United States

Introduction. Western education sets the standards for scientific education that is commonly taught throughout institutions. The standards of western education can affect the value that is placed on other scientific understandings, like dismissing Native ways of thinking and knowing within academia (Bang et al., 2012). Two-Eyed Seeing is a framework used by Indigenous scholars where both western and Indigenous knowledges are utilized to develop more complete research and understandings (Bartlett et al., 2012). Through the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU, NSF-2150364) program, this study was developed with Kirkness and Barnhardt’s (1991) theoretical framework of the 4R’s – respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility – to examine the changes in two-eyed seeing of Native undergraduate students in the life sciences and earth sciences. 

Methods. The study drew from a larger project, Native STEM Portraits ([NSP], NSF-2000619), a longitudinal study that investigates the supports and barriers experienced by Native individuals in STEM higher education and professions. NSP used both survey data and photo elicitation (PE) interviews collected at two points of time approximately two years apart. Responses were gathered from 30 surveys and 5 PE interviews from Round 1 and 20 surveys and 5 PE interviews from Round Two to assess how students viewed their educational experiences and how they regarded their Native identities. Descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic analysis of qualitative data were performed.

Results. The analysis indicated that life science and earth science undergraduates saw a disconnect between their Native values and western education. Round two analysis showed that participants were feeling a strengthened connection to their Native identities and their undergraduate studies. For example, Aspen (a pseudonym) describes how she felt earlier in her undergraduate career by indicating the scientific portions of her school did not acknowledge Indigenous knowledge. Despite this disconnect, when describing her photo, Community, Aspen reflected on how her western education is now integrating more of her Native identity as she is progressing further in her studies.

It’s so much more integrated. And I feel like this picture represents that. We’re all together. It’s not separate. You can see the individual [pine needles] in the picture… you can see the individual components in my classes. But it’s all together and very integrated, whereas it was not [before]… I feel like as we hit those advanced higher-level classes [that’s] when the shift occurred.

Similar to Aspen’s awareness as to how western perspectives of science can be integrated with her Native identity, Nayenezgani explained how incorporating Two-Eyed Seeing supported her as she created a poster presentation for her undergraduate research, citing that “science does not exist in a vacuum. It is constantly being impacted by various things.”

Conclusions and Discussions. As seen in the two above examples, the importance of integrating Two-Eyed Seeing with western science empowers undergraduate students as they further progress towards degree completion. The changes in perspectives from Round 1 to Round 2 represent how incorporating discussions of multiple epistemologies within science can broaden the students’ educational experiences. The Native perspective engages students with a holistic experience of science while enforcing a relational understanding of science (Kawagley &amp; Barnhardt, 1998). Certain aspects of science, especially in discussions of life science and earth sciences, due to their connection to traditional knowledge, can lead to students being empowered by combining a Native understanding of science within the traditional western academia.

Acknowledgments. Material for the NSF projects is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2000619 and 2150364. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. I want to thank my REU Mentors Stephen Alkins, Bengisu Onal, Maria Ong, Nuria Jaumot-Pascual, Christina B. Silva, Lisette Torres-Gerald, Matthew Madison, &amp; Tiffany Smith.

2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference

Changes in Two-Eyed Seeing Among Native Undergraduates in Life and Earth Sciences

The annual UI conference has grown from a meeting to a community of more than 6,000 researchers, program officers, evaluators, program directors, training faculty, and others within STEM, and now operates with a mission to mutually inform scholarship and practice, develop and enhance the community interested in educational interventions, and provide professional development for all STEM persons. UI held its first Virtual conference in December of 2020 in response to Covid-19 restrictions that forced the cancellation of the original March 2020 in person meeting. Born out of necessity, the virtual conference introduced a format that provided pre conference availability of symposia, Deeper Dives and Poster presentations. The 13th Annual Understanding Interventions Conference will continue with that design and we foresee future conferences adopting aspects of that format in reaching a virtual audience as well as those who attend the conferences in-person.

Attendees will experience plenaries, workshops, symposia, and poster presentations on hypothesis-based research on interventions and initiatives that broaden participation in STEM careers. The conference will continue to facilitate the dialogue among education, behavioral, and social science researchers, evaluators, and faculty in STEM fields who participate in intervention programs. Graduate students in these fields are strongly encouraged to attend. Workshops, sessions, and posters will communicate effective strategies from successful STEM intervention programs, present results from empirical research studies, and synthesize the translation of research findings into practice on STEM learning, undergraduate research, graduate education, and student retention.

The cost to attend the conference is $150. There are special rates for post-doctoral fellows and graduate students, as well as conference grants that can be provided for those with need. Registration for the conference is open, with additional information to come.

13th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2021

The annual UI conference has grown from a meeting to a community of more than 6,000 researchers, program officers, evaluators, program directors, training faculty, and others within STEM, and now operates with a mission to mutually inform scholarship and practice, develop and enhance the community interested in educational interventions, and provide professional development for all STEM persons. 

Introduction. Western education sets the standards for scientific education that is commonly taught throughout institutions. The standards of western education can affect the value that is placed on other scientific understandings, like dismissing Native ways of thinking and knowing within academia (Bang et al., 2012). Two-Eyed Seeing is a framework used by Indigenous scholars where both western and Indigenous knowledges are utilized to develop more complete research and understandings (Bartlett et al., 2012). Through the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU, NSF-2150364) program, this study was developed with Kirkness and Barnhardt’s (1991) theoretical framework of the 4R’s – respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility – to examine the changes in two-eyed seeing of Native undergraduate students in the life sciences and earth sciences. 

