Mutual benefits for graduate and undergraduates in research mentoring relationships
Cecilia Shore

Miami University

shorec@muohio.edu

Presented at POD, October 2007, Pittsburgh, PA

Overview
            Undergraduate Research Experiences (UREs) have positive effects on undergraduate students’ skills in research, critical thinking, and professional behavior (e.g., Eddins, Williams, Bushek, Porter & Kineke, 1997; Kardash, 2000). In many universities, graduate students are the most immediate supervisors and mentors of undergraduate researchers. Although doctoral students generally feel prepared to conduct research, they are much less confident concerning related skills that are of importance in mentoring undergraduate researchers (Golde & Dore, 2001). My institution recently undertook a program that enables undergraduates to do funded research with the guidance of a graduate student mentor. The program aims to benefit undergrad research skills, and enhance graduate students’ skills as mentors of undergraduate scholars.

Research questions

·   Did the undergraduates’ research skills (Kardash, 2000) improve?

·   Did the undergraduates professional skills (Hess & Sauser, 2001) improve?

·   Did the graduate students’ mentoring skills (Shore, 2005) improve?

·   How did the undergraduates evaluate graduate mentors vs. faculty mentors?

 

Discussion questions

·   What value does your institution place on undergraduate research and why? What are the benefits for mentors of undergraduate researchers?

·   How commonly do graduate students at your institutions supervise undergraduate researchers? Do they receive any specific training for this role? What should be included in such training?

·   How do you evaluate the effectiveness of mentors of undergraduate research?

 

Program description

            Miami University’s  Doctoral-Undergraduate Opportunities for Scholarship (DUOS) program enables Miami undergraduates to do funded (up to $1000) research or other creative activities with the guidance of a graduate student mentor.  Applications may be initiated by either graduates or undergraduates, but the undergraduate student is to have intellectual ownership of the project and the submitted application must be agreed to and signed by both students. Team members are given a financial incentive to attend a training session about the roles in a research mentoring partnership.

 

Program participants and survey method

            Application to the program is open to any Miami University undergraduate student (minimum 2.75 GPA) and any post-master’s doctoral student in good standing who agree to abide by program requirements.  About 10 DUOS projects are funded annually.  Questionnaires concerning the graduate and undergraduate experiences in the program were administered on-line, via the internet.  Participants were asked at the beginning and at the end of the program to “ Please mark the strength of your skills in the following areas, where 1=very strong and 5 = very weak”. 

Question 1. Did the undergraduate students improve in terms of their research skills?

            In general, undergraduates did rate virtually all of their research skills higher at the end of the program. (See details in Table 1 below.) In the first year, we found significant pretest/post-test differences in only 3 skills: experimental design, statistical analysis, and data interpretation skills.  By contrast, Kardash (2000) found statistically significant improvements on 12 of 14 research skills, and that the “biggest impact” skills were: observing and collecting data, understanding the importance of controls, interpreting data, orally communicating the results of research projects, and thinking independently.  Our data from the second year are more like Kardash’s in terms of the undergrad’s self perception of widespread improvement in their research skills.  The Year 2 undergraduates improved in terms of their ability to identify a research question, to formulate a hypothesis, to design an experiment, understand controls, observe and collect data, relate results to the “big picture”, communicate results orally and in writing, and think independently.   The difference between the two years is likely due to sampling variability given our small sample size.  However, it may also be attributable to a ceiling effect in the first year, since overall, that group’s initial self-perception was higher than that of the Year 2 group, while their ending overall self-perceptions were identical. 

            In both of the years, the undergrad students entered the program feeling strong in understanding controls but weak in data analysis.  They left the program feeling strong in data collection skills, but have recognized some deficiencies in question generation or reformulation.

 

Question 2.  Did the undergrads’ professional skills improve?     

            T-tests (details in Table 2) indicated that, at the end of the program, students gave themselves more favorable scores on about half of the items: developing professional commitment; adhering to ethical standards; taking personal responsibility for making the partnership productive; communicating openly; gaining technical skills in writing, computer literacy, and oral presentations; being interpersonally skilled with supervisors, peers and staff; and respecting books and lab materials.   In open-ended comments, 4 of 6 respondents mentioned something about the relationship or community as being one of the “best things” about the program.  Prior to the program undergrads felt they were strong in treatment of books and materials, relating to their mentor and producing high quality work. They felt weakest in communication, technical skills and time management.  After the program, they still felt that they were good at handling books and materials, but they now identified ethics and interpersonal skills as strengths, and curiosity as a weakness.

 

Question 3. Did the graduate students’ skills as mentors improve?

In year 2, when pre-post comparisons were available, the graduate mentors’ self-assessments were higher at the end of the year than at the beginning in their ability to provide instruction in scholarship skills as needed and communicate expectations clearly.  Weaknesses they identified included: networking (at pretest) and encouraging feedback about mentoring (at both pre- and post-test).  


 Question 4.  Do undergrads view grad students mentors as positively as faculty mentors?

