplified measure of URE, rather than one that measures differences in duration of participation (e.g., multiple years vs. one), because the matching method we employed is much more complicated if attempting to equalize three groups (non-URE, 1 year of URE, 2 or more years of URE) instead of just two, making us much more confident in the stability of the estimates when using this simplified procedure. However, it is worth pointing out that in preliminary statistical analyses in which we simply include the matching variables as model covariates, we did include a 3-point measure of URE that distinguishes those who participated in such research activities for only 1 year and those who participated for 2 or more years. Those models reveal that, generally speaking, such additional URE “dosage” slightly strengthens the size of the coefficients associated with URE participation. Thus, the estimates we report below may be considered conservative.

As a robustness test, we also estimated models using the nearest neighbor method of matching. We did so repeatedly, specifying that the procedure use 1 and 10 “nearest neighbors” to match. The results we obtained look highly similar, in terms of both substantive and statistical significance, to those we report here.

As another robustness check, in alternative model estimations, we used the complementary log-log estimator in light of the varying degrees of skew associated with our outcome variables. The results did not meaningfully differ, either substantively or statistically, in those models, so we report the probit results because probit regression is familiar to a broader audience of readers.

Rather than an HLM model assuming random campus effects, in alternative models, we included “fixed effects” dummy variables for all the campuses to account for any selection bias associated with unobserved campus-level variables. Because doing so added multicollinearity to the models, causing some of the covariates to be dropped, we do not report those results here. However, importantly, the inclusion of campus fixed effects did not substantially alter any of the results we report below.

Additional analyses reveal that URE is also associated with increases in graduation rates in non-STEM fields, but the relationship is smaller.

Unfortunately, limitations in data availability precluded us from analyzing post-graduate enrollment in STEM fields, specifically. Specifically, NSC enrollment data does not consistently provide the level of enrollment or discipline that information is only reflected in NSC records when a degree is awarded. If we had, we might have observed an even stronger relationship, given the other patterns of results we report here.

Additional analyses reveal that URE is also associated with post-graduate degree attainment in non-STEM fields, though the relationship is smaller.

Almukhambetova, A., & Kuzhabekova, A. (2021). Negotiating conflicting discourses. Female students’ experiences in STEM majors in an international university in Central Asia. International Journal of Science Education, 43 (4), 570–593. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1875150

Article   Google Scholar  

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 40 , 518–529.

Google Scholar  

Austin, P. C., & Stuart, E. A. (2015). Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Statistics in Medicine, 34 (28), 3661–3679. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.6607

Barlow, A. E. L., & Villarejo, M. (2004). Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an educational enrichment program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (9), 861–881. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20029

Castleman, B. L., & Page, L. C. (2014). Summer melt: Supporting low-income students through the transition to college . Harvard Education Press https://www.hepg.org/hep-home/books/summer-melt

Chen, X. (2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001) . National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf

Clewell, B. C. (2005). Final report on the evaluation of the National Science Foundation Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation program: Full technical report and appendices . The Urban Institute https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/43766/411301_LSAMP_report_appen.pdf

Coley, B., & Vallas, C. (2015). Tapping into the talent: Exploring the barriers of the engineering transfer pathway (2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings). University of Virginia https://peer.asee.org/tapping-into-the-talent-exploring-the-barriers-of-the-engineering-transfer-pathway.pdf

Crawford, I., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Reich, J., Figert, A., & Nyden, P. (1996). The use of research participation for mentoring prospective minority graduate students. Teaching Sociology, 24 (3), 256. https://doi.org/10.2307/1318740

Dickson, L. (2010). Race and gender differences in college major choice. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 627 (1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716209348747

Dynarski, S. (2008). Building the stock of college-educated labor. Journal of Human Resources, 43 (3), 576–610. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.43.3.576

Estrada, M., Hernandez, P. R., & Schultz, P. W. (2018). A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066

Fakayode, S. O., Yakubu, M., Adeyeye, O. M., Pollard, D. A., & Mohammed, A. K. (2014). Promoting undergraduate STEM education at a historically black college and university through research experience. Journal of Chemical Education, 91 (5), 662–665. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed400482b

Gibson, S. M., Brinkley, K., Griggs, L. A., James, B. N., Smith, M., Schwitzerlett, M., Waller, L. M., & Hargraves, R. H. (2021). Implementing a hybrid summer transition program. Frontiers in Education, 6 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.674337

Govindan, B., Pickett, S., & Riggs, B. (2020). Fear of the CURE: A beginner’s guide to overcoming barriers in creating a course-based undergraduate research experience. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 21 (2). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v21i2.2109

Haeger, H., Banks, J. E., Smith, C., & Armstrong-Land, M. (2020). What we know and what we need to know about undergraduate research . Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 3 (4), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.18833/spur/3/4/4

Hahn, E. D., & Soyer, R. (2005). Probit and logit models: Differences in the multivariate realm. The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 67 , 1–12 https://home.gwu.edu/~soyer/mv1h.pdf

Hathaway, R. S., Nagda, B. A., & Gregerman, S. R. (2002). The relationship of undergraduate research participation to graduate and professional education pursuit: An empirical study. Journal of College Student Development, 43 , 614–631.

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

Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91 (1), 36–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173

Hurtado, S., Eagan, K., Figueroa, T., & Hughes, B. (2014). Reversing underrepresentation: The impact of undergraduate research programs on enrollment in STEM graduate programs . Higher Education Research Institute .

Isphording, I., & Qendrai, P. (2019). Gender differences in student dropout in STEM. IZA . Research Reports, 87 https://docs.iza.org/report_pdfs/iza_report_87.pdf

Jones, M. T., Barlow, A. E. L., & Villarejo, M. (2010). Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology. The Journal of Higher Education, 81 (1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0082

Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE—Life Sciences . Education, 6 (4), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.07-06-0039

Maton, K. I., Hrabowski, F. A., & Schmitt, C. L. (2000). African American college students excelling in the sciences: College and postcollege outcomes in the Meyerhoff Scholars Program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (7), 629–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200009)37:7<629::aid-tea2>3.0.co;2-8

McGill, B. M., Foster, M. J., Pruitt, A. N., Thomas, S. G., Arsenault, E. R., Hanschu, J., Wahwahsuck, K., Cortez, E., Zarek, K., Loecke, T. D., & Burgin, A. J. (2021). You are welcome here: A practical guide to diversity, equity, and inclusion for undergraduates embarking on an ecological research experience. Ecology and Evolution, 11 (8), 3636–3645. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.7321

Morgan, S., & Winship, C. (2014). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research . Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107587991

Book   Google Scholar  

Museus, S. D., Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Maramba, D. C. (2011). Racial and ethnic minority students’ success in STEM education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36 (6), 1–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/aehe.3606

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). (2017). Undergraduate research experiences for STEM students: Successes, challenges, and opportunities . National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24622