Methods. The study drew from a larger project, Native STEM Portraits ([NSP], NSF-2000619), a longitudinal study that investigates the supports and barriers experienced by Native individuals in STEM higher education and professions. NSP used both survey data and photo elicitation (PE) interviews collected at two points of time approximately two years apart. Responses were gathered from 30 surveys and 5 PE interviews from Round 1 and 20 surveys and 5 PE interviews from Round Two to assess how students viewed their educational experiences and how they regarded their Native identities. Descriptive analysis of quantitative data and thematic analysis of qualitative data were performed.

Results. The analysis indicated that life science and earth science undergraduates saw a disconnect between their Native values and western education. Round two analysis showed that participants were feeling a strengthened connection to their Native identities and their undergraduate studies. For example, Aspen (a pseudonym) describes how she felt earlier in her undergraduate career by indicating the scientific portions of her school did not acknowledge Indigenous knowledge. Despite this disconnect, when describing her photo, Community, Aspen reflected on how her western education is now integrating more of her Native identity as she is progressing further in her studies.

It’s so much more integrated. And I feel like this picture represents that. We’re all together. It’s not separate. You can see the individual [pine needles] in the picture… you can see the individual components in my classes. But it’s all together and very integrated, whereas it was not [before]… I feel like as we hit those advanced higher-level classes [that’s] when the shift occurred.

Similar to Aspen’s awareness as to how western perspectives of science can be integrated with her Native identity, Nayenezgani explained how incorporating Two-Eyed Seeing supported her as she created a poster presentation for her undergraduate research, citing that “science does not exist in a vacuum. It is constantly being impacted by various things.”

Conclusions and Discussions. As seen in the two above examples, the importance of integrating Two-Eyed Seeing with western science empowers undergraduate students as they further progress towards degree completion. The changes in perspectives from Round 1 to Round 2 represent how incorporating discussions of multiple epistemologies within science can broaden the students’ educational experiences. The Native perspective engages students with a holistic experience of science while enforcing a relational understanding of science (Kawagley & Barnhardt, 1998). Certain aspects of science, especially in discussions of life science and earth sciences, due to their connection to traditional knowledge, can lead to students being empowered by combining a Native understanding of science within the traditional western academia.

Acknowledgments. Material for the NSF projects is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 2000619 and 2150364. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. I want to thank my REU Mentors Stephen Alkins, Bengisu Onal, Maria Ong, Nuria Jaumot-Pascual, Christina B. Silva, Lisette Torres-Gerald, Matthew Madison, & Tiffany Smith.

poster

### Welcome to the 2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference

This year’s event promises to be an enlightening experience, filled with opportunities for sharing, networking, engagement, and inspiration.

Our mission? To foster an inclusive environment where the science communities can come together to discuss, collaborate, and strategize on how to broaden participation in science careers. Whether you’re an educator, researcher, policymaker, or passionate advocate, this conference is designed to provide valuable insights and practical solutions.

Get ready for:
* **Cutting-edge Research:** Explore the latest trends and findings in interventions aimed at enhancing diversity and inclusion in science fields.
* **Networking Opportunities:** Connect with like-minded professionals, forge new partnerships, and exchange ideas that can drive meaningful change.
* **Inspiring Keynote & Speakers:** Gain insights from renowned speakers who are leading the charge in promoting diversity and equity in science.
* **Global Perspectives:** Engage with experts from around the world to gain diverse perspectives and approaches to addressing common challenges.
* **Professional Development:** Enhance your skills and knowledge through workshops, panel discussions, and interactive sessions tailored to your professional growth.
* **Seed Funding Opportunities:** Learn about funding opportunities and resources available to support initiatives aimed at increasing diversity in STEM.

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. <br>Access credentials were sent to your email from Underline -  subject line "Welcome to 2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference". Please be sure to check your spam email folder if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Thank you for visiting Understanding Interventions 2025 Annual Conference event page.<br><br> In order to gain full access, please register [**here**](https://understandinginterventions.swoogo.com/ui2024/begin).

Please register!

Don’t miss out on this invaluable opportunity to be part of a movement towards a more inclusive and equitable future in science. This year’s event promises to be an enlightening experience, filled with opportunities for sharing, networking, engagement, and inspiration.
Mark your calendars, spread the word, and join us for the 2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference on February 7-8th.

Promoting diversity in the scientific workforce is crucial for harnessing the potential of available talent and ensuring equitable access to Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine (STEM-M) careers (1). However, many senior positions in the STEM-M field, particularly in the biomedical field, require an PhD. Moreover, entry into biomedical doctoral programs is very competitive, prioritizing applicants with prior research experience (2), which creates additional barriers for students who either attended colleges and universities with few opportunities to obtain research experience or who could not afford to participate in often unpaid positions (3, 4). In addition, competitive doctoral programs often overlook students with non-traditional paths, such as those who discovered an interest in research later in college, who switch fields, or who want additional research experience before committing to graduate school (5).  The barriers narrow the pipeline, contributing to lack of diversity in the sciences.

To address this gap, several postbaccalaureate programs offer research opportunities along with career development and grad application support to historically excluded groups. However, the number of these positions is restricted by available grant funding despite these same institutions regularly hiring similarly skilled scholars to research positions fully paid by individual labs. Thus, we sought to combine these two ideas; identify salary support for scholars via the regular hiring needs of an institution, and offer career development and application support like a traditional postbaccalaureate program.  

