Why Early Engagement in College Research Is Important: Lessons

Downloaded by UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO on December 12, 2016 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 22, 2016 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2016-1231.ch010

Chapter 10

Why Early Engagement in College Research Is Important: Lessons Learned at Wayne State University Joseph Dunbar* and Julie O’Connor Wayne State University, Office of the Vice President for Research, 5057 Woodward, Suite 6409, Detroit, Michigan 48202 *E-mail: [email protected]

Undergraduate students that attend Wayne State University typically have excellent high school academic records and many begin their first year of college with goals of a career in academic disciplines. However, many exceptionally talented and high-achieving students, particularly students from disadvantaged backgrounds, first generation college and/or under-represented minority (URM) students, often lack a complete package of the academic tools, persistence, confidence and developmental mentoring necessary to persist effectively in a college environment. Many of these students are left behind or inadvertently allowed to drift and become emotionally disengaged in the university. These factors often can result in students dropping out, changing majors or losing focus resulting in them pursuing “convenient” career options when they otherwise could have been successful if an appropriate focus and support structure had been in place to build their skills and develop their ambition. In this chapter, we will describe, analyze and provide some conclusions on our experience in the early engagement of students in research and its impact on their career outcomes.

Introduction Historically, the organization of many university curriculums tend to focus primarily on basic course work for the first years of college and only address © 2016 American Chemical Society Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


student research or capstone projects in the last year before graduation, if at all. This structure is thought to allow for the student’s completion of significant coursework in a discipline before attempting research. In addition, the mind set of many is that this structure allows the students with scientific ability and drive to distinguish themselves before giving them a research opportunity. Typically, many of the undergraduate students at Wayne State University (WSU) enter college with excellent high school academic records and many begin their first year of college with a goal of entering science-related disciplines and careers. However, many of these talented and high-achieving students, especially first generation and underrepresented minority (URM) students or students from disadvantaged backgrounds, lack the background and high school preparation that provide the tools, confidence, persistence and mentoring necessary to effectively succeed in college especially in a science discipline, and thus in the early years many are inadvertently allowed to drift and become emotionally disengaged in their science majors (1–3). In many cases this has resulted in students changing majors and pursuing “convenient” career options when they otherwise could have been successful in their intended science majors. However, if an appropriate focused and supportive structure is in place to build skills and confidence, these students can achieve their goals or ambitions. Thus, an effort to target these students early in their college career (freshmen and sophomore) can yield great dividends with enhanced success. Instead of only selecting the upper class students who have persisted and are still motivated enough to participate in research, an early intervention model allows a greater opportunity for the university to play a role in developing student talent. This model, while risky, can significantly expand the number of students, especially first generation and URM students that will successfully graduate in science relevant majors and position them for their intended career goals.

The Demographics at WSU Wayne State University is a public, urban research university located in the heart of Detroit. WSU is one the 15 public four-year institutions of higher learning in the state of Michigan and one of the state’s three autonomous universities whose governing bodies are elected by the citizens of Michigan. WSU has traditionally served the Michigan community through a system of 15 colleges and professional schools in addition to a dozen institutes and centers. WSU is one of only six public, urban universities in the Unites States that have received the highest Carnegie Foundation ratings for both research intensiveness and community engagement. WSU undergraduate students can typically be characterized as urban and drawn from the greater Detroit metropolitan area. Detroit’s population is estimated at 706,585 based on the 2010 U.S. Census with a racial and ethnic composition that is over 90% URM with 82.7% African American, 7.8% Caucasian (non-Hispanic), 6.8% Hispanic, 1.1% Asian, 0.4% Native American, and 2.2% reporting more than one race (U.S. Census 2010). WSU student’s ethnic makeup over a recent five-year average was approximately 26% African American, 5% Hispanic and 69% white or other. 186 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