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). (2023). Diversity and STEM: Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities 2023 . National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/

Okojie, F. A., Tchounwou, M., & Addison, C. (2021). A mixed methods study of factors that enhance Louis Stokes Mississippi Alliance for Minority Participation (LSMAMP) students degree attainment in STEM. The Journal of the Mississippi Academy of Sciences, 66 (1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.31753/jmas.66_106

Palid, O., Cashdollar, S., Deangelo, S., Chu, C., & Bates, M. (2023). Inclusion in practice: A systematic review of diversity-focused STEM programming in the United States. International Journal of STEM Education, 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-022-00387-3

Pender, M., Marcotte, D. E., Domingo, M. R. S., & Maton, K. I. (2010). The STEM pipeline: The role of summer research experience in minority students’ graduate aspirations. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18 (30), 1. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v18n30.2010

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to Excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics . Executive Office of the President of the United States https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED541511.pdf

Professionals Australia. (2018). All talk. Gap between policy and practice a key obstacle to gender equity in STEM . 2018 Women in STEM Professions Survey Report http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/468516

Rozgonjuk, D., Konstabel, K., Barker, K., Rannikmäe, M., & Täht, K. (2022). Epistemic beliefs in science, socio-economic status, and mathematics and science test results in lower secondary education: A multilevel perspective. Educational Psychology, 43 (1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2022.2144143

Russell, S. H., Hancock, M. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Benefits of undergraduate research experiences. Science, 316 (5824), 548–549. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140384

Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving (Vol. 34). Westview Press.

Villarejo, M., & Barlow, A. E. L. (2007). Evolution and evaluation of a biology enrichment program for minorities. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 13 (2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1615/jwomenminorscieneng.v13.i2.20

Watt, H. M. G., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Developmental Psychology, 48 (6), 1594–1611. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027838

Zubair, A., & Al-Thani, N. J. (2022). Undergraduate research experience models: A systematic review of the literature from 2011 to 2021. International Journal of Educational Research, 114 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2022.101996

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Affairs, American University, 4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016, USA

David C. Barker & Dave E. Marcotte

Institute for Social Research, California State University, Sacramento, 304 S Street, Suite 333, Sacramento, CA, 95811, USA

Valory Messier, Lisa Hammersley & Semarhy Quinones-Soto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dave E. Marcotte .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This section describes all variables used in the analysis. Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for all variables.

Student Characteristics

Undergraduate research experience : undergraduate research experience outside of the classroom under the guidance of a faculty mentor. This variable is coded 0|1, with 1 representing one or more years of URE.

STEM bachelor’s degree : this variable is coded 0|1, with 1 representing completion of a STEM bachelor’s degree.

Post-baccalaureate enrollment : this variable is coded 0|1, with 1 representing enrollment following completion of a bachelor’s degree. NSC enrollment data does not consistently provide the level of enrollment or discipline; that information is only reflected in NSC records when a degree is awarded.

STEM graduate degree : This variable is coded 0|1, with 1 representing completion of a STEM masters or doctoral degree.

Major : all CSU-LSAMP students are STEM majors (or considering a STEM major). Dummy variables (0|1) were created for biology, math, physical sciences, computer science, engineering/engineering technologies, and natural resources and conservation. All other STEM majors were used as the reference category.

Gender : 0= male, 1 =female.

Pell eligibility : dummy variable is coded as 0 = not Pell eligible and 1 = Pell eligible.

Age at CSU entry : continuous age at CSU entry.

Race/ethnicity : dummy variables (0|1) were created for all race/ethnicity categories. Hispanic students of all races are coded as Hispanic. The non-Hispanic multiracial UR category includes students who identified themselves as multiracial, where at least one race category was Black, Native American, or Pacific Islander. The non-Hispanic multiracial non-UR category includes students who identified themselves as White and Asian. Non-Hispanic Whites were used as the reference category. Six non-Hispanic multiracial non-UR transfer students were dropped from the transfer student sample as none had participated in URE, and no weights could be generated for them.

Academic preparedness : for traditional students, SAT scores and HS GPA scores were converted to standard deviation units (with a mean of zero and a standard deviation of 1). This was accomplished by simply subtracting the mean from each observation in the variable and then dividing it by its standard deviation. Then, these two variables were summed into an index. Then, the resulting two-item index was converted to a 0-1 scale, by adding the lowest value of the variable to each observation (that brought the lowest observation up to 0) and then dividing by the highest value. For transfer students, transfer GPA was used, as SAT scores and HS GPA were not available.

Class at CSU entry : dummy variables (0|1) were created for each class level at entry (freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior).

Campus Variables

CSU-LSAMP program size : total number of program participants at each campus 2021.

Total enrollment : total campus enrollment in fall 2020.

Students in off-campus housing : proportion of students in off-campus housing.

Acceptance rate : proportion of students who applied who were admitted to each campus.

Urbanicity : dummy variables (0|1) were created for rural, suburban, and urban campuses. Rural is used as the reference category.

Program emphasis (URE implementation) : CSU-LSAMP programs can select one of three program emphases: academic (focused student success), professionalization (focused on graduate school preparation and URE), and dual emphasis (both academic and professionalization). Only one campus had an academic focus, California Maritime Academy, a small program with very few research participants. This campus was grouped with the dual campuses in the reference category.

Proportion of White faculty : proportion of full-time instructional staff who were White in 2020, data comes from the IPEDS survey.

Proportion of White students : proportion of students who were White in 2020.

Appendix 2. Balance tables

Appendix 3. full results, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Barker, D.C., Messier, V., Marcotte, D.E. et al. Undergraduate Research Experience and Post-graduate Achievement Among Students from Underrepresented Groups in STEM. Journal for STEM Educ Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00107-8

Download citation

Accepted : 14 August 2023

Published : 06 September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-023-00107-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Research experience
• Persistence
• Underrepresented students
• Graduate education
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• News & Insights
• All News & Insights

Environmental justice and education: How schools can help foster a sustainable future

Climate change conference brought together artists, activists, public officials, school board members, higher education leadership, district administrators and teachers to share their commitment to sustaining the environment.

On April 4, USC Rossier and Bio Equity Ed , a community-based non-profit in Los Angeles, hosted a conference on “Climate Change and Environmental Justice: The Role of Schools in Planning for a Sustainable Future.” Artists, activists, public officials, school board members, higher education leadership, district administrators and teachers convened by the dozens in the LEED-certified building of the California Endowment. Panelists and conferencegoers alike shared their commitments to transforming communities and building alliances, to sustain just and meaningful change in the face of our changing climate.

In her opening remarks, Veda Ramsay-Stamps EdD ’23 , USC Rossier alumna and founder of Bio Equity Ed, described how disconnected communities of color in most urban areas feel from nature, owing to historic injustices. She recounted the stories of Black and Brown students in Los Angeles, those who grow up miles from idyllic beaches and mountains but who know only the concrete beneath the nearest river and their feet. Artist Lauren Bon then described her work to bend and regenerate the L.A. River, providing water to the Los Angeles State Historic Park, which had once been a trainyard.