We developed a new postbaccalaureate program, called Post-baccalaureate Research Opportunity to Promote Equity in Learning (PROPEL), at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) that provides scientific and career development training for postbaccalaureate scholars from historically excluded backgrounds in STEM-M fields with an interest in pursuing a PhD or MD/PhD degree. Our program is distinct from other postbaccalaureate programs in that scholars are hired by individual labs rather than funded centrally by the program. This funding mechanism removes the idea that central funding is necessary to incentivize faculty to train scholars from historically excluded backgrounds and allows the program to scale dynamically according to the needs of the scientific community.  

In the first three years, the PROPEL program accepted all applicants who were 1) employed full-time at UCSF; 2) would meet the suggested eligibility criteria for an NIH Diversity Supplement, whether or not they are funded by one; and 3) expressed an interest in pursuing a PhD or MD/PhD degree, resulting in a 90.6% acceptance rate. Although the length of time a scholar can be in the program is not fixed, the curriculum is designed to be completed in one-two years.  Indeed, between August 2020 to August 2023, the mean length of time in the program was 1.73 years.  

The PROPEL program grew rapidly from six scholars in August 2020 to over 100 by August 2023. During that period, 23 scholars matriculated to PhD or MD/PhD programs, with more expected in future cohorts. Our experience demonstrates the strong demand from both scholars and faculty for programming of this type and describes the feasibility of implementation.  Ongoing studies have been planned to determine the overall efficacy of the program in supporting scholar science identity and resilience in the sciences.

PROPEL: A Scalable Model for Postbaccalaureate Training to Promote Diversity in the Biomedical Workforce

Introduction
The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the majority of people with STEM degrees are
not employed in STEM occupations, and the percentages are especially low for Black and Hispanic people. This could be improved through high-impact practices, including extracurricular and co-curricular experiences that promote career and graduate school readiness, such as research experiences, service learning, internships, co-ops, and participation in professional societies. Participation in extracurricular and co-curricular career development (ECCD) activities promotes: a) retention in STEM majors, b) clarification of career goals and professional identity, and c) development of professional skills, such as communication, teamwork, and leadership. The overarching goal of this research is to describe and compare student and faculty perceptions of the factors that affect participation in ECCD activities. This comparison is important because faculty are often the promoters and sponsors of these activities, and if their perceptions of student motivations are misaligned with students’ actual motivations, this might adversely affect their ability to recruit students. The findings from this study can inform recruitment strategies for ECCD interventions. 
Expectancy value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2002) and social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2008) provide frameworks for understanding student motivation. These theories propose that outcome expectations or task values (the perceptions of what is to be gained or lost by engaging in an activity) are highly predictive of students’ decision-making. Outcome expectations are influenced by students’ perceptions of an activity meeting their short- and long-term goals (utility values), interests (intrinsic values), social and personal identities (attainment values), and costs (including time and social-emotional factors). 

Method
STEM faculty participants (N = 8) were recruited from nine colleges (public and private) in the Southeastern U.S. and included predominantly white institutions and HBCUs. STEM college student participants (N = 44) were recruited through email requests sent by the faculty to students in their STEM courses. These STEM majors were 61% women; 55% Black, 9% Hispanic, 16% White, 9% another race, and 11% did not provide their race. Forty-six percent were in their first or second year of college and 43% were in their third year or higher (11.4% did not respond). Student participants were paid $20 for completing an online survey. Student and faculty online surveys included:
•Two open-ended questions concerning factors that motivate students to participate in activities and factors that present obstacles to participation.
•Rating scales on the degree that specific factors derived from expectancy value and social cognitive career theories would impact participation in ECCD activities (5-pt scale).

A content analysis was conducted on the open-ended responses.

Results
Positive Motivators. Only 9 of the 44 students responding had participated in at least one STEM ECCD activity. Professional societies, such as the Society for Women Engineers, were most common (n = 9), and competition teams, such as Anatomical Scholars Team, were next more common (n = 4). In the open-ended questions, these students indicated that the desire to learn about a profession, gain soft skills, and network (all utility values) motivated their participation. Student (all participants) responses to the rating scales on positive motivators provided further insight. They gave the highest ratings to intrinsic interest in the activity and there being “clear benefits and advantages for my education or career.” In contrast, faculty responses to open-ended questions suggested that extrinsic rewards such as stipends and awards are significant motivators, as well as career support (“the opportunity to make connections leading to internship or employment opportunities”). Faculty responses to rating scales additionally revealed that they believed that social connections (knowing others, belonging) are significant motivators. 

Obstacles. All student participants answered the open-ended question about why students do NOT participate in ECCD activities. The most common reason was time commitment: “Students in STEM majors may not have time for other activities. We try to time manage and in doing that we want to save time for ourselves…” The second most common reason was lack of awareness of the activities: “Personally I have not received any outreach to me pertaining to these activities.” Additionally, a few students expressed concern about social rejection or not liking people in a group: “Often times, students are afraid to put themselves out there in fear of rejection.” Student responses to rating scales suggested that monetary  cost and perceptions that an activity would delay graduation would negatively impact their participation. Faculty responses also indicated that the time commitment and time management skills were obstacles to participation. They opined in the open-ended questions that students did not fully appreciate the long term benefits associated with participation, that they did not “prioritize long term benefit activities over short- term or lower impact activities.” Faculty rating scale responses were consistent with these responses.

Conclusion
Faculty who are responsible for recruiting students for ECCD programs would benefit from having a clearer understanding of the factors that facilitate and deter students from participation. Faculty and students differed in their perceptions of some factors that motivate participation. Students placed greater emphasis on awareness of ECCD activities, intrinsic interests, and the professional development value of ECCD experiences. In contrast, faculty emphasized extrinsic rewards and social connections. Faculty also believed that students were motivated by short-term rewards, rather than the long-term benefits of these activities. Both faculty and students saw time commitment as a major barrier to participation. Future research will investigate how to address student motivational factors in promoting ECCD activities.

