United States

Time has long passed for Black and Latinx elementary youth to be seen as scientists, designers, community planners, and activists. The opportunity for them to be seen as such is rare and when it is afforded to Black and Latinx youth, it is almost exclusively for high school youth. At STEM to the Future, we start this process with elementary youth showing them that age isn’t a prerequisite for creating change. In the summer of 2020, we piloted our Brick by Brick programs, which are student-led initiatives where the students work together to decide on and execute their own projects in the community. They are guided through the process of (1) creating a clear vision for the world they want and deserve and (2) using STEAM to develop projects that support their vision, and (3) connecting with the community and grassroots organizations to implement the projects.Brick by Brick creates a space for students to collaborate with each other and with the community to use STEAM to solve real problems, which they identify themselves in collaboration with the community. Our assumption is students will be more likely to be invested in their communities as they mature if they see the meaningful change they are able to create in their neighborhoods at a young age. We’re cultivating our youth so that are able to appropriate technology and use in the fight for their freedom. You’ll see how girls and non-binary youth in our Build’Em Up Robotics program used coding and robotics to deliver PPE to elders in their communities and see how students in our Building Healthy Communities program are trsting different ways to bring food justice to South Central, Los Angeles. 
Education should be reflective of the world that you live in and seeks to support you in addressing injustice 


13th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2021

Creating STEAM Student Led Learning Experiences Rooted in Justice and Identity

self-efficacy

imsd

responsive

cultrally

mentoring

Truth and Responsibility
“Truth and Responsibility” is a call to reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment. The imperative to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and circulate invites us to reflect on our responsibility in reckoning with disciplinary histories, harms, and possibilities. To whom are we giving evidence and toward what ends? For whom are we writing? To whom are we accountable, and in what ways? We are thrilled to announce the theme of the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting to be held in Baltimore, MD: Truth and Responsibility.

Many consider anthropology to be a holistic social science dedicated to cross-cultural understanding as a way to reduce bigotry and more fully comprehend “what it means to be human.” Others push against this readily circulated origin story, arguing that “human” remains a highly contested, political category—evident as the presumed set of rights and protections associated with the “human” continue to be stripped away violently in the communities in which some of us live and work. Which violent histories and epistemologies must anthropologists take responsibility for in telling truth(s) about the discipline’s development? How do the dual histories of settler colonialism and slavery continue to influence anthropological thought and practices? In these political times, how can anthropologists throughout the globe work to secure a capacious, progressive vision of the human? How might movements for anti-racism, decoloniality, queer liberation, and healing such as #BlackLivesMatter, #ProtectMaunaKea, and #MeToo push a future anthropology out of the ashes of the anthropological past? Finally, what are the limits and possibilities of the anthropological imagination?

Across subfields, we find truths in patterns of human behavior, language, evolution, and cultural worlds. Industry-positioned anthropologists do this by extending the boundaries of the discipline not as an administrative solution to job shortages but as a source of intervention and knowledge production. Increasingly, anthropologists who make use of the scientific method question how status and identity help to decide which facts come to represent truth. How might quantitative researchers use our methods to identify patterned truths, and what responsibility do we hold in challenging conventional wisdom about these patterns? What responsibility do we have to both our colleagues and larger publics, to push toward increased transparency and ethical grounding in our data collection, analysis, and presentation?

Pedagogy is a key medium for the communication of anthropological truths. Which (and whose) truths are foregrounded in our curricula? What are the possibilities for a liberatory pedagogy in a precarious, “post-truth” era? Conferences, museums, organizing spaces, and classrooms are sites where pedagogy and various forms of communication can help us interrogate the performativity of truth. How might anthropologists conceive of truth performances? Might visual, aural, and choreographic performances during AAA sessions offer anthropologists alternative genres for truth-telling and truth-making that provoke discussions about responsibility?

In accordance with the urgency of the year’s theme, the questions posed in this call for papers do not have easy answers. The hope is that those who submit proposals will take up these questions and engage in collective thinking and imagining about the truths we hold, the truths we challenge, and the responsibilities we bear in co-creating a free and more equitable world. All panel proposals should have a statement about how the panel has incorporated the goals of equity, diversity, and inclusion, and/or analysis of power.