Most entering freshman students have excellent high school academic records. However, many of these students have not gone to high schools that have equipped them to progress efficiently in a research intensive university. In the State of Michigan and especially Detroit, the number of students and especially URM students entering science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields are even lower than the national average. According to the Michigan Department of Education Center for Educational Performance and Information (4), only 33.3% of Michigan URM high school students met the ACT benchmark of 22 in mathematics during the 2012-13 academic years (last available data) (4). In the city of Detroit, this achievement gap is even more pronounced: in the Detroit Public School district, only 10.7% met the same benchmark (4). Nationally, approximately 40% of URM undergraduate students complete a bachelor’s degree in six years compared to 60% for white students. The WSU experience is closer to 10% which is closer to what is also expected for first generation college students. Degree completions in STEM majors are even lower. Another element is that many of WSU students commute, which can also contribute to the lower engagement that is necessary to be successful in STEM or biomedical careers. Although there is an increasing trend of students living in on-campus dormitories, many students do not take advantage of this because of cost and due to various family obligations. It is generally known that on-campus housing would free time to effectively engage in STEM studies. Recent trends show it is realistically available only to those students who can afford it.

The Impact of Being First Generation The USA has consistently moved toward encouraging a higher proportion of high school graduates to attend college. The National Center for Education Statistics (Snyder and Dillow (5)) reports that national college enrollment rose by 39% between 1999 and 2009, compared with only 9% during the previous decade During the same period, difficult economic times of college budget cuts and limited resources caused a rush in universities to determine best practices to make existing assets go further while continuing to effectively serve students. First generation and other at-risk students present challenges to this existing model. When accessing the needs of first-generation college students, many institutions, especially research institutions, do not usually focus on the variety of challenges many first generation students and at-risk students such as URM’s experience as they enter and move through higher education. Students whose parents did not attend college are more likely than their non-first-generation counterparts to have less family support, to have gone to subpar high schools, to be less academically prepared for college, to have less knowledge of how to navigate the college experience, and have more difficulty in acclimating themselves to college (1). National statistics suggest that when there is the combination of first generation, low income and/or URM’s, the college graduation rate approches 11%. As such, research oriented educational institutions need to be more sensitive to these students with enhanced resources and experiences such as mentoring and career 187 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

development support to improve their capacity to move into and through college successfully.


Elements of Early Intervention How can an institution meet the needs of many URM and/or first-generation college students in a cost-effective way? One of the first features is to improve their transition to college. Summer Developmental or Bridge Programs have demonstrated that early engagement of these students helped to ease their transition into college (6). Effective summer programs infuse various elements to ensure that students make a real connection to the campus. These programs should incorporate a holistic approach that not only provide academic advisors and peer mentors, but also include career exploration, study skills workshops, and a host of other high impact practices (7). The programs should also focus on building relationships between students, the faculty and the university that will allow for greater confidence in the challenges of college. Program content should also focus on the development of critical thinking skills that enhance their academic success especially in the early classes (6–8). In addition to the above, this summer developmental period includes an opportunity for each student to formulate an “individual academic/development plan.” This plan allows them to proceed in the first academic year with a clearer idea of what they are to accomplish. The first academic year is critical for student confidence and academic success. Engaged students learn to proceed in their college program with a sense of purpose. When opportunities to participate in mentored research are available early on, it provides students with critical elements for student success. Students should be shepherded into mentored research in a stepwise fashion. They are first given the opportunity to learn basic laboratory skills. This leads to enhanced confidence that they can do laboratory work. Then as best as possible, they are matched with a research mentor. One of the first features expected of mentored research is to provide the student with a community that’s interested in the student’s success. For many students, the college experience is their first attempt to establish independence. The idea of being alone or being anonymous can be very frightening. A research group or mentoring group that consists of fellow students as well as faculty and/or graduate students can provide a community of individuals with like goals and interests that can provide advice and support as well as share ideas, goals and fears. They learn to value teamwork and their role on a team. An extension of this is the growth of skills in expressing ideas both orally and written in a clear fashion and understanding the culture of success. Students learn to collect data evidence and information that they use to draw conclusions. This takes the form of collecting relevant information for full understanding and learning to develop methods of analysis or synthesis. In mentored research, the students will gain an appreciation of the integrative nature of problems as well as the different viewpoints others may have. These skills can have a lifelong impact on the individual’s success throughout life (9–15). 188 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Some of our Program Highlights WSU’s program seeks to embody several features to tackle pervasive issues in URM and first generation student’s engagement and retention within STEM or biomedical majors. This program, while structured to the needs of WSU students, builds on a rich literature on minority student success (1, 6, 12, 16, 17).