Factors Affecting College STEM Major’s Participation in Extra-Curricular & Co-Curricular Activities

Focus of the intervention: Population diversity in the U.S. is increasing. Currently, approximately 40% of persons in the U.S. self-identify as racially diverse. Nearly 35% identify as Black and Hispanic and Latino and Native American. However, only 14.5% of research PhDs are awarded to persons from these and other historically-under-represented groups (HUG). Research has shown conclusively that diverse groups generate diverse and creative approaches to problem-solving. In addition, public trust in either scientifically-generated information or products is stronger when impacted communities are represented in the process and enterprise.  Moreover, the value of the research to one’s self and community are powerful drivers of health and biomedical investigation.   Hence, as the U.S. population becomes more diverse, experts have recognized the need to not also increase the diversity of the biomedical and healthcare workforces, but to also adapt HUG-focused programs to intentionally boost interpersonal skills (e.g. teamwork, empathy, adaptability) and instills a sense of belonging.  

Population and Context: In 2000, the NIH created the PREP program mechanism (R25) to increase biomedical workforce diversity. The UMB STAR-PREP post-baccalaureate (started 2016) was designed to increase URM Scholars’ enrollment into and ultimately completion of Ph.D. and M.D.-Ph.D degrees. A robust selection matrix and process are used to guide input scholar diversity. Selected scholars receive rigorous research and academic immersion in addition to social, professional-development and community-serving program elements to build belonging and identity and, to mitigate imposter syndrome.  The scholars’ orientation ‘boot camp’ bonds them to each other and weaves them into the UMB campus community where they interact with diverse near-peers beginning in summer programs and with the incoming graduate students. The scholars engage in STEM outreach and near-peer mentoring of UR and non-UR scholars in university and community STEM programs ranging from 6th grade to undergraduate pathways. Finally, the scholars seize multiple opportunities to build science communication skills and confidence by presenting their work in campus, regional and national conferences.

Outcomes of the Intervention: In 8 years, of 41 STAR-PREP alumni to date, 32/41 (78%) have ascended to PhD and MD-PhD degree tracks. Five Scholars (5/41, 12%) have ascended to MD, DO and MD-other dual degree tracks. The retention rate in terminal degree programs to date is 100%. Strong cohort bonding and accountability has led to the cohorts having among the highest aggregate grades in a required graduate course. Evaluations demonstrate increased science confidence, competencies and senses of belonging. Tangibles include abstract and article publications, conference presentations and winning of institutional and national research awards.

Relevance to the UI community: STAR-PREP has successfully employed both holistic and individualized components coupled to an intentional programming model that simultaneously reduces self-doubt, creates and instills a sense of belonging and, includes rigorous academic and research immersion. This is increasing HUGs’ advancement to and retention in terminal degree programs in biomedical research and healthcare. Expansion of such programs and programming may help meet workforce diversity goals.

Star-Prep Post-Baccalureate Program Increases Ascension and Retention of Under-Represented Students to PHD MD-PHD and MD-Dual Degree Programs

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) play a pivotal role in supporting the academic success of underrepresented students, particularly in STEM fields. Despite the numerous challenges these institutions face, HBCUs have been among the top producers of African American engineers and scientists. This success is largely attributed to the implementation of holistic academic and nonacademic interventions designed to improve retention and graduation rates.

Supplemental Instruction (SI), a peer-facilitated learning model has been widely adopted to address attrition rates, improve academic outcomes by fostering engagement and reducing dropout rates. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated across various academic disciplines (Bowman, et al., 2021; Dawson, et al, 2014). While widely adopted at Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs), limited research has examined SI’s impact on URM students at HBCUs. This study fills that gap by evaluating the effectiveness of SI at Morgan State University, a doctoral research HBCU with a homogenous population of students, largely from an underrepresented minority (URM) group. 

Peer Supplemental Instruction (SI) Leaders were chosen based on successful completion of the relevant course and were trained according to guidelines from the International Center for Supplemental Instruction at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. The training emphasized facilitation techniques to enhance learning and the creation of collaborative, active learning activities. An SI Leader was assigned to a course, attended all lectures, met weekly with instructors to identify challenging concepts, developed collaborative activities and led a weekly one-hour SI sessions in a voluntary and anonymous, fostering a non-punitive environment.

Data from 104 Introductory STEM courses over five semesters (Spring 2020, Fall 2021, Spring 2021, Fall 2021, Spring 2022), involving over 2,700 grades from Introductory Biology, Chemistry, and Mathematical Analysis courses. Statistical analyses were used to compare the academic performance of students in courses with embedded SI Leaders against those courses that did not. The analyses employed various statistical methods, including aggregated T-tests for mean grade comparisons, disaggregated T-tests for individual courses, non-parametric tests for grade distribution differences, and chi-squared tests for examining grade tendencies. The study aimed to determine whether SI participation correlated with improved grades and reduced rates of D, F, and withdrawals (DFW), particularly among African American students in STEM fields.

Results revealed that SI positively influenced grade distribution, particularly for students at risk of earning lower grades. The study found that while the overall number of passing grades did not significantly change, the grade distribution showed a positive shift in C and D grades. This indicates that SI was particularly effective for students on the borderline between passing and failing, helping them to achieve better outcomes. High-achieving students, who earned grades like As, likely succeeded regardless of the instructional method. 

