Engaging Undergraduates in Science Research: Not Just about Faculty

Willingness

Kevin Eagan, Jessica Sharkness, Sylvia Hurtado, Mitchell Chang & Cynthia Mosqueda

Higher Education Research InstituteUniversity of California, Los Angeles

Association for Institutional Research Annual ForumChicago, Illinois – May 31, 2010

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

32.4%24.5%

15.9% 14.0% 13.2%

4-year STEM degree completion, by race (HERI, 2010)

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

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

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

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)

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?

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)

Yes, 61%

No; 39%

Engaged undergrads in research?

Analyses

Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM) Appropriate for multi-level data with dichotomous

outcome

Significant predictors reported as delta-p (Δ-p) statistics

Level 1 Predictors Level 2 PredictorsDemographic Characteristics Institutional Characteristics

Professional Career (Tenure, rank, etc.) Institutional Selectivity

Teaching and Scholarly activities Aggregated Faculty Variables

Publications and funding

Goals for undergraduates

Perceptions of Institutional Climate

Results: Level 1Level-1 Predictors* Delta-PProfessional Career

Time since appointed at present institution -0.48%Discipline (Biological/Life sciences is reference)

Engineering and Computer Sciences -17.04%Health Sciences -34.55%Physical Sciences -19.97%

Teaching ActivitiesTaught an honors course 9.63%Taught an interdisciplinary course 5.76%Number of graduate courses taught -3.69%

*We only show significant predictors.

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

Level-1 Predictors Delta-PScholarly Activities (other than teaching)

Collaborated with the local community in research/teaching 7.94%Advised student groups involved in service/volunteer work 7.08%HPW engaged in research/scholarly writing 4.87%Extent: engage in academic work spanning multiple disciplines 5.51%Extent: mentor new faculty 5.09%

Publications and FundingNumber of articles published in academic/prof. journals (career) 4.41%Number of published books, manuals or monographs (career) -3.87%Source of stress: Research or publishing demands 8.58%Received funding for work from foundations 8.58%Received funding for work from state or federal government 13.22%Received funding for work from business or industry 7.73%

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

Level-1 Predictors Delta-PGoals for Undergraduates

Encourage student habits of mind for learning (factor) 6.64%Institutional Climate

Agree: faculty feel most students well-prepared academically 3.50%Agree: faculty strongly interested in acad. problems of ugrads 3.65%Agree: my research is valued by faculty in my department 3.04%

Results: Level 2Level-2 Predictors Delta-P

HBCU 17.03%Liberal Arts Institution (Carnegie) 13.03%Institutional Selectivity (in 100-point increments) 3.50%

Model StatisticsExplained variance at Level 2 0.59Baseline probability of inclusion of undergrads in research 0.61

Discussion

Institutional context Faculty perceptions of institutional climate Disciplinary context Face-time with undergraduates, goals for

undergraduates Funding

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

Contact Information

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.

Papers and reports are available for downloadfrom project website:

www.heri.ucla.edu/nihProject e-mail: herinih@ucla.edu

Faculty and Co-PIs:Sylvia HurtadoMitchell Chang

Monica LinGina GarciaFelisha Herrera

Postdoctoral Scholars:Kevin EaganJosephine Gasiewski

Administrative Staff:Aaron Pearl

Graduate Research Assistants:Christopher NewmanMinh TranJessica Sharkness

Cindy MosquedaJuan Garibay

HERI Faculty Survey 2010-2011

Registration is now open Go to www.heri.ucla.edu for more

information about participating