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Selecting the students: The traditional model of student selection is for the faculty to identify the high performing students or the aggressive students to participate in their research. Students that have good matrices but may not have the confidence or feel capable of doing research are the ones sought out for the program. With the support of advisors, the curriculum is closely aligned to the student participants to ensure they take the class sequences that will provide the core knowledge necessary to succeed in their major. This is supported by the student’s individual academic plan. Provide early entry of these undergraduate students into a year round mentored research experience. The mentored research is supported by the summer program and a research methodology course during the first semester. This course and the summer experience enhance the student’s perception of the student’s academic and research preparedness. All students are continuously monitored through frequent and purposeful advising to encourage that good decisions are being made regarding personal, professional, and academic development. The students are provided with a clear two-way expectation of them and the program. The students participate in a strong weekly “Research Learning Community” that allows each student to engage with his or her peers, near-peers, graduate students as well as faculty. Student’s, especially freshmen and sophomores, extracurricular activities are monitored to be aware of outside obligations and distractions that could potentially interfere with the development of their research experience and the development of a self-perception of becoming a STEM or biomedical scholar. The program draws heavily from the best attributes of WSU’s existing Math Corp’s Emerging Scholars Program (ESP) because it has a history of maximizing student’s success. This highly successful program at WSU is based on the Triesman model (18). It has an outstanding record of success in beginning math and calculus. The most recent (2013) ESP program yielded >56% of all URM students receiving an A or B grade in the areas of beginning math through calculus compared to 23% of nonESP students.

Our Experience: Impact of Early Intervention A review of ten years of WSU program data demonstrates that the most consistent observation by the students in our evaluations is their sense of connectivity or belonging to the university community. Students report that 189 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


participating in the summer program increased their perceived college awareness as well as academic skills and they were better prepared for the upcoming academic year. The students participating in the summer program are also more likely to embrace the hands-on laboratory experiences in the first year of mentored research. They very much appreciated the role and need for peers and near-peers that encouraged them to be hands-on who they themselves are directly participating in scientific research. Additionally, students that participated in research reported the development of an appreciation and greater knowledge of the different types of laboratory exercises that exist in their classes. Students also appreciated the networks and friends fostered by the “Research Learning Community.” They also report that they have a greater tendency to stay engaged with one another and continue to develop. At WSU an average of 24% of the URM undergraduate students were enrolled in STEM and/or biomedical science related fields and the six year graduation rates for these students were 15%.This is in contrast to our undergraduate students that participated in an early structured support system, summer program and group interactions coupled with mentored research demonstrated significant greater success. The six-year graduation rates of our students reached 85% compared to the 15% six-year graduation rate of all WSU-URM STEM or biomedical science students with similar entering academic metrics. And very importantly, approximately 58% of our students have gone on to graduate and/or professional programs, (35% to graduate school and 23% to medical school) and a significant number of others are working in STEM or biomedical fields. This greater than 5 times success can in larger measure be attributable to enhanced development fostered by early engagement.