The significance of the findings lies in the demonstration that Supplemental Instruction (SI) is particularly effective at improving outcomes for students who are at risk of failing or struggling in introductory STEM courses. While high-achieving students were less affected, the targeted impact on lower-performing students highlights SI's ability to address educational equity, especially for underrepresented minority (URM) students in STEM fields at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). The findings suggest that similar approaches could help bridge performance gaps, improve retention, and support the success of students who might otherwise struggle in their academic pursuits. Supported by NSF grant 1912170.

Evaluating the Impact of Peer Supplemental Instruction on STEM Course Outcomes at an HBCU: A Five-Semester Study at Morgan State University

Led by the UW’s Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and Technology (DO-IT) Center and Center for Neurotechnology (CNT), the goal of NNL is to enhance student interest in and skills to successfully pursue STEM fields, as well as empower educators to serve these students more effectively. Grounded in theory and research, the project takes a student-centered approach that embraces cutting-edge neuroscience, the social model of disability, social justice education, disability as a diversity issue, universal design, and a multi-faceted view of student engagement and retention.

Project strategies include hands-on and technology-rich activities, team-building, problem-solving, communities of engagement, and mentoring activities for neurodiverse students (ages 16-21); professional development for educators; and resources for multiple stakeholders. NNL applies lessons learned in earlier efforts to develop and implement engaging, intrinsically motivating, potentially transformative content that will increase the knowledge and skills of neurodiverse students and ultimately build capacity within formal and informal academic settings to motivate these students to pursue neuroscience and, more broadly, STEM fields. 

Ongoing project activities for students include:

Neuroscience Summer Study Program. Each year student participants will engage in a ten-day program. Neuroscience summer study activities include hands-on, inquiry-based activities and cooperative learning. Students participate in neuroscience activities as well as intentional activities designed to practice skill building related to challenges faced by neurodiverse students. More advanced neurodiverse college students will perform mentoring roles, too, giving both mentor and mentee experiences that will benefit them as they progress in college and toward careers. 

Additional Activities for Neurodiverse Students. Throughout the year, neurodiverse students will be invited to participate in field trips, campus events, social gatherings, job shadows, information interviews, presentations, and leadership events. Students, staff, and mentors will share experiences about writing resumes, networking with others, developing an “elevator pitch” introduction of themselves, interviewing with potential employers, using professional networking tools, and developing and practicing study skills. These sessions will provide opportunities to practice skills and share strategies for managing challenges. 

Online Engagement, Mentoring, and Support. Besides communicating with fellow project participants and mentors, students join a larger, existing online community of students with disabilities, where they learn about the availability of scholarships, STEM-related industry and research internships, college and career transition events and conferences, and receive advice from mentors and staff regarding pursuing degrees and careers in neuroscience and other STEM fields. 

1-1 support. All participants are offered 1-1 engagement opportunities designed to help students address challenges related to attention, organization, time management, listening skills, sensory perception, and speed of processing. Some sessions may include the involvement of a neurodiverse peer-mentor.

Ongoing project activities for other stakeholders include:

Online Community of Practice (CoP). An online STEM educators CoP engages members who are interested in discussing and sharing inclusive teaching practices in STEM. CoP members:
•share perspectives, concerns, expertise, strategies, and resources for effectively teaching neuroscience and STEM-related content to neurodiverse students and motivating students to pursue careers in these fields;
•share strategies for making STEM, including neuroscience, content accessible to students with disabilities;
•share neuroscience and STEM-related activities and resources for students and practitioners; 
•provide insights for project publications, including Knowledge Base articles;
•suggest how project materials and results might be disseminated to teachers and other stakeholders;
•explore how to incorporate disability and UD topics into neuroscience and STEM-related courses; and
•promote replication of evidence-based practices developed in NNL.

Capacity Building Institutes (CBIs). CBIs will focus on increasing the success of neurodiverse learners in academic courses and employment. Attendees will include secondary and college educators of neuroscience and related STEM courses, as well as school administrators, pre-service teachers, guidance counselors, employers, service providers, and researchers. Participants will be invited to join DO-IT’s CoP for further discussion. CBI proceedings will be shared on the project website, through social media, and at conferences to inform educators, policy makers, and NSF program officers and project directors about promising practices.

Webinars and Conferences. Project staff will conduct webinars and conference sessions focused on topics such as how to apply universal design to make their curricula, computers and labs, distance learning, and web resources welcoming and accessible to all students. The service selected for delivery of these trainings will be one that embraces the principles of UD and is fully accessible to all participants, including those who are blind or physically unable to use a computer mouse. All web-based trainings will be live captioned for deaf or hard of hearing participants.

In addition to project evaluation the research team tests the project's expected outcome: interest in neuroscience, and more broadly, STEM-related careers among neurodiverse students will increase as they join a community of neurodiverse learners engaged in interesting and socially relevant topics in neuroscience while building skills to manage challenges in academic and workplace settings typical of neurodiverse individuals. NNL employs Type 2: Early-Stage or Exploratory Research as described in the Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development. As such, the research provides evidence of the promise (or lack thereof) of project interventions and, as stated in the Guidelines, examine “relationships among important constructs in education and learning to establish logical connections that may form the basis for future interventions or strategies to improve education outcomes.” 

