1 / 17

Engaging Undergraduates in Science Research: Not Just about Faculty Willingness

Engaging Undergraduates in Science Research: Not Just about Faculty Willingness. Kevin Eagan, Jessica Sharkness , Sylvia Hurtado , Mitchell Chang & Cynthia Mosqueda Higher Education Research Institute University of California, Los Angeles Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum

taryn
Download Presentation

Engaging Undergraduates in Science Research: Not Just about Faculty Willingness

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Engaging Undergraduates in Science Research: Not Just about Faculty Willingness Kevin Eagan, Jessica Sharkness, Sylvia Hurtado, Mitchell Chang & Cynthia Mosqueda Higher Education Research Institute University of California, Los Angeles Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum Chicago, Illinois – May 31, 2010

  2. Background • College freshmen who aspire to degrees in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) have lower completion rates than their non-STEM major peers • Rates are even lower for underrepresented minorities 4-year STEM degree completion, by race (HERI, 2010)

  3. Undergraduate Research Experience • Provides students with hands-on training • Several benefits: • Improved ability to work and think like a scientist • Improved preparedness or desire for graduate study • Higher STEM retention rates • Develop close ties with faculty members • Few studies explore factors influencing faculty members’ decisions to involve undergraduates in their research

  4. Faculty Workload • Workload increase in last 25 years • Time allocations vary • By institutional type, rank, tenure status, discipline, gender, race/ethnicity and marital status • Rewards greatest for research-oriented faculty • Pay, tenure, Status • Implementing and maintaining research programs is resource-intensive • Requires time, support staff and institutional/ departmental support

  5. Faculty Mentorship • Mutual benefits for protégé and mentor • Few incentives for faculty to become mentors • Disincentives: research and publishing is rewarded, mentorship can be time consuming • Large classes, high student-faculty ratios can make it difficult to establish meaningful faculty/student relationships • Students tend to rely on faculty to establish mentoring relationships

  6. Conceptual Framework • Organizational Citizenship: • Exerting more effort on the job than is required or expected by formal role prescriptions (McManus & Russell, 1997) • Taking on undergraduate students doing research is often “above and beyond” the call of duty for faculty • Two primary components: • Actions and decisions targeted for certain individuals • Activities directed at an organization (Organ & Ryan, 1995)

  7. Research Questions • What predicts STEM faculty members’ likelihood of involving undergraduate students in their research projects? • What factors account for the variation across institutions in STEM faculty members’ average likelihood of involving undergraduate students in their research projects?

  8. Data and Sample • Data Source and Sample: • 2007-2008 HERI Faculty Survey • 4,765 STEM faculty members from 193 institutions • Dependent Variable: • During the past two years, have you engaged undergraduates on your research project (Yes = 1, No = 0) Engaged undergrads in research?

  9. Analyses • Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM) • Appropriate for multi-level data with dichotomous outcome • Significant predictors reported as delta-p (Δ-p) statistics

  10. Results: Level 1 *We only show significant predictors.

  11. Results: Level 1 (cont’d)Other Scholarly Activities

  12. Results: Level 1 (cont’d)Undergraduate Goals and Institutional Climate

  13. Results: Level 2

  14. Discussion • Institutional context • Faculty perceptions of institutional climate • Disciplinary context • Face-time with undergraduates, goals for undergraduates • Funding

  15. Conclusion & Future Directions • Future research • Type and quality of UG research opportunities • Fuller accounting of faculty effort in involving undergraduates in research • Conclusions • Incentivizing behavior • Institutionalizing undergraduate research

  16. Contact Information Faculty and Co-PIs: Sylvia Hurtado Mitchell Chang Postdoctoral Scholars: Kevin Eagan Josephine Gasiewski Administrative Staff: Aaron Pearl Acknowledgments: This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Numbers 1 R01 GMO71968-01 and R01 GMO71968-05 as well as the National Science Foundation, NSF Grant Number 0757076. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsors. Graduate Research Assistants: Christopher Newman Minh Tran Jessica Sharkness Monica Lin Gina Garcia Felisha Herrera Cindy Mosqueda Juan Garibay Papers and reports are available for download from project website: www.heri.ucla.edu/nih Project e-mail: herinih@ucla.edu

  17. HERI Faculty Survey 2010-2011 • Registration is now open • Go to www.heri.ucla.edu for more information about participating

More Related