As Dean Pedro Noguera told the audience in his introduction: “Every problem facing the world today is an educational challenge. We have to learn what we need to do. And if we think of the climate crisis this way, as an educational challenge, the problem itself becomes less despairing.” Dean Noguera urged those in attendance not only to meet but to act, not merely to educate others to be resilient in the face of climate change but to inspire its solutions.

In breakout sessions, Distinguished Professor Gale Sinatra moderated a discussion with Imogen Herrick  PhD ’23, a USC Rossier alumna now at the University of Kansas, and Paula Carbone , USC Rossier professor of clinical education. They described successful pedagogical approaches to inspiring students into climate action, integrating students’ own identities and experiences. USC Rossier Professor Tracy Poon Tambascia spoke with researchers and architects about how to transform schools and schoolyards into biophilic environments. Community organizers and non-profit leaders shared their experiences greening urban environments with trees and micro-farms, especially in convincing schools to plant more gardens. Teachers and administrators from California’s climate-sensitive Central Valley described their fleets of electric school buses and innovative sustainability programs and curriculum to move students of color.

The conference’s keynote speaker, University of California, Merced Chancellor Juan Sánchez Muñoz  outlined his university’s foundational commitment to sustainability in the Central Valley. At UC Merced, which was already the first research university in the United States to be carbon-neutral, Chancellor Muñoz is helping construct a center for sustainable agriculture, a model for what higher education can contribute to environmental sustainability and surrounding communities.

In an especially rousing plenary session, Stephen Ritz , a high school teacher from the South Bronx, described how he had turned his classroom and his school, in one of the most economically and environmentally deprived communities in the United States, into a vegetable garden. Ritz the subject of an upcoming documentary called Generation Growth , has not only shared his plant-based curriculum with governments and classrooms around the world, through his Green Bronx Machine non-profit, he turned the very conference room in which he spoke into an organic, immersive experience with greenery.

Naomi Riley, representing Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove of California’s 37th District, who had directed millions of dollars to sustainability projects, told those in attendance early in the day, “the folks closest to the problem are usually closest to the solution.” Most often, no one is closer to the problems in our communities than the teachers and administrators of local schools. It is they, as Noguera said, who “must begin to think creatively and critically to address climate change and give hope to kids who believe there is no future.”

• Pedro Noguera
• Distinguished Professor of Education
• Emery Stoops and Joyce King Stoops Dean

• Gale M. Sinatra
• Stephen H. Crocker Chair
• Professor of Education and Psychology
• Associate Dean for Research

Tracy Poon Tambascia

• Professor of Higher Education
• Veronica and David Hagen Chair in Women’s Leadership

Article Type

Article topics.

• Climate change

Related News & Insights

March 17, 2023

What do science and racism have in common? Denial.

Final USC Rossier Master Class for spring 2023 on Mar. 22

Featured Faculty

• Shaun Harper

November 15, 2022

What are higher education’s responsibilities in times of crisis?

Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, distinguished scholar of education, globalization and migration, spoke with the USC Rossier community on Nov. 2

May 14, 2021

How educators can stem the tide of scientific illiteracy

Editor’s note: The following content was adapted from Gale Sinatra’s 2021 USC Rossier commencement address to graduating students. Science Denial...

• Open access
• Published: 22 April 2024

The effect of peer mentoring program on clinical academic progress and psychological characteristics of operating room students: a parallel randomized controlled trial

• Amin Sedigh 1 ,
• Sara Bagheri 2 ,
• Pariya Naeimi 3 ,
• Vahid Rahmanian 4 &
• Nader Sharifi 5  

BMC Medical Education volume  24 , Article number:  438 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

One of the new educational systems is the mentorship method. This study aimed to investigate the effect of peer mentoring program on clinical academic progress and psychological characteristics of operating room students.

This research was a randomized controlled trial that was conducted on undergraduate students in the operating room department of Khomein Faculty of Medical Sciences, Markazi Province in Iran. The number of operating room students were 70 that were divided into intervention and control groups by random allocation using Permuted Block Randomization. Inclusion criteria included all operating room students who were in internship, and exclusion criteria included failure to complete the questionnaires. The data collection tools were the demographic questionnaire, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and Situational Motivational Scale. In the control group, clinical training was done in the traditional way. In the intervention group, training was done by peer mentoring method. The obtained data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, independent t-test, paired t-test, chi-square test, ANCOVA, univariable and multivariable linear regression.

The study revealed significant differences between the intervention and control groups. Post-intervention, the intervention group demonstrated substantial increases in self-confidence (mean difference = 5.97, p  < 0.001) and significant reductions in stress levels (mean difference = -3.22, p  < 0.001). Conversely, minimal changes were noted in the control group for both self-confidence (mean difference = 0.057, p  = 0.934) and stress levels (mean difference = 0.142, p  = 0.656). Although both groups experienced decreases in anxiety and depression levels, these changes were not statistically significant ( p  > 0.05). Furthermore, the intervention significantly enhanced academic progress in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference = 20.31, p  < 0.001).

The results showed that the implementation of the peer mentoring program was effective in improving academic progress, self-confidence, and reducing the stress of operating room students. Therefore, this educational method can be used in addition to the usual methods to improve the education of operating room students.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Using effective training methods can increase people's motivation and commitment, increase productivity and reduce mistakes [ 1 ]. Clinical training is an important part of training in medical sciences, which plays an essential role in shaping the basic skills and professional abilities of students, including students of the operating room [ 2 , 3 ]. Learning and mastering work roles and tasks in the operating room environment is challenging; In addition, operating room students should be trained in many interventions in the surgical process before, during and after surgery [ 4 ].

Operating room students are affected by various stresses during the course of clinical training, and various contextual and environmental factors play a role in creating this stress [ 5 ]. The results of a study among nursing students showed the prevalence of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms to be 28.7%, 41.7% and 20.2%, respectively [ 6 ]. Also, studies have shown students' self-efficacy at an average level [ 7 ]. The experience of stress in the clinical environment can affect students' learning and acquisition of clinical skills and lead to a drop in their academic performance [ 8 , 9 ]. Considering the high level of stress and the fact that mistakes have no place in the operating room, it is important to pay attention to the quality of training of operating room students and to strengthen the knowledge and skills of future operating room personnel [ 10 ].

Learners and students prefer new educational methods to traditional and passive methods. Active approach is a form of teacher-learner interaction in which learners are no longer passive listeners, but active participants in the learning process [ 11 , 12 ]. The basis of active and comprehensive learning methods is that learning is based on experience and learners actively create knowledge based on their personal experience [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. The importance of active learning has led professional associations and accreditation organizations, as well as organizations such as UNESCO, to recommend active learning methods in education [ 16 ].