Executive Session proposals have already been selected and speak directly to the theme “Truth and Responsibility.” To practice the critical reflexivity this call for papers invites, we asked that Executive Session submissions explicitly address the diversity of session participants, such as organizational/institutional affiliation, career stage, race, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, class, religion, national identity, and gender. Proposals for Executive Sessions that demonstrated a commitment to equity and inclusion and/or a clear analysis of power (i.e. anti-imperialist, anti-white supremacist, decolonial, anti-ableist, feminist, anti-transphobic, anti-xenophobic, etc) were given priority. We are excited to be in conversation with residents of the Baltimore region and look forward to the discussions, performances, and actions generated by the dynamic group of anthropologists attending the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting.

AAA Annual Meeting 2021

“Truth and Responsibility” is a call to reimagine anthropology to meet the demands of the present moment. The imperative to bear witness, take action, and be held accountable to the truths we write and circulate invites us to reflect on our responsibility in reckoning with disciplinary histories, harms, and possibilities. To whom are we giving evidence and toward what ends? For whom are we writing? To whom are we accountable, and in what ways? We are thrilled to announce the theme of the 2021 AAA Annual Meeting to be held in Baltimore, MD: Truth and Responsibility.

poster

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.

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. The Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), through Targeted Infusion Projects (TIPs), provides support to achieve short-term, well-defined goals to improve undergraduate STEM education. In the current TIP at Xavier University of Louisiana (XULA), two freshman lab courses have been redesigned as Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs). Merits of early research experiences are well documented (Dolan, 2016), yet fewer than 10% of XULA Biology freshmen have research opportunities in their first year. The XULA TIP aims at bridging this gap by infusing two authentic research projects in two foundational labs in Biology. The first, the ‘Yeast ORFan’ project, in collaboration with Juanita College, PA, aims at studying yeast ‘ORFans’ (genes of unknown function). The second, in collaboration with the USDA SRRC, LA, is centered on the phenotypic and genotypic characterization of an Aspergillus (fungal mold) species known to damage food crops. Although CUREs are gaining attention for their ability to offer research opportunities in a classroom setting (Dolan, 2016), few undergraduate minority-serving institutions have established CUREs as part of their curricula. There is, therefore, a great need to study CUREs and their impacts on underrepresented minority (URMs) students’ attitudes towards Biology, learning, retention, and their desire to pursue careers in STEM in general. The XULA CURE infusion project is the first of its kind at an HBCU (XULA) and the results of this intervention/newer way of teaching will enhance our knowledge in the area of science education.
Methods. Two established courses (Biol 1210L and Biol 1220L), meeting once/week for 1 credit hour and required for all Biology majors, were redesigned as CUREs. The student population consisted of ~ 240 students per semester; ~ 85% were URMs and ~ 70% were female. The overarching goal was to introduce students to scientific competencies using interdisciplinary concepts and ‘do-able’, real-life research projects with the above-mentioned yeast and mold as model systems. Data were collected by instructors in the form of student feedback, class participation, assignments, in-class computer work and the application of knowledge in lab experiments and on quizzes. Data were also collected by the external evaluator using assessments such as the Biological Experimental Design Concept Inventory (BEDCI, Deane et al., 2014) and the ‘Science Motivation Questionnaire’ (Glynn et al., 2011).
Results. In year one (Fall 2019-Spring 2020), only the Fall 2019 semester was 100% in person since these were ‘normal’, pre-COVID-19 pandemic conditions and students gained research experience with the yeast ORFan project. Instructors noted early on that, although students enjoyed the flexible format of hands-on lab work combined with data analysis, etc., the weekly two hour session did not provide enough time to teach lab skills and research-related scientific content, allow students to practice, learn troubleshooting, reflect on experimental design, conduct experiments, record results and understand their significance. Nevertheless, the combined hard work of both the CURE faculty and students demonstrated a pattern of improved academic performance on the four common (identical) quizzes. For example, in four sections taught by the same instructor, students in one section consistently underperformed at the start of the semester (on Quizzes 1 and 2), but their scores improved steadily until, by Quiz 4, their scores were indistinguishable from those of the students in other sections (unpublished data). Students also were evaluated on lab skills, experimental work, and group presentations. Lastly, based on the external evaluator’s analysis, students showed gains in four of the five assessed areas of biology motivation (intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, self-determination, and career motivation, unpublished data). In mid-March, 2020, the threat of COVID-19 caused the University to shut down overnight. Students were forced to leave, and some had no place to live. Many students and faculty lost their loved ones or became infected with the virus. The remaining weeks of the Spring 2020 semester were taught exclusively online; instructors conducted Zoom class meetings while developing a completely new style of teaching and communicating. Fortunately, since the courses were designed to focus on many lab skills early on, the online transition, while not optimal, still allowed for about 75-80% of the projects to be covered. Both year two semesters (Fall 2020-Spring 2021) were taught as ‘hybrid’ courses (at least 50% in person) with extremely strict COVID-19 guidelines. The XULA team developed novel strategies, including preparing in-house videos for the group that was on ‘Zoom’ to study, while the other group was in the lab. At the time that this abstract was submitted (May 2021), year two had just ended. All of our strategies, results, and outcomes will be discussed during the conference workshop or poster session. 
Conclusions and Discussion. Preliminary analysis of year two suggests that while students appreciated the efforts of the CURE team during the COVID-19 pandemic, their morale overall was down. Our students were used to seeing their instructors and advisors in person. While the hybrid model is better than being all online, most students prefer in person learning. Some have confessed that they tend to get lazy and not pay attention since Zoom recordings can be made available. However, things are looking up and XULA plans to move back to all in person instruction. Year one results have demonstrated positive trends in most evaluative areas and year three (Fall 2021-Spring 2022) should provide even more insights. In conclusion, our working hypothesis remains that providing meaningful research experiences early on to all URM Biology majors can positively impact their self-confidence and desire to stay in STEM. Findings from our study will also advance the understanding of this type of intervention and provide a roadmap for other minority-serving institutions who might want to implement it. 
Acknowledgments. 
NSF HBCU-UP TIP Program [Award Number 1912437, P.I. Shubha K. Ireland (SKI)].
The Xavier Eminent Scholar XXXVIII Professorship to SKI (Louisiana Board of Regents supported).
Dr. Jill Keeney, Biology, Juniata College, PA 16652 (collaborator/guide, the yeast ORFan project).
Dr. Jeff Cary and scientists at the USDA, SRRC, LA 70124 (collaborators/guides, the Aspergillus project).
References. 
Deane, T., Nomme, K., Jeffery, E., Pollock, C. & Birol, G. (2014). Development of the Biological Experimental Design Concept Inventory (BEDCI), CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13, 540-551. doi: 10.1187/cbe.13-11-0218 
Dolan, E. L. (2016). Course-based Undergraduate Research Experiences: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Paper commissioned for the Committee on Strengthening Research Experiences for Undergraduate STEM Students. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Board on Life Sciences, Division of Earth and Life Studies. 
Glynn, S. M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N. & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Science Motivation Questionnaire II: Validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1159-1176. 