Following are the research questions. They were derived from the theoretical and empirical rationale for the study:
1.What experiences effectively and efficiently support gains in knowledge of, interest in, and skills in pursuing neuroscience and/or STEM fields of neurodiverse high school and college students? 
a.Do project activities affect students' opinions about neuroscience and STEM fields? 
b.Do project activities affect students’ interest in pursuing neuroscience- or STEM-related careers? 
c.Do project interventions affect students’ skills in managing challenges typical of neurodiverse individuals? 
d.Is the interest of neurodiverse students in neuroscience, and more broadly, STEM-related careers associated with their skills related to social interactions, ability to self-advocate, and executive functioning skills?
e.Do these interventions affect students’ confidence in their ability to succeed in their chosen career, including neuroscience or other STEM-related careers?
f.Does interest in neuroscience, and more broadly, STEM-related careers among neurodiverse students increase over the summer study week? Over the subsequent months and years of involvement in NNL?
g.How do students’ background factors (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, type of disability) affect the impact of the interventions?
2.What is the impact of being part of a community of peer scholars on the neurodiverse students’ interest in, commitment to, and confidence in the ability to pursue neuroscience or other STEM-related education and careers?
3.How can peers, mentors, educators, and parents support the development of skills neurodiverse students often need to develop in order to manage typical challenges faced in academic and work settings? 
4.How can peers, mentors, educators, and parents support participants’ interest and persistence in neuroscience and STEM fields? 

This research aims to establish initial connections between interventions and outcomes by searching for associations between learning outcomes and malleable factors and intervention characteristics and factors that may mediate or moderate the relationship between learning outcomes and malleable factors. The connections discovered will be correlational and the results will guide the next iteration of the project activities and inform a decision about moving forward with a larger impact study in a future project.

This poster will share the findings to date and highlight lessons learned along the way.

Neuroscience for Neurodiverse Learners: Enhancing Student Interest in Pursuing STEM

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) trainings have come under fire in recent years, from lawmakers who oppose them for political reasons, from employees who argue that they are all talk and no action, and from organizational and behavioral scientists, whose research consistently shows that non-scientific DEI trainings either do nothing or make problems worse. Despite these widespread failures, there is considerable reason for hope that effective, meaningful DEI efforts can be developed, if we rely on scientific models of cognitive-behavioral and organizational change. One approach in particular, the bias habit-breaking training, has 16 years of experimental evidence demonstrating its widespread, long-lasting impact. Based in cognitive-behavioral science, this training approach empowers people to become impactful, autonomous agents of change, both within their own minds and behavior and in the social institutions they inhabit. 
This poster will provide an overview of the design and scientific framework of the bias habit-breaking training. It will then review highlights from the 16 years of research testing the training, which has shown its effectiveness to empower people to 1) reduce bias in their thoughts and behaviors, 2) create inclusion by improving their organizational climate and publicly speaking out against bias and prejudice, and 3) promote equity by identifying and correcting inequitable policies, increasing hiring of members of underrepresented groups, and reducing achievement gaps in educational settings. Lastly, it will provide links to access to a variety of free evidence-based DEI resources that build on the bias habit-breaking training, to help others in their efforts to champion impactful DEI in their own lives and organizations.
In contrast to the considerable despair and pessimism around DEI efforts, the bias habit-breaking training and other evidence-based interventions highlight considerable reasons for hope and optimism. Behavioral and organizational sciences can help individuals and institutions make meaningful, long-lasting progress on DEI outcomes.

Empowering Agents of Change to Reduce Bias, Create Inclusion, and Promote Equity: 16 Years of the Bias Habit-Breaking Training

INTRODUCTION: Indigenous/Native Americans remain highly underrepresented in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields. Despite the recent emphasis on diversity in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields (Valantine & Collins, 2015), Indigenous people continue to be underrepresented in educational systems and the workforce. For example, while American Indians or Alaska Natives make up 0.8% of the U.S. population, they represented only about 0.4% of students graduating with a bachelor's degree in Science and Engineering (S&E) in 2019 (NCSES, 2021).  Their underrepresentation may be due, in part, to the incongruity between personally valued goals (e.g., the communal goal of “giving back” to one’s community or the agentic goal of “independence”) and opportunities to satisfy those goals in STEM careers. 

Goal congruity theory (GCT) is rooted in the expectancy-value theoretical framework, which explains individuals’ decisions regarding whether to engage with roles as a function of their expectations about the role and their values (Diekman et al., 2020). Goal congruity theory posits that individuals' attitudes towards a social role (e.g., being a scientist) are influenced by the communal/agentic goal affordances associated with that role and the congruity between those affordances and personally valued goals. Within GCT, two categories of goals are relevant: communal and agentic goals. Communal goals are oriented toward collaboration and assisting others, while agentic goals prioritize personal advancement and recognition (Judd et al., 2005). When individuals find that the goal affordances do not align with their goal endorsements, they experience a sense of goal incongruity. 

Research indicates that perceived communal opportunities in STEM fields increase interest and persistence, especially among underrepresented groups (Belanger et al., 2017; Thoman et al., 2015). However, the impact of goal incongruity (mismatch between expectations and valued goals) on STEM outcomes is less consistent, and evidence regarding the effect of goal incongruity has primarily been collected from non-Indigenous populations. Recent advancements in goal congruity research have begun to uncover the mechanisms underlying this influence. Belanger et al. (2020) introduced a role-based belonging model that suggests belongingness mediates the relationship between communal affordances and interest in STEM roles. Unfortunately, aside from a handful of efforts (e.g., Belanger et al., 2020), there have been relatively few longitudinal designs in both observational and experimental research, which are crucial for assessing the long-term and mediated impacts of goal affordances and congruity.
In summary, the growing GCT literature points to the potentially powerful influence of goal affordances and congruity on STEM-related outcomes for some. That is, while some research indicates that communal goals hold particular significance for students from underrepresented groups in STEM (e.g., Hispanic, African American, etc.), most studies have been conducted with White middle-class STEM students (e.g., Diekman et al., 2011; Allen et al., 2015), which limits generalizability to other demographic groups. Further, few studies have examined the links between goal affordance and congruity, role-based belonging, and well-being among Indigenous students who face systemic challenges to their entry into STEM careers.