Conclusions The early engagement of all students and particular URM and first generation students in undergraduate research provide multiple ingredients that augment future success. Having students participate in undergraduate research has long been considered a significant “high impact” practice contributing to students’ success. However, in most universities it is generally recognized too often that undergraduate research and other high impact practices are optional rather than expected for students, particularly for URM students, who may not be as well connected or aware of its value (14, 15, 19). Nevertheless, it is almost a universal observation that between 40% and 60% of all college students that enter college with STEM or biomedical majors do not complete these degrees in STEM and biomedical areas. A contributing factor that is generally put forward, especially by the faculty, is that science and math areas are “hard.” In the university, these majors are usually designed where the freshman and sophomore classes are taught in an abstract fashion. The classes are also characterized as being dry, not connected to life experiences and presented with a sink or swim mentality. Giving students an opportunity to participate in research can provide an “oasis” for the student to connect the classes that they take to other relevant elements in the real and scientific world. This is especially true at a research 190 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


institution like WSU, where many undergraduate students and especially URM students benefit greatly from the academic and personal development that mentored research provides. The students have an opportunity to work with their hands, participate in an organized research program, as well as gain an understanding of the contributions they can make to our knowledge of the world. It can never be underestimated that a main component of mentored research is the increase of student’s access and availability to faculty. Additionally, the faculty gains a better appreciation for the ability and contributions that these students can make as well as their sophistication. The teamwork and close working relationships generally lead to increased mentoring effectiveness but also to increased faculty commitment to the development of these students. This corporative teamwork can lead to the institutional changes that can improve all student development. Some key observations we have made are also supported by other work. By participating in mentored undergraduate research these students are provided opportunities to enhance their verbal and quantitative skills, subject matter competence, and general intellectual growth. Students are expected to present informally to their research group as well as formally in local or national symposiums. They can experience psychosocial changes that assist in providing the confidence necessary for persistence in a research university (20). Another consistent basic observation is that the more students are involved in both the academic and social aspects of their education, the more successful they will be (21). These theories underlie most modern notions of student success in that they identify the student’s experience as important to their learning. Therefore, student development and ultimately success is increased when they are involved in their academic activities such as research rather than being the passive recipient of knowledge. Several investigators have sought to demonstrate the ways that an institution of higher education share responsibility for student success and to move the focus beyond examination of the role of individual student attributes in the decision to persist in college (22). In other work, investigators (12, 22, 23) focus involved an examination of the factors influencing student attrition to a framework for the actions that institutions should take to promote and support student completion. In part, this is because the reasons for students lack of success is not necessarily obvious or provide direct insight into the actions necessary to help them persist and be successful (24). It is important to acknowledge that the explicit steps institutions should take to achieve “academic and social integration” are not always obvious. Studies have identified four factors important to student success and persistence: (1) involvement (or engagement), (2) high expectations, (3) assessment and feedback, and (4) support. Being URM or first generation may be correlated with higher levels of attrition but it is not the cause for a lack of success in STEM or biomedical areas. A lack of connectivity on campus can result in a clear sense of URM students not fitting in. If URM students come from high schools that did not prepare them well for college-level work, this is exaggerated. The factors and processes that lead to decreased student success are assumed to be the same for all students. However, students who do not feel a part of the university or and those that perform poorly 191 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.


early in their academic programs are more likely to leave college or change majors regardless of his or her demographic status. The prevailing mindset orientation of the institution affects not only students, but also faculty as well as mentors and tutors. Individuals who have fixed mindsets tend to view first generation or URM student populations less positively and stereotypically than the more traditional student (19, 25, 26). This suggests that mindset interventions can promote environments more accepting of students from different backgrounds and allow them to be more supportive of student success. Also there is a close relationship between stereotype threat, mindset orientation and the effect of role models. The availability of role models is known to mitigate the impact of stereotype threat. Moreover, mentors and peer or near-peer role models can be particularly effective in promoting a growth mindset. Conversely, the lack of role models can reinforce stereotypes and promote more fixed mindsets. Steele (27) suggests that under-representation of minorities occurs, in part, because threat relevant processes have reduced the supply of identity-relevant role models. Participating in undergraduate research not only promotes critical thinking skills, but also promotes creative thinking, problem solving, teamwork and a sense of belonging, all of which are important as we move forward in the 21st century. However this critical activity can be a catalyst for not only student success, but also institutional changes that will enhance the success of all STEM and biomedical science students in the future.