Research Experiences in Classroom and their Impacts on Biology Freshmen at an HBCU 



The Continuing Umbrella of Research Experience (CURE) is a National Cancer Institute funded research training and career-development initiative that focuses on sustaining the pipeline of students from underrepresented groups in the biomedical sciences. The UMB CURE Program is a groundbreaking year-round pipeline program that prepares sixth- to 12th-grade students in West Baltimore for competitive and rewarding research, STEM, and health care career opportunities. 

UMB CURE provides holistic services to scholars and families to ensure their success. The program incorporates hands-on STEM activities and STEM curriculum to further develop scholar interest in STEM fields and careers. Mentorship, socio-emotional support, resource referrals, and academic support consistute parts of the holistic services that UMB CURE provides to scholars and families. 

Our inaugural cohort is moving into their senior year in Fall 2021.

Enhancing the STEM and Health Care Pipeline

Introduction: The lack of diversity among faculty at universities and medical schools in the United States is a matter of growing concern. At universities in the US, underrepresented minority (URM) researchers make up a mere 3.5% of the faculty in the life sciences and just 6.3% of the faculty in basic science departments at medical schools (Lambert et al., 2020). Women also remain underrepresented, accounting for only 39% of the faculty in the life sciences at universities and 35% of the faculty in basic science departments at medical schools (Association of American Medical Colleges, 2017; National Science Foundation, 2019). We hypothesize that there are a significant number of postdoctoral researchers with aspirations of becoming faculty members in academia, but many seek nonacademic careers due to uncharacterized influences. 

