Mutual benefits for graduate
and undergraduates in research mentoring relationships
Presented at POD, October 2007,
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
Program participants and survey method
Application
to the program is open to any
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
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 |
|