         I compared the graduate student mentoring program to another similar program under the guidance of a faculty mentor, open to about 100 students each summer. Students in both programs must be in good standing, though GPA requirements and class standing differ.  The duration of each program for the participants is similar, but funding structures differ, largely due to the faculty program providing a summer living stipend.

            The graduate students were perceived as less variable and better mentors on all of the following items: feasible project, adequate supplies, supports independence, approachable, supportive, role model. The one exception is “career help” where there was no difference in variance between the groups, and the faculty mentors scored better according to the t-test.

           

Conclusions:  

       We have been very pleased with the results from the program.  In addition to several presentations at Miami’s Undergraduate Research Forum, we know of several professional conference presentations either completed or intended, and several manuscripts in preparation.  This suggests that graduate students can be effective as mentors of undergraduate research in ways that are comparable to faculty mentors.  Our findings are in agreement with followers of Vygotsky who indicate that children can learn not just from adults, but from more experienced peers (Rogoff, 1990).  Participants greatly valued this research mentoring experience.  As one undergraduate said, “I really enjoyed the experience of having my own project which I helping in designing, and carried out the lab work.  It was great experience getting to know the graduate student that I worked with.”  A graduate student commented that the best thing about the program was, “The ability to teach my mentee how to conduct science.  This experience is very valuable practice for when I become a faculty member.” 

 

Table 1: Improvement in undergrads’ research skills (1=very strong and 5 = very weak)

Bolded and starred items showed statistically significant improvements (p < .10). 

Item

Year 1pre

n=9

Y 1 Post

n=5

Year 2 pre

n=8

Y2 post

n=8

Understand contemporary concepts in your field.

2.33

2.00

2

2

Make use of the primary research literature in your field (e.g., journal articles).

1.89

1.80

2.3

1.62

Identify a specific question for investigation based on research/issues in your field.

2.33

2.20

2.29

1.57m

Formulate a research hypothesis/scholarly goal based on a specific question/problem.

1.89

1.40

2.25

1.38*

Design an experiment, theoretical test, or scholarly plan to test the hypothesis/reach the scholarly goal.

2.44

1.60*

2.29

1.57*

Understand the importance of controls in research, or problems to be addressed in carrying out the plan.

1.67

1.20

1.88

1.5m

Observe and collect data, or carry out the creative/investigative activities.

1.56

1.40

2.13

1.25**

Statistically analyze the data, if appropriate.

3.22

2.00*

2.75

2.25

Interpret data/monitor success of project by relating results to the original hypothesis/goal.

2.78

1.80*

2.29

1.71

Reformulate original research hypothesis if appropriate.

2.00

1.60

2.5

2.5

Relate results to the “bigger picture” in your field.

2.11

2.00

2.25

1.62*

Communicate the results of research projects/investigative/creative activities orally.

2.11

1.80

2.38

1.5*

Communicate the results of research projects/investigative/creative activities in written format appropriate to field.

2.22

1.40

2.5

1.62**

Think independently. 

1.44

1.80

2.13

1.75m

 

 

 

 

 

Overall means (not tested statistically)

2.14

1.71

2.25

1.70

 

Table 2: Improvement in undergrad professional skills (1= very strong, 5= very weak)

 

group

N

Mean

Std. Dev.

p (2-tailed)

Develops professional commitment.  Learns what professional researchers do—getting grants, making posters and presentations, etc.

pre

9

1.89

0.78

0.09

 

post

9

1.33

0.5

 

Uses time well.  Makes and keeps appointments to meet regularly; sets goals for the meeting and brings information necessary to make progress on the project.  Makes timely progress on project. 

pre

10

2.2

0.63

0.10

 

post

9

1.67

0.71

 

Develops a positive relationship with the mentor—is open about common interests, shows interest in him/her as a person.  Has reasonable expectations about “turnaround” time for responding to proposals and drafts. 

pre

10

1.6

0.52

0.36

 

post

9

1.33

0.71

 

Is open to honest assessment of own strengths and weaknesses and seeks help/advice when appropriate.  

pre

10

1.8

0.63

0.44

 

post

9

1.56

0.73

 

Learns research skills: designing, conducting and interpreting. 

pre

10

1.9

0.88

0.19

 

post

9

1.44

0.53

 

Adheres to ethical standards in the treatment of research materials, subjects, and data.  Adheres to appropriate professional boundaries in the mentor-mentee relationship. 

pre

10

1.7

0.67

0.02

 

post

9

1.11

0.33

 

Takes personal responsibility for making the partnership productive. Demonstrates initiative and independence. 

pre

9

1.67

0.5

0.06

 

post

9

1.22

0.44

 

Produces high quality work, beyond minimal requirements.  Asks for additional readings.  

pre

10

1.6

0.70

0.88

 

post

9

1.56

0.53

 

Communicates frequently, honestly and openly about progress on the project and interpersonal issues without personalizing, flattering or blaming.   

pre

10

2

0.67

0.06

 

post

9

1.44

0.53

 

Cultivates a breadth of intellectual life—shows respect to other disciplines, philosophical foundations, and intellectual curiosity.

pre

10

1.9

0.57

0.67

 

post

8

2.12

1.36