Methods: Based on psycho-social theories for career development and motivation, we developed and conducted a survey to examine the factors that influence commitment to or divergence from conventional academic research careers with 1284 biomedical postdocs across the United States. To further elucidate the benefits, challenges, and strategies for pursuing an academic career, 994 responses were qualitatively analyzed using both content and thematic analyses. 177 unique codes, 20 categories, and 10 subthemes emerged from the data and were generalized into two thematic areas: Life in Academia and Strategies for Success.

Results: We reveal four main outcomes that were largely undefined in the field. (1) The first two years of postdoctoral training are pivotal in the retention of women and URM postdocs in the academic research pipeline. (2) The likelihood of biomedical postdocs choosing an academic research career increases as financial security, mentorship from their PI and their sense of self-worth increase. (3) Unlike their colleagues, many URM postdocs do not expect to associate with the people that they value most in a research-intensive faculty position. (4) We also find that female postdocs reported lower research self-efficacy (belief in research abilities) and lower outcome expectations (belief in the outcomes of research efforts) than men, which also significantly predicts first-author publication rates. 

Conclusions and Discussion: Multiple factors are responsible for URM and female postdocs not choosing to pursue careers in academic research, including the low expectation of finding people of similar background or like-values in academia. For women, lower self-efficacy and outcome expectations compared to their male counterparts were strong predictors for choosing non-academic careers. Interventions addressing such factors in the early stages of postdoctoral training may prevent attrition of underrepresented groups. For advisors and institutions, this work provides a unique perspective from postdoctoral scholars on elements of the academic training path that can be improved to increase retention, career satisfaction, and preparation for the scientific workforce.

Acknowledgements: We acknowledge the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (Award Number UL1TR002384) for support.

Factors that affect postdoctoral trainee persistence in academia

Introduction. The focus of the STEM Bridges Across Eastern Queens project intervention is the redesign of introductory STEM courses with the goal of increasing retention in STEM of under-represented minority students. A primary outcome is identifying implementation fidelity related to student academic performance. In the absence of treatment fidelity data, it is impossible to know the true cause of both positive and negative outcomes. Further, continued and modified interventions in response to positive outcomes is hindered by lack of fidelity data. According to a 2019 review of the implementation fidelity literature (Hill & Erickson, 2019), there are at least three types of fidelity: structural, process, and dose. Structural fidelity refers to implementation adherence to factors such as staffing levels and frequency of contact, while process fidelity relates to provider-client interactions as well as client to client interactions (O’Donnell, 2008). Dose fidelity specifies the extent to which an intervention program was ultimately available to those who were meant to implement it (Dusenbury et al., 2003). This project primarily focuses on dose fidelity and the extent to which instructors actually implemented the intervention as designed. The study population included undergraduate students at a two-year or four-year college enrolled in treatment or control introductory STEM courses in Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Environmental Science, and/or Physics. 

Methods. The analytic sample through fall 19 comprises 6,979 unique students with course GPAs from study sections across an array of treatment- and control-assigned sections each term. Of these, 3802 or 56% were enrolled at the two-year college and 2968 or 44% were enrolled at the four-year college. Each term, lists of eligible sections from included study courses are provided to the project evaluator for random assignment to study conditions. Students self-selected their course sections without knowledge of section assignment. Faculty from included departments actively engaged in course redesign workshops, semester-embedded faculty development opportunities, and professional development supports which have been expanded over time, as per faculty requests. 

Results. Treatment and control section instructors completed implementation fidelity surveys to determine the extent to which each section is offered in compliance with its random assignment. Compliance fidelity was scored as full implementation, partial implementation, or no implementation, and it was noted where data were unavailable. For most course sections, treatment implementation was full or partial and control sections were no implementation or ‘no data’, which were considered as no implementation in analysis. 

Analysis of semester-to-semester retention within study courses shows significantly higher rates for treatment than control students between successive semesters from the fall 2018 to spring 2020 term. Students in treatment-assigned sections scored higher than their control classmates. 