One of the new educational systems is the mentorship method. In this educational method, the mentor and mentee establish a long-term relationship based on friendship with each other. Positive attitude, experience and volunteering are characteristics of mentorship [ 17 , 18 ]. For the first time, Whitman and Fife examined the peer teaching strategy in university education. In this method, higher year students teach practical and theoretical lessons to lower year students [ 19 , 20 ]. The implementation of the mentorship program increases self-confidence, emotional support, and increases students' interactions [ 21 , 22 ]. When students, despite having knowledge and ability in clinical practice, lack sufficient competence, the reason may be a lack of self-confidence, confidence in their own ability, or understanding of the necessary self-efficacy [ 23 , 24 ]. This study was conducted with the aim of investigating the effect of peer mentoring program on clinical academic progress and psychological characteristics of operating room students.

Study design

This research was a parallel randomized controlled trial that was conducted on undergraduate students in the operating room department of Khomein Faculty of Medical Sciences, Markazi Province in Iran from September 2022 to April 2023.

Participants

The number of operating room students were 70, who were included in the study by census method. Inclusion criteria included all operating room students who were in internship, and exclusion criteria included failure to complete the questionnaires.

Randomization and blindness

First, the students completed the written consent to participate in the study, and then they were divided into intervention and control groups by random allocation using Permuted Block Randomization [ 25 ]. Therefore, 35 participants were placed in each group. Then the participants of the intervention and control groups completed the questionnaires before the beginning of the internship. Due to the nature of the intervention in the present study, it was not possible to blind the subjects under the study. Therefore, blinding was performed on those who collected and recorded the data and those who performed the analysis. This research was designed and implemented according to the CONSORT guidelines (Fig.  1 ).

Consort -flow- diagram

Instrument and data collection

The demographic questionnaire included gender, age, marital status, economic status of the family, education level of parents and occupation of parents.

Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS) consists of three subscales including 7 questions for each. Each question is scored from 0 (does not apply to me at all) to 3 (completely applies to me). Each of the areas of stress, anxiety and depression has 7 questions and the minimum score for each area is 0 and the maximum score is 21. The score of each area is obtained from the sum of the scores of the answers given to the questions of that area. Antony et al. analyzed the mentioned scale; The results of the correlation calculation indicated a correlation coefficient of 0.48 between the two factors of depression and stress, a correlation coefficient of 0.53 between anxiety and stress, and a correlation coefficient of 0.28 between anxiety and depression [ 26 ]. The reliability of this scale in Iran in a sample of 400 participants was reported as 0.7 for depression, 0.66 for anxiety and 0.76 for stress [ 27 ]. Also, in the validation study of this questionnaire in Iran by Sahebi et al. the reliability of this scale was investigated through internal consistency and its validity using factor analysis and criterion validity with the simultaneous implementation of Beck depression, Zang anxiety and perceived stress tests. In general, the obtained reliability and validity coefficients were very satisfactory and significant at the p  < 0.001 level. The correlations between DASS depression subscale with Beck depression test were 0.70, DASS anxiety subscale with Zang anxiety test was 0.67, and DASS stress subscale with perceived stress test was 0.49. The internal consistency of DASS scales was also calculated using Cronbach's alpha and these results were obtained: depression 0.77, anxiety 0.79 and stress 0.78 [ 28 ].

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) consists of 10 two-choice questions. Every statement that applies to the person receives the answer "I agree" and every statement that does not apply to the person receives the answer "I disagree". A positive answer to each of statements 1 to 5 will receive a positive score of one, a negative response to statements 1 to 5 will receive a negative score of one, a positive response to statements 6 to 10 will receive a negative score of one, and a negative response to statements 6 to 10 will receive a positive score of one. Then the total score is calculated. A positive score of 10 indicates the highest level of self-esteem, and a negative score of 10 indicates very low self-esteem. The retest correlation is in the range of 0.82–0.88 and the internal consistency coefficient or Cronbach's alpha is in the range of 0.77–0.88, this scale has satisfactory validity (0.77). It also has a high correlation with the New York and Guttman National Questionnaire in measuring self-esteem, so its content validity is also confirmed [ 29 ]. In Iran, Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.84 to 0.92 have been reported for this scale. Also, the reliability and validity of this tool has been checked by factor analysis, dichotomization and re-sampling methods, and the results show that this scale can be used in Iran as well [ 30 ].

The Situational Motivational Scale (SIMS): After confirming the content validity of the tool in Iran, its reliability has been confirmed by retest method (73.76) and Cronbach's alpha has been reported as 74–88%. The short form of this questionnaire was made by Bahrani in Shiraz. This questionnaire has 49 statements that are arranged on a Likert scale from completely disagree [ 1 ] to completely agree [ 5 ]. Reliability of the 49-question questionnaire used in this research was measured by Bahrani by retesting and calculating Cronbach's alpha. In the retest method, the reliability coefficient of the whole test was 0.95. Also, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was calculated as 0.77 [ 31 , 32 ].

Intervention program

In the control group, clinical training was done in the traditional way with the help of a trainer. In the intervention group, training was done by peer mentoring method with the help of fourth year operating room students and under the supervision of the instructor. Based on the overall GPA criteria, the first to sixth ranked students were selected as mentor students. Before using the students as mentors in the internship, 3 training sessions were held for them by the professors of the operating room.

In these meetings, the lesson plan of the internship course was fully explained based on the last chapter of the operating room field, and the necessary points regarding training and how to deal with students were explained.

Then, these students participated in three tests and the first to third students of each test were selected as mentors. Therefore, a total of nine students were selected as mentors. In the intervention group, internship training was carried out with the implementation of peer mentoring program during one academic semester. Students of the intervention group (35 participants) were placed in five groups of seven according to the internship program. The total training sessions of each group were 18 sessions, nine of which were conducted by the method of peer mentoring program. A total of 45 peer mentoring sessions were conducted for all groups. Each of the mentors mentored a seven-person group of mentees during nine sessions. At the beginning of each session, the mentor briefly explained the topics to the mentees according to the educational topics and guided them practically during the session. It should be noted that all the meetings were held under the supervision of the main teacher of the course and if necessary, this person provided the necessary guidance.

At the end of the academic semester, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) and Situational Motivational Scale (SIMS) were completed again by the students of the intervention and control groups.

Statistical analysis

Stata software version 14 was used for the data analysis process. Initially, the data's normality was verified using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The results were presented as mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage in the section on descriptive statistics.

The means of the study variable between the intervention and control groups were compared using an independent t-test, and the means before and after the intervention were compared using a paired t-test in the analytical statistics section. The Chi-square test was used to compare the associations between qualitative variables in the various groups.

The ANCOVA test was conducted after the intervention to control for any baseline differences in scores of self-confidence, stress, perceived anxiety, depression and academic progress between the two groups before the intervention (pre-test). This adjustment was made to account for any potential confounding factors that may have influenced the outcomes.

