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
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
50%
40%
4-year STEM degree completion, by race (HERI, 2010)
32.4%
30%
24.5%
20%
15.9%
14.0%
13.2%
Latino/a
Native
American
Black/ African
American
10%
0%
Asian/ Pacific
Islander
White
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


Rewards greatest for research-oriented
faculty


By institutional type, rank, tenure status, discipline,
gender, race/ethnicity and marital status
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)
Engaged
undergrads in
research?
No,
39%
Yes,
61%
Analyses

Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling
(HGLM)

Appropriate for multi-level data with dichotomous
outcome
Level 1 Predictors
Level 2 Predictors
Demographic 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

Significant predictors reported as delta-p
(Δ-p) statistics
Results: Level 1
Level-1 Predictors*
Delta-P
Professional 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 Activities
Taught 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-P
Scholarly 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 Funding
Number 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-P
Goals 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 2
Level-2 Predictors
Delta-P
HBCU
17.03%
Liberal Arts Institution (Carnegie)
13.03%
Institutional Selectivity (in 100-point increments)
3.50%
Model Statistics
Explained variance at Level 2
0.59
Baseline 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
Faculty and Co-PIs:
Sylvia Hurtado
Mitchell Chang
Postdoctoral Scholars:
Kevin Eagan
Josephine Gasiewski
Administrative Staff:
Aaron Pearl
Graduate Research Assistants:
Monica Lin
Cindy Mosqueda
Christopher Newman
Gina Garcia
Juan Garibay
Minh Tran
Felisha Herrera
Jessica Sharkness
Papers and reports are available for download
from project website:
www.heri.ucla.edu/nih
Project e-mail: herinih@ucla.edu
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.
HERI Faculty Survey 2010-2011


Registration is now open
Go to www.heri.ucla.edu for more
information about participating