Conclusions and Discussion. While intervention implementation fidelity has been an important consideration for studies in fields such as medicine and mental health treatment, usage in higher education research has been limited. Yet as our study reveals, there are practical advantages in the information they can provide to various higher education stakeholders, including faculty who are planning and teaching effective course enhancements, and administrators who are devising strategic student retention initiatives. The implementation fidelity surveys were developed for faculty to remain accountable to the project’s objectives but eventually to better capture a snapshot of just-in-time teaching during the academic semester and track the changes in teaching practice and mindset after implementation. These surveys provide quantitative data, including compliance scores to better assess redesign activities, and qualitative data such as faculty perspectives on successful curriculum enhancements, what evidence-based teaching methods are being utilized, and how student peer mentors engage with their classmates and instructors through open-ended reflections. Over the course of this project, the results of implementation surveys have evolved into a formative needs-assessment as they communicated increasing requests from faculty participants for opportunities to improve their pedagogy and to collaborate with their colleagues across both campuses to develop and share teaching practices and resources. Figure 1 shows the addition of faculty interventions across the life of the project, all of which have stemmed from faculty requests. 

Acknowledgements. This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Education Grant PO31C160208. We would like to thank the faculty, peer mentors, and students involved with this project. 

References
Borrelli, B. (2011). The assessment, monitoring, and enhancement of treatment fidelity in public health clinical trials. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, 71, 552-563.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M. & Hansen, W.B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research: Theory & Practice, 18 (2), 237-256.
Hill, H.C. & Erickson, A. (2019). Using implementation fidelity to aid in interpreting program impacts: A brief review. Educational Researcher, 48 (9), 590-598.
O’Donnell, C.L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 33-84.

Impact of Course Redesign Implementation on Student Success and Ongoing Pedagogical Practices

Background: Minorities make up almost 28% of the US population with 13% being African American and 16.6% being Latino/Hispanic. This is projected to rise to 50% in two decades. Physicians from these backgrounds barely make up 10% of practicing medical doctors in the US. The same is true for scientists and educators. Several initiatives have been launched at national, state and regional levels but have yet to produce significant change. While academic institutions bring in students from these backgrounds, there is considerable leakage from the pipelines. A study from the University of California system highlights the problem (Alexander et al 2009). The authors of the study found that even though the under-represented minority (URM) students, on average, did not perform on par with white students, they were nearly as likely as white students to persist in completing at least four gateway courses. The authors concluded that URM students experienced academic challenges, but many persist in their prehealth courses despite these challenges if offered encouragement and opportunity. Therefore, interventions designed to support URM student performance in undergraduate and gateway courses are considered to be particularly important for increasing the diversity of health related professional and graduate schools (Estrada et al 2016 and McGee et al. 2012). Many medical schools have programs in place that prepare URM students for admission, however the number of qualified candidates remain far short of the desired goal. Finding meritorious URM students who can compete and qualify for admission to health related professions and graduate schools remains the biggest challenge. 
Hypothesis: A summer immersion program for disadvantaged students (including URM students) will prepare them for a rigorous preparatory Masters program and matriculation into a health or science professional school.
Design: We have initiated a four week intensive academic enhancement in the summer (ACES) program for students who were just below the cutoff for admission to our master’s program in biomedical sciences with the understanding that students who achieve a B or above grade in four relevant gateway courses (Cell Biology, Biochemistry, Physiology and Microbiology) will be offered admission to the main master’s program at the end of the ACES program. 
Results: Over the past five years we have admitted 63 students into our summer ACES program. Of the 63 students, 38 are women; and 30 are URMs; the rest are Asian or Caucasian. A few of them are self-declared economically disadvantaged and some are first in family to go to college. Sixty of these students qualified for the main Masters program after completing ACES. We have followed their performance in the Masters program and find that these students are indistinguishable from students who had been admitted to the Masters program in the regular track. The ACES graduates are integrating well with their peers and they are in various different programs including medical schools. 
Conclusions: Interventions at the gateway program level designed to attract and nurture disadvantaged students including URMs can be successful in increasing the number of qualified aspirants to health related professional schools and graduate schools. By opening up the opportunity to all disadvantaged students, we have been able to encourage URM students to pursue their goals. Our five-year data on a small number of students lead us to believe that programs such as ours will go a long way in recruiting qualified candidates to health- related professional schools and graduate schools and will be effective in increasing the number of URMs in these areas. 