Univariable and multivariable linear regression by the backward method was applied to examine the association between self-confidence, stress, perceived anxiety, depression, gender, mother's education, father's education, family economic, and academic progress. A significance threshold of less than 0.05 was used.

The mean age of participants was 22.31 ± 2.59. Thirty-six individuals (51.4%) were female, and 50 individuals (71.4%) were single. Regarding education, 22 participants (31.4%) held diplomas from their fathers, and 21 participants (30%) held diplomas from their mothers. In terms of mothers' occupations, 35 individuals (52.9%) were housewives, and 31 individuals (44.3%) reported their family's economic status as medium (Table  1 ). On the other hand, there were no significant differences in age, gender, marital status, mothers' education, fathers' education, fathers' occupation, mothers' occupation, and family economic status between the intervention and control groups( p  > 0.05) (Table  1 ). Also, in terms of variables of self-confidence, stress, anxiety, depression and academic progress between the intervention and control groups, no significant difference was observed before the intervention ( p  > 0.05) (Table  2 ).

Before the intervention, high levels of stress (12.65; 12.25), anxiety (11.34; 11.02) and depression (10.08; 10.42) and low levels of self-confidence (1.31; 1.22) were observed in the intervention and control groups.

The results indicated a significant difference in the mean scores of self-confidence ( p  < 0.001), stress ( p  < 0.001), and academic progress ( p  < 0.001), between the intervention and control groups after the educational intervention. Furthermore, this difference was also statistically significant in the intervention group before and after the educational intervention ( p  < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the mean scores of anxiety and depression before and after the intervention, as well as in comparison with the control group ( p  > 0.05) (Table  2 ).

The results showed significant differences between the intervention and control groups. Post-intervention, the intervention group showed substantial increases in self-confidence (mean difference = 5.97, p  < 0.001) and significant reductions in stress levels (mean difference = -3.22, p  < 0.001). In contrast, minimal changes were observed in the control group for both self-confidence (mean difference = 0.057, p  = 0.934) and stress levels (mean difference = 0.142, p  = 0.656). While both groups exhibited decreases in anxiety and depression levels, these changes were not statistically significant ( p  > 0.05). Moreover, the intervention significantly improved academic progress in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference = 20.31, p  < 0.001) (Table  2 ).

The ANCOVA test was used to compare the means of self-confidence, stress, anxiety, depression and academic progress in the two groups after adjusting the Pre-test as a covariate. Results showed there was a significant difference between the means in the self-confidence, stress and academic progress before and after intervention with adjusted pre- test score (before intervention) (Table  3 ).

The results of the univariate linear regression analysis showed that self-confidence and stress are associated with academic progress ( p  < 0.05) (Table  4 ). Additionally, the results of the multiple regression analysis revealed that for a one-unit increase in the stress score, the mean academic progress score decreases by 0.520 (B = -0.520, P  < 0.001). Furthermore, for a one-unit increase in age, the mean academic progress score increases by 0.220(B = 0.220, P  = 0.029). Moreover, students whose fathers have university education have, on mean, a higher academic progress score compared to students whose fathers are illiterate, with an increase of 0.212 for each unit difference in paternal education level (B = 0.212, P  = 0.036). According to the multiple regression model, 33.4% of the variations in academic progress can be predicted by stress, age, and father’s education (Table  4 ).

This research was conducted to determine the effect of peer mentoring program on clinical academic progress and psychological characteristics of operating room students.

The results showed that before the educational intervention, there was no significant difference between the control and intervention groups in demographic variables, academic progress, self-confidence, stress, anxiety and depression. It is noteworthy that according to the regression analysis, students whose fathers had a university education had a higher academic progress score compared to students whose fathers were illiterate.

The results of the study before the intervention show a high level of stress, anxiety and depression and a low level of self-confidence in students. Mohammadi's study showed the mean situational anxiety scores of the operating room students to be at a medium–high level [ 33 ]. Of course, according to Findik's study, the stress level of nursing students was low on the first day of operating room practice. It was found that students use the self-confidence approach in dealing with stress [ 34 ]. According to Norouzi's study, insufficient skills of students in communicating with staff, discrimination between paramedical students and assistants, lack of practical prerequisite skills, weak supportive performance of instructors and psychological needs are among the stressful factors of operating room students [ 3 ]. According to the students, practice with the support of staff and instructors in clinical training leads to better training. Improper interaction between staff and students negatively affects the clinical education process [ 35 , 36 ]. The results of Mohibi's research report the existence of discrimination as one of the main complaints of students in the clinical environment [ 37 ].

The results showed that training using the peer mentor method improved the mean scores of self-confidence, stress and academic progress variables in the intervention group after the educational intervention. Also, compared to the control group, the intervention group had achieved a significant improvement in the mentioned variables. In addition, the results showed that self-confidence and stress are related to academic progress, and as the stress score increases, the mean academic progress decreases. The results of Raymond's study showed that the implementation of the mentorship program was effective in reducing the stress and loneliness of first-year nursing students. In addition, an increase in their sense of self-efficacy and sense of psychological belonging was also reported [ 38 ]. According to Yoon's study, peer mentoring program increased students' self-confidence in basic nursing skills and critical thinking skills [ 39 ]. Considering that clinical educators play a fundamental role in controlling stress, creating a supportive environment and promoting students' self-confidence in the clinical learning environment [ 40 ], it seems that the use of students in the role of peer mentoring has been able to act as an important factor in increasing self-confidence, reducing stress and enjoying clinical experiences and thus improving their academic progress.

While in Walker's study, a significant reduction in the anxiety of a specific clinical situation was observed among nursing students who were guided by their peers [ 41 ], in the present study, no significant improvement was observed in the students' anxiety. It can be said that the special conditions of the operating room distinguish it from other clinical skills training departments, therefore peer training alone cannot be effective in reducing the anxiety of operating room students. Also, depression did not decrease significantly in any of the intervention and control groups. It should be said that anxiety and depression are more complex than stress and their reduction in operating room students requires the use of psychological interventions along with peer mentoring program.

Due to the limitation of the statistical population, sampling was not possible and the students were selected by census method. On the other hand, due to the special considerations of the operating room space, the implementation of the peer mentoring program faced limitations. Although the main teacher of the course was present in all the implementation sessions of the mentorship program, physicians and other clinical personnel did not trust the mentors to some extent.

Of course, the use of this training method could not be effective in reducing anxiety and depression, which can be aggravated as a result of working in the tense environment of the operating room, and it seems necessary to conduct more investigations in this field.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available because they contain raw data from study participants, and sharing these data requires participants' permission. But are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Erfani Khanghahi M, Ebadi Fard Azar F, Ebadi Fard Azar G. A Model of Effective Factors on Educational Transfer among Health Deputy Staff of Iran University of Medical Sciences. J Heal. 2020;11(2):203–12.