As one of the least represented groups in STEM, Indigenous students frequently report feelings of social isolation and disconnection within predominantly White fields, negatively affecting their motivation to continue. Descriptive and qualitative studies have shown that Indigenous students value a learning environment that affirms and respects their culture, where Native-specific knowledge and practices are appreciated (Tachine et al., 2017; Stevens et al., 2016). For Indigenous college students in STEM, the concept of 'giving back' to their communities is particularly significant in their educational and career pursuits. Despite strongly valuing communal goal affordances in STEM roles, students continuously experienced frustration in achieving these goals due to perceived barriers and challenges (Page-Reeves et al., 2019). Consequently, Indigenous students facing a greater perceived incongruity between their cultural values and their learning environments are more likely to experience academic stress compared to their peers (Chee et al., 2019). Thus, research and theory can incorporate Indigenous concepts and ways of knowing to improve understanding of the opportunities and strengths through which students from these communities integrate into STEM fields.

The current study addressed several gaps in the GCT literature by longitudinally assessing the influence of communal and agentic goal affordances and congruity on STEM persistence and well-being outcomes in a national sample of Indigenous undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdocs pursuing STEM degrees and careers. The present study examines the following research questions.

RQ1: How do perceived communal affordances of STEM roles relate to later role outcomes among Indigenous STEM students?
RQ2:  How does incongruity between communal affordance and endorsement relate to later role outcomes among Indigenous STEM students?
RQ3: How do perceived agentic affordance of STEM roles relate to later role outcomes among Indigenous STEM students?
RQ4: How does incongruity between agentic affordance and endorsement relate to later role outcomes among Indigenous STEM students? 
RQ5: Is the relationship between prior goal affordances or incongruity and future role outcomes mediated by role-based belonging?

METHODOLOGY: This longitudinal research study followed Indigenous people (N = 154) pursuing STEM degrees/careers to investigate the direct and indirect effects of perceived communal/agentic goal affordances in STEM careers and incongruity (Time-2) on intentions to persist and personal well-being (Time-3) through a sense of belonging in their STEM field (Time-2), controlling for baseline (Time-1). 

RESULTS: Both communal and agentic goal affordances positively influenced persistence intentions through belonging. By contrast, agentic goal incongruity negatively influenced persistence intentions through belonging, but communal goal incongruity did not. Surprisingly, we found no significant results for well-being.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Supporting Indigenous students in STEM is of paramount importance. Based on GCT, goal affordances of STEM roles and congruity between goal affordances and personally valued goals are crucial to fostering interest and positive attitudes toward STEM careers (Diekman et al., 2020). Despite this, existing literature, predominantly centered on white samples, consisted of certain constraints in understanding the nuance of these relationships. The analysis reveals that Indigenous students benefit significantly from the perception that STEM roles can satisfy communal and agentic goals, thereby nurturing a stronger sense of belonging and a more pronounced intention to engage in STEM careers. Additionally, our findings suggest that a significant discrepancy between the students’ perceived affordances for agentic goals, but not communal goals and personal values, leads to students feeling lower feelings of belonging and reduced persistence intentions to persist in STEM. Our findings underscore the significance of supporting roles and environments that facilitate the fulfillment of communal and agentic goals and point to the complexity of the goal-pursuit process among Indigenous populations.

Navigating STEM Pathways: Belonging Mediates the Impact of Goal Congruity on Persistence (but not Well-being) Among Indigenous Students

Focus of the Study: Despite institutional efforts, faculty diversity has remained unchanged for decades. University systems provide an existing network of collaborating institutions that regularly engage in change-efforts in concert (Martin et al., 2022), and thus we hypothesized a coordinated program to diversify the faculty may be effective. Here we report on the five year impacts of an NSF-funded Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) PROMISE Academy Alliance, a consortium within the University System of Maryland (USM) collaborating to develop, implement and disseminate a unique postdoc-to-faculty conversion model (Cresiski et al., 2022). The initiative was piloted with five participating institutions within the USM, including teaching-focused institutions, comprehensive universities, research institutions, and professional schools. Methodology and Measures Used: Research through focus groups, meeting observations, focus groups and document review from internal and external evaluators have yielded significant quantitative and qualitative data about the impacts of the PROMISE Academy. The impacts of the AGEP PROMISE Academy Alliance are multifaceted, including positive outcomes on participating fellows and documented improvements to policy and practice across all participating institutions and at the university system office itself. Illustrative questions/issues to be discussed in the open-ended roundtable: What are some potential benefits and challenges in implementing a collaborative program across different institutional types (e.g., research universities, HBCUs, rural colleges, predominantly undergraduate institutions)? How can these challenges be addressed? What histories and lenses should be considered when forging such partnerships? When coordinating efforts across campuses, especially ones that may have long timelines, what benchmarking measures can be used to document incremental change (i.e. practice change prior to policy change)? What facilitates and hinders effective change efforts from one campus being scaled to other campuses regionally? Nationally?