Five-year assessment of summer academic enhancement program motivates URM students to pursue gateway programs and entry into health professional schools 

Working Title: You’ve had your first diversity and inclusion meeting – Now what? : A model for sustaining meaningful conversations on diversity and inclusion within STEM training environments

Short Summary of Presentation: In the wake of nationwide movements for racial and social justice, scientists are more aware than ever of the problem of building and sustaining diverse research and training environments. In this presentation, we report on an intervention intended to foster ongoing dialogue about diversity and marginalization in biomedical research science. The data come from the intervention arm of a randomized-controlled trial of a novel coaching intervention consisting of small groups of trainees and faculty coaches. The data reveal how this model was effective in sustaining meaningful dialogue on diversity and building capacity for inclusion practices in biomedical research science. 

Abstract: The events of 2020, including the growing visibility of the Black Lives Matter movement following the murder of George Floyd, catalyzed a movement for racial justice unlike any since the Civil Rights Movement. Across academia, students, faculty, and leaders are increasingly engaging with issues of racial equity and justice. Within the context of STEM training, there has been a dramatic shift in awareness of these issues. Questions like, “Should we talk about race, gender and other differences within mentoring relationships?” evolved into more actionable questions, like: “How do we make these conversations possible?” “How do we accomplish something we have failed to do for decades? “What is the most effective way to build and sustain dialogue about diversity?” Interventions targeting these questions of diversity and inclusion have developed over the past few years. For example, the Culturally Aware Mentoring program (CAM) is a workshop-based approach for teaching faculty and trainees to engage in diversity dialogues in academic science. Studies of CAM have demonstrated its immediate impacts on faculty and administrators, as well as longer-lived impacts on some (1,2). As comprehensive and effective as CAM is in the short-term, it is unlikely that a single-event intervention will be sufficient to initiate the ongoing dialogue required to foster sustainable changes in inclusive insights and practices to eradicate barriers to equity and inclusion in academic science. 

Beginning in 2011, our research team at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine began an experiment involving faculty-led coaching groups, with the long-term goal of increasing and sustaining diversity in biomedical faculty ranks (3,4). The Academy for Future Science Faculty (the Academy) paired groups of ten PhD students with trained faculty coaches from outside of the students’ home institutions. Annual in-person meetings occurred over a period of two to three years and coaching groups continued to meet virtually for about three years following the initial meetings. Coaching groups were heterogeneous, and equally balanced by gender and race/ethnicity to foster conversations across identity groups. The intervention employed a novel, intensive introduction to: 1) social science theories that underpin progression and barriers within social systems, including STEM; and 2) the history of and ongoing realities of how racism and privilege result in differential treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, women, and other minoritized groups. The frameworks introduced to students, and activities of the Academy, allowed them to engage in deep and meaningful discussions of diversity. The study team continues to follow participants through annual in-depth interviews; these interviews have revealed how the Academy affected their perceptions of diversity, discrimination, and the importance of building and sustaining diverse research environments. 

This presentation draws on interviews with Academy participants conducted at least four years after the end of the coaching group virtual meetings. The interviews have captured participants’ lasting memories of and reactions to group-based exposure and dialogue related to diversity and inclusion. In particular, the data reveal how participants continue to apply the social theories introduced in the intervention, such as microaggressions, imposter syndrome, and cultural capital, to make sense of and navigate science as a social system. Similarly, participants continue to recall the group discussions on the meaning and importance of diversity and inclusion. The data reveal strong and lasting impacts for many participants. Some participants reported drawing on their experiences in the Academy to engage in or lead diversity efforts in their current positions. Others have reflected on perspective changes and the importance of sustaining diverse research environments. These impacts occurred among participants from across gender and racial/ethnic groups, and were notable among traditionally well-represented students. Among the many examples of transformative perspective changes are new strategies for navigating and responding to racism, increased engagement in proactive diversity and inclusion efforts, and the ability to observe and name instances of marginalization. For those who elected to continue in academic research science, the impacts of the intervention