Article   Google Scholar  

Tazakori Z, Mehri S, Mobaraki N, Dadashi L, Ahmadi Y, Shokri F, et al. Factors affecting on quality of clinical education from perspectives of operating room students. J Heal Care. 2015;17(2):128–36.

Google Scholar  

Norouzi N, Imani B. Clinical education stressors in operating room students: a qualitative study. Investig y Educ en Enfermería. 2021;39(1):e08.

Chevillotte J. Operating room nursing diploma soon to be accessible through competence validation. Rev Infirm. 2014;199:10.

Geraghty S, Speelman C, Bayes S. Fighting a losing battle: Midwives experiences of workplace stress. Women and Birth. 2019;32(3):e297-306.

Zeng Y, Wang G, Xie C, Hu X, Reinhardt JD. Prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety and symptoms of stress in vocational college nursing students from Sichuan, China: a cross-sectional study. Psychol Health Med. 2019;24(7):798–811.

Abdal M, Alavi NM, Adib-Hajbaghery M. Clinical self-efficacy in senior nursing students: A mixed-methods study. Nurs midwifery Stud. 2015;4(3):e29143.

Mussi FC, da S Pires CG, da Silva RM, de Macedo TTS, de ST Santos CA. Stress level among undergraduate nursing students related to the training phase and sociodemographic factors. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2020;28:e3209.

Hasson F, Slater PF, Guo XJ. Resilience, stress and well-being in undergraduate nursing students in China and the UK. Int J Res Nurs. 2021;12(1):11–20.

Mirbagher Ajorpaz N, Zagheri Tafreshi M, Mohtashami J, Zayeri F. Mentoring in training of operating room students: A systematic review. J Nurs Educ. 2016;5(3):47–54.

Nguyen T, Netto CLM, Wilkins JF, Bröker P, Vargas EE, Sealfon CD, et al. Insights into students’ experiences and perceptions of remote learning methods: From the COVID-19 pandemic to best practice for the future. In: Frontiers in Education. Frontiers; 2021. p. 91.

Kurganovna KD, Abdusalamovna AS, Sabirovna AN, Gafurovna AS. The Use Of Interactive Methods And Literary Lessons And High School Education. J Posit Sch Psychol. 2022;6(10):4328–32.

Hartikainen S, Rintala H, Pylväs L, Nokelainen P. The concept of active learning and the measurement of learning outcomes: A review of research in engineering higher education. Educ Sci. 2019;9(4):276.

Cho HJ, Zhao K, Lee CR, Runshe D, Krousgrill C. Active learning through flipped classroom in mechanical engineering: improving students’ perception of learning and performance. Int J Stem Educ. 2021;8:1–3.

Tudevdagva U, Heller A, Hardt W. An implementation and evaluation report of the active learning method eduscrum in flipped class. Int J Inf Educ Technol. 2020;10(9):649–54.

Lima RM, Andersson PH, Saalman E. Active Learning in Engineering Education: a (re) introduction. Eur J Eng Educ. 2017;2;42(1):1–4.

Fard ZR, Azadi A, Khorshidi A, Mozafari M, O’Connor T, Budri AMV, et al. A comparison of faculty led, mentorship program and peer mentoring on nursing students wound dressing clinical skills. Nurse Educ Today. 2020;89: 104378.

Mullen CA, Klimaitis CC. Defining mentoring: a literature review of issues, types, and applications. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021;1483(1):19–35.

Safari M, Yazdanpanah B, Islam-Nik PS. Comparison of midwifery students satisfaction with the teaching of gynecology and infertility by lecture and peer education. Armaghane Danesh. 2019;23(6):722–36.

Messerer DAC, Kraft SF, Horneffer A, Messerer LAS, Böckers TM, Böckers A. What factors motivate male and female Generation Z students to become engaged as peer teachers? A mixed-method study among medical and dental students in the gross anatomy course. Anat Sci Educ. 2022;15(4):650–62.

Ahmed M, Muldoon TJ, Elsaadany M. Employing faculty, peer mentoring, and coaching to increase the self-confidence and belongingness of first-generation college students in biomedical engineering. J Biomech Eng. 2021;143(12): 121001.

Davey Z, Jackson D, Henshall C. The value of nurse mentoring relationships: Lessons learnt from a work-based resilience enhancement programme for nurses working in the forensic setting. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2020;29(5):992–1001.

Sadeghi A, Oshvandi K, Moradi Y. Explaining the inhibitory characteristics of clinical instructors in the process of developing clinical competence of nursing students: a qualitative study. J Fam Med Prim care. 2019;8(5):1664.

Gemuhay HM, Kalolo A, Mirisho R, Chipwaza B, Nyangena E. Factors affecting performance in clinical practice among preservice diploma nursing students in Northern Tanzania. Nurs Res Pract. 2019;2019:3453085.

Zarrabi M, Imanieh M, Zarrabi K, Masjedi M, Kojuri J, Amini M, et al. Designing and organizing mentoring at shiraz medical school and reinforcing deep knowledge–based education using mentoring. J Med Spirit Cultiv. 2017;26(3):228–36.

Antony MM, Bieling PJ, Cox BJ, Enns MW, Swinson RP. Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychol Assess. 1998;10(2):176.

Maleki A, Asghari M, Salari R. Credit terms of scale, depression, anxiety Vastrs DASS-21 in the Iranian populatio1. Maleki A, Asghari M, Salari R. Credit terms of scale, depression, anxiety Vastrs DASS-21 in the Iranian population. J Iran Psychol. 2005;1(4):9–12.

Sahebi A, Asghari MJ, Salari RS. Validation of depression anxiety and stress scale (DASS-21) for an Iranian population. J Iran Psychol. 2005;1(4):36–54.

Martín-Albo J, Núñez JL, Navarro JG, Grijalvo F. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: translation and validation in university students. Span J Psychol. 2007;10(2):458–67.

Amini Manesh S, Nazari AM, Moradi A, Farzad V. Youth online gaming addiction: the role of self esteem, anxiety and depression. Strateg Stud Youth Sport. 2014;13(25):97–112.

Bahrani M. The study of validity and reliability of Harter’s scale of educational motivation. J Psychol Stud. 2009;5(1):51–72.

Østerlie O, Løhre A, Haugan G. The Situational Motivational Scale (SIMS) in physical education: A validation study among Norwegian adolescents. Cogent Educ. 2019;6(1):1603613.

Mohammadi G, Tourdeh M, Ebrahimian A. Effect of simulation-based training method on the psychological health promotion in operating room students during the educational internship. J Educ Health Promot. 2019;8:172.

Findik UY, Ozbas A, Cavdar I, Topcu SY, Onler E. Assessment of nursing students’ stress levels and coping strategies in operating room practice. Nurse Educ Pract. 2015;15(3):192–5.