Coordinating Change: Lessons from a Multi-Campus Faculty Diversity Initiative

The number of U.S. citizens from minority groups who have earned doctorates in science and engineering has increased over the past decade; however, minorities continue to represent a small proportion of the scientists and engineers in the United States (1, 2). In addition, a commonly identified barrier to underrepresented populations is limited or inadequate integration into the scientific communities that train them (3). Undergraduates from historically marginalized communities often lack significant exposure to research and professional development, limiting both their interest and competitiveness as applicants to PhD programs in biomedical science. The UAB Blazer BRAIN Summer Research  Program is a summer research experience for undergraduates (REU) which addresses the need to broaden participation in neuroscience-themed PhD programs, by promoting a sense of belonging for students in underserved communities. Accordingly, success for the UAB Blazer BRAIN Program targets a minimum 60% acceptance rate of participants to PhD programs in biomedical science. Blazer BRAIN Scholars, all of whom. identify as underrepresented, spend eight weeks at UAB in labs of their research mentors, completing hypothesis-driven, neuroscience-themed projects. Complementing our Scholars’ immersive research experiences are several opportunities to build confidence in writing and presenting skills, as well as many community building activities to promote their sense of belonging at UAB’s vast biomedical research campus. After their eight-week experience at UAB, our Scholars are funded to attend and present at the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minoritized Scientists (ABRCMS) meeting, and additionally are invited to serve as “Alumni” Mentors to help onboard future cohorts of Scholars. UAB Blazer BRAIN represents an innovative partnership with five HBCUs in the state of Alabama; we reserve seats for their qualified student applicants, thus facilitating a pipeline between our respective institutions. An additional innovative feature of Blazer BRAIN is our partnership with the NIH-funded Roadmap Scholars R25 program, which recruits PhD students from historically marginalized communities for training in neuroscience. Roadmap Scholars serve as “near-peer” aspirational mentors or RAMs for our Blazer BRAIN Scholars. RAMs assist Blazer BRAIN Scholars in preparing abstracts and posters for research presentations and provide feedback for their end of summer oral presentations. RAMs also run the Blazer BRAIN journal club, to help Scholars learn how to read and critically review scientific literature. Our near-peer mentoring program allows Scholars to “see themselves” as future graduate students, while providing future mentors with leadership and mentoring training. This summer we are hosting our third cohort of we hosted our first cohort of Blazer BRAIN Scholars, ten undergraduates hailing from several different institutions primarily throughout the southeast, including our HBCU partner institutions. Results of prior evaluations indicated the following: Scholars had an overwhelmingly positive experience; they gained invaluable research skills and professional development; they had a better understanding of careers in biomedical research; and they expressed greater interest for careers in biomedical research. Being in our third year, we have also identified opportunities for improving our Program, including interventions designed to enhance effective engagement with our HBCU partners, and changes to our survey questions designed to more effectively evaluate our Scholars’ confidence, readiness, and sense of belonging in biomedical science. In summary, the Blazer BRAIN summer REU employs innovative strategies to promote the success of our Scholars and our HBCU partner institutions. Through analysis of our success and prospective reflection, we have identified and implemented targeted interventions to further improve the success of our Scholars and in turn our Program.

Mid-Point Assessment of Successes and Opportunities for Improvement of a Five-Year NIH-funded Summer Research Program to Broaden Representation and Inclusion in Neuroscience

In this cross-institutional, multidisciplinary collaboration, we leverage ten years of knowledge, expertise, and National Institutes of Health Diversity Program Consortium Funding (NIH-DPC) resources and experiences to identify mission-critical practices and considerations in developing undergraduate research infrastructure. Authentic engagement in research through mentored undergraduate research experiences (UREs) has been shown to increase students' research knowledge and skills, science identity, academic performance, persistence, graduation rates, postgraduate interests, degrees, and career pathways (Eagan et al., 2013). UREs are a proven high-impact practice that broadens participation in STEMM, particularly for individuals from underrepresented groups (URGs), such as ethnic minorities, women, and first-generation college students (Hernandez et al., 2018). This study adds to the literature on creating excellence in undergraduate research (Hensel, 2012; NASEM, 2020) by increasing understanding of exactly how to develop research infrastructure at teaching-intensive institutions. A multiple case study approach involving six of the ten BUilding Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) sites identifies mission-critical practices and considerations that either build or break the momentum of research infrastructure development. Core factors for accelerating research infrastructure development efforts include an array of foundational supports, continuing resources, institutional policies and procedures, and partnerships. Eighteen momentum builder domains are discussed, spread across the four core factors. Additionally, nine momentum breakers, or commonly experienced events that serve to dismantle or hinder research infrastructure development, such as siloed work and insufficient time for research, are described. 

After ten transformative BUILD Initiative years, progress is evident in the institutions’ improved Carnegie Classification ratings, new buildings, and materials, publication rates, and return on investment through new grant monies. Hundreds of faculty have been trained, and thousands of students have participated in new UREs. There is potential for high transferability of approaches, activities, and mission-critical practices and considerations in other settings. There are many benefits to increasing universities’ research capacity and institutionalizing undergraduate research, including enriching curriculum, fostering creative and dynamic learning environments, facilitating opportunities for interdisciplinary research collaborations, and increasing opportunities for meaningful cross-campus discussions on curricula and pedagogy (Malachowski et al., 2015). The Undergraduate Research Infrastructure Development - Momentum Builders and Breakers Conceptual Framework highlights key institutional development practices and considerations that may interest higher education leadership, funders, and grantees aiming to broaden participation in STEMM. Leveraging ten years of lessons learned, we conclude with seven key recommendations as guidance for institutions seeking to increase their research capacity.

Unpacking Recommendations for Developing Undergraduate Research Infrastructure: Leveraging  Ten Years of Lessons Learned from the Diversity Program Consortium

Premium content

Downloads

Next from 2025 Understanding Interventions Annual Conference

PROPEL: A Scalable Model for Postbaccalaureate Training to Promote Diversity in the Biomedical Workforce

Similar lecture

Supporting STEM students through remote interdisciplinary collaboration in undergraduate research