References Tym, C.; McMillion, R.; Barone, S.; Webster, J. First-Generation College Students: A Literature Review; Research and Analytical Services: 2004. 2. Hernandez, P. R.; Schultz, P. W.; Estrada, M.; Woodcock, A.; Chance, R. C. J. Educ. Psychol. 2013, 105, 89–107. 3. Cohen, G.; Garcia, J.; Apfel, N.; Master, A. Science 2006, 313, 1307–1310. 4. Michigan Department of Education, Center for Educational Performance and Information, State of Michigan, 2014. 5. Snyder, T. D.; Dillow, S. A. Digest of Education Statistics; NCES 2011-015; National Center for Education Statistics: 2010. 6. Ackerman, S. P. Coll. Univ. 1991, 66 (4), 201–208. 7. McCurrie, M. J. Basic Writing 2009, 28 (2), 28–49. 8. Kuh, G. D. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter; AAC&U Publications: Washington, DC, 2008. 9. Huerta, J. C. PS: Political Sci. Politics 2004, 37, 291–296. 10. Hurtado, S.; Cabrera, N. L.; Lin, M. H.; Arellano, L.; Espinosa, L. L. Res. Higher Educ. 2009, 50, 189–214. 11. Santos, S.; Reigadas, E. J. Coll. Student Retention 2005, 6, 337–357. 12. Gardner, J. N.; Upcraft, M. L.; Barefoot, B. Principles of Good Practice for the First College Year and Summary of Recommendations. Challenging and 1.

192 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

13.

14.


15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27.

Supporting the First-Year Student; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, 2005; pp 515−524. Barefoot, B.; Gardner, J. N.; Morris, L. V.; Cutright, M.; Schroeder, C. C.; Siegel, M. J.; Schwartz, S. W.; Swing, R. L. Achieving and Sustaining Institutional Excellence for the First-Year of College; John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA, 2005. Stolle-McAllister, K.; Sto-Domingo, M. R.; Carrillo, A. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 2011, 20, 5–16. Kuh, G. D.; O’Donnell, K. Ensuring Quality & Taking High-Impact Practices to Scale, with case studies by Sally Reed; Association of American Colleges and Universities Publications: Washington, DC, 2013. Chang, M. J.; Eagan, M. K.; Lin, M. H.; Hurtado, S. J. Higher Educ. 2011, 82, 564–596. Gasiewski, J. A.; Eagan, M. K.; Garcia, G. A.; Hurtado, S.; Chang, M. J. Res. Higher Educ. 2012, 53, 229–261. Triesman, U. Coll. Math. J. 1993, 23, 362–372. Plaks, J. E.; Stroessner, S. J.; Dweck, C. S.; Sherman, J. W. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 80, 876–893. Pascarella, E. T.; Terenzini, P. T. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research; Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint: San Francisco, CA, 2005. Astin, A. W. J. Coll. Student Personnel 1984, 25, 297–308. Tinto, V. Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, 2012. Zhao, C. M.; Kuh, G. D. Res. Higher Educ. 2009, 45, 115–138. Padilla, R. V. J. Coll. Student Retention 1999, 131–145. Chiu, C.; Hong, Y.; Dweck, C. S. J. Abnorm. Psychol. Soc. Psychol. 1997, 73, 19–30. Lotkowsky, V. A.; Robbing, S. B.; Noeth, R. J. The role of academic and non-academic factors in improving college retention; ACT Policy Report; American College Testing: 2004. Steele, C. M.; Spencer, S. J.; Aronson, J. Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 2002; Vol. 34, pp 379−440.

193 Murray et al.; The Power and Promise of Early Research ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2016.

Why Early Engagement in College Research Is Important: Lessons

Recommend Documents