Al-Zayyat AS, Al-Gamal E. Perceived stress and coping strategies among J ordanian nursing students during clinical practice in psychiatric/mental health courses. Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2014;23(4):326–35.

Bazrafkan L, Najafi Kalyani M. Nursing students’ experiences of clinical education: A qualitative study. Investig y Educ en Enferm. 2018;36(3):e04.

Mohebbi Z, Rambod M, Hashemi F, Mohammadi HR, Setoudeh G, Najafi DS. View point of the nursing students on challenges in clinical training, Shiraz. Iran Hormozgan Med J. 2012;16(5):415–21.

Raymond JM, Sheppard K. Effects of peer mentoring on nursing students’ perceived stress, sense of belonging, self-efficacy and loneliness. J Nurs Educ Pr. 2017;8(1):16.

Yoon MO, Ju YS. The effects of peer mentoring learnings-based preclinical OSCE program on self-confidence on core basic nursing skills and critical thinking disposition for nursing student. J Digit Converg. 2017;15(7):285–95.

Arkan B, Ordin Y, Yılmaz D. Undergraduate nursing students’ experience related to their clinical learning environment and factors affecting to their clinical learning process. Nurse Educ Pract. 2018;29:127–32.

Walker D, Verklan T. Peer mentoring during practicum to reduce anxiety in first-semester nursing students. J Nurs Educ. 2016;55(11):651–4.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors of this study wish to express their gratitude to all the students, especially Miss Azadeh Nasiri and the officials of Khomein University of Medical Sciences.

Informed consent

All participants provided written informed consent.

This research was supported by Khomain University of Medical Sciences (No: 400000009).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Molecular and Medicine Research Center, Khomein University of Medical Sciences, Khomein, Iran

Amin Sedigh

Department of Medical Education, School of Medical Education and Learning Technologies, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Sara Bagheri

Student Research Committee, Khomein University of Medical Sciences, Khomein, Iran

Pariya Naeimi

Department of Public Health, Torbat Jam Faculty of Medical Sciences, Torbat Jam, Iran

Vahid Rahmanian

Department of Public Health, Khomein University of Medical Sciences, Khomein, Iran

Nader Sharifi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: A S, S B; Data curation: A S, P N; Formal analysis:  N SH, V R; Methodology: A S, S B, N SH; Project administration: A S, P N, N SH; Writing–original draft: N SH, V R; Writing–review & editing: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nader Sharifi .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the Khomain University of Medical Sciences (Code IR.KHOMEIN.REC.1400.010). All study participants provided written informed consent. Confidentiality and anonymity were ensured. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were by the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Sedigh, A., Bagheri, S., Naeimi, P. et al. The effect of peer mentoring program on clinical academic progress and psychological characteristics of operating room students: a parallel randomized controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 24 , 438 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05424-z

Download citation

Received : 29 December 2023

Accepted : 12 April 2024

Published : 22 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05424-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Operating Room

BMC Medical Education

ISSN: 1472-6920

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Tobias Edwards and Colleagues on the Link Between Intelligence and Political Beliefs

An article on  PsyPost titled “Genetic variations help explain the link between cognitive ability and liberalism,” quotes  Tobias Edwards on his research into political orientation and intelligence. Edwards and colleagues recently published an article titled “ Predicting Political Beliefs with Polygenic Scores for Cognitive Performance and Educational Attainment ” in the journal  Intelligence . They found that IQ and genetic markers of intelligence (polygenic scores) can help predict which of two siblings, raised under the same roof,  tends to hold more liberal beliefs.. 

The findings shed light on the relationship between political attitudes and intelligence, however, the authors caution that intelligence can only be one of many influences on political beliefs and that extraordinarily intelligent people have supported all sorts of beliefs. Edwards states that “from our study we cannot say that the beliefs of high IQ people tell us what is right to believe, but rather only what smart people choose to believe.”

Tobias Edwards is a graduate student in the Personality, Individual Differences, and Behavior Genetics (PIB) program in the Department of Psychology at the University of Minnesota. His adviser is Dr. James Lee.

Composed by Madison Stromberg, communications assistant.

Related News

Presenting the 2024 Psychology Distinguished Alumni Award Recipients

Congratulations to our 2024 Distinguished Alumni Award Winners!

Spring 2024 Undergraduate Research Symposium Presenters

We are pleased to announce the undergraduate students who participated in the Spring 2024 Undergraduate Research Symposium.

Psychology’s 2024 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) Recipients

Congratulations to Jessica Arend, Abby Person, and Maya Rogers for receiving the NSF Graduate Research Fellowships!

More Psychology News

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What federal education data shows about students with disabilities in the U.S.

Public K-12 schools in the United States educate about 7.3 million students with disabilities – a number that has grown over the last few decades. Disabled students ages 3 to 21 are served under the federal  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) , which guarantees them the right to free public education and appropriate special education services.

For Disability Pride Month , here are some key facts about public school students with disabilities, based on the latest data from the  National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) .

July is both Disability Pride Month and the anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. To mark these occasions, Pew Research Center used federal education data from  the National Center for Education Statistics  to learn more about students who receive special education services in U.S. public schools.

In this analysis, students with disabilities include those ages 3 to 21 who are served under the federal  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) . Through IDEA, children with disabilities are guaranteed a “free appropriate public education,” including special education and related services.

The 7.3 million disabled students in the U.S. made up 15% of national public school enrollment during the 2021-22 school year. The population of students in prekindergarten through 12th grade who are served under IDEA has grown in both number and share over the last few decades. During the 2010-11 school year, for instance, there were 6.4 million students with disabilities in U.S. public schools, accounting for 13% of enrollment.

The number of students receiving special education services temporarily dropped during the coronavirus pandemic – the first decline in a decade. Between the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years, the number of students receiving special education services decreased by 1%, from 7.3 million to 7.2 million. This was the first year-over-year drop in special education enrollment since 2011-12.

The decline in students receiving special education services was part of a 3% decline in the overall number of students enrolled in public schools between 2019-20 and 2020-21. While special education enrollment bounced back to pre-pandemic levels in the 2021-22 school year, overall public school enrollment remained flat.

These enrollment trends may reflect some of the learning difficulties and health concerns students with disabilities and their families faced during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic , which limited or paused special education services in many school districts.

Many school districts struggle to hire special education professionals. During the 2020-21 school year, 40% of public schools that had a special education teaching vacancy reported that they either found it very difficult to fill the position or were not able to do so.

Foreign languages (43%) and physical sciences (37%) were the only subjects with similarly large shares of hard-to-fill teaching vacancies at public schools that were looking to hire in those fields.

While the COVID-19 pandemic called attention to a nationwide teacher shortage , special education positions have long been among the most difficult for school districts to fill .

The most common type of disability for students in prekindergarten through 12th grade involves “specific learning disabilities,” such as dyslexia.  In 2021-22, about a third of students (32%) receiving services under IDEA had a specific learning disability. Some 19% had a speech or language impairment, while 15% had a chronic or acute health problem that adversely affected their educational performance. Chronic or acute health problems include ailments such as heart conditions, asthma, sickle cell anemia, epilepsy, leukemia and diabetes.

Students with autism made up 12% of the nation’s schoolchildren with disabilities in 2021-22, compared with 1.5% in 2000-01.  During those two decades, the share of disabled students with a specific learning disability, such as dyslexia, declined from 45% to 32%.

The percentage of students receiving special education services varies widely across states. New York serves the largest share of disabled students in the country at 20.5% of its overall public school enrollment. Pennsylvania (20.2%), Maine (20.1%) and Massachusetts (19.3%) serve the next-largest shares. The states serving the lowest shares of disabled students include Texas and Idaho (both 11.7%) and Hawaii (11.3%).

Between the 2000-01 and 2021-22 school years, all but 12 states experienced growth in their disabled student populations. The biggest increase occurred in Utah, where the disabled student population rose by 65%. Rhode Island saw the largest decline of 22%.

These differences by state are likely the result of inconsistencies in how states determine which students are eligible for special education services and challenges in identifying disabled children.

The racial and ethnic makeup of the nation’s special education students is similar to public school students overall, but there are differences by sex.  About two-thirds of disabled students (65%) are male, while 34% are female, according to data from the 2021-22 school year. Overall student enrollment is about evenly split between boys and girls.

Research has shown that decisions about whether to recommend a student for special education may be influenced by their school’s socioeconomic makeup, as well as by the school’s test scores and other academic markers.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published April 23, 2020.

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

Most Americans think U.S. K-12 STEM education isn’t above average, but test results paint a mixed picture

About 1 in 4 u.s. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year, about half of americans say public k-12 education is going in the wrong direction, what public k-12 teachers want americans to know about teaching, what’s it like to be a teacher in america today, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

• For the Media
• Open Records
• Division of Marketing & Communications

UGA breaks ground on new medical education and research building

The groundbreaking was a "transformational moment at the University of Georgia"

The University of Georgia broke ground Friday on a new medical education and research building that will significantly expand teaching and research capabilities at the university’s future School of Medicine .

Located on UGA’s Health Sciences campus, preliminary plans for the building include medical simulation suites, standardized patient rooms, clinical skills labs, a gross anatomy lab, and a medical library. The building will also feature student support spaces like conference rooms, study spaces, lounges, and faculty and staff offices dedicated to student support.

In total, the proposed building will measure approximately 92,000 square feet. Roughly 67,000 square feet of the building will be dedicated to medical education while the remaining 25,000 square feet will house biomedical research laboratories.

Gov. Brian Kemp speaks at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Medical School Building on the Health Sciences Campus. (Andrew Davis Tucker/UGA)

The new building will complement existing facilities and provide the UGA School of Medicine with capacity to expand from 60 students per class to 120 in the future.

“Today is an exciting and transformational moment at the University of Georgia,” said UGA President Jere W. Morehead. “As a land-grant university and Georgia’s flagship research institution, the University of Georgia is uniquely positioned to address the health care needs of our state through world-class medical education, research and community outreach.”

Following the recommendation of Governor Brian Kemp, the Georgia General Assembly passed a fiscal year 2024 amended budget that includes $50 million in funding for a new University of Georgia School of Medicine facility.

President Jere W. Morehead speaks along with USG Chancellor Sonny Perdue and Gov. Brian Kemp at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Medical School Building on the Health Sciences Campus. (Andrew Davis Tucker/UGA)

The $50 million in state funding will be matched by private contributions to fund the $100 million medical education and research building.

The University System of Georgia Board of Regents authorized the University of Georgia to establish a new independent School of Medicine in Athens in February.

In March, Dr. Shelley Nuss was named founding dean of the UGA School of Medicine. She previously served as an associate professor of internal medicine and psychiatry in the Augusta University/University of Georgia Medical Partnership. In 2016, she was named campus dean of the Medical Partnership, which has been educating physicians in Athens since 2010.

“The fact is, Georgia needs more doctors, and we need them now,” said Nuss. “The new UGA School of Medicine will increase the number of medical students in the state, translating to more practicing physicians to help address Georgia’s greatest health care challenges.”

The creation of the UGA School of Medicine marks the natural evolution of the longest-serving medical partnership in the United States. Similar programs founded around the same time have already transitioned to independent medical schools.

USG Chancellor Sonny Perdue speaks from the podium along with Gov. Brian Kemp at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Medical School Building on the Health Sciences Campus. (Andrew Davis Tucker/UGA)

UGA will continue to work closely with the Medical College of Georgia to ensure a smooth transition for current medical students as UGA seeks accreditation from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME).

The development of a new public school of medicine at UGA promises to help address a significant shortage of medical professionals. Georgia’s growing population tops approximately 11 million residents, straining the state’s existing medical infrastructure.

Now the nation’s eighth largest state, Georgia is forecasted to experience further population growth in the coming years, and nearly one-third of the state’s physicians are nearing retirement.

“Georgia is growing,” said Sonny Perdue, chancellor of the University System of Georgia. “We may only be only eighth today, but in just a few short years Georgia could be the fifth largest state. And that means we are going to need more health care, and people are going to get it here and across the state.”

Founding Dean of the School of Medicine Shelley Nuss, middle, is surrounded by medical students at the groundbreaking ceremony for the Medical School Building. (Andrew Davis Tucker/UGA)

Georgia currently ranks No. 40 among U.S. states for the number of active patient care physicians per capita, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), while it ranks No. 41 for the number of primary care physicians and No. 44 for the number of general surgeons per capita. The shortage of medical providers is particularly acute in rural and underserved areas, where access is even more limited.

UGA faculty are already engaged in human health research, and the establishment of a school of medicine will bolster their efforts.

“Our flagship institution, the University of Georgia, is tasked with the vital mission of educating and preparing the next generation of leaders,” said Gov. Brian Kemp. “To that end, one of our top priorities is building a strong health care workforce pipeline. This UGA facility will be an essential part of those efforts.”

Alongside funding from state government, strong private support will fortify efforts to create a School of Medicine at UGA. Donors have demonstrated robust support for UGA initiatives in recent years. In fiscal year 2023, UGA raised over $240 million in gifts and pledges from alumni, friends and foundation and industry partners. The university’s three-year rolling fundraising average is now a record $235 million per year, with annual contributions exceeding $200 million for the past six consecutive years.

You may also like

Student-created podcast delves into lesser known…

Magic mushrooms can treat medication-resistant…

College of Engineering dean named provost at Ohio…

Undergraduate wins Regents Cup Debate

Lead@3 speakers offer insights on leadership

Uga community has access to ai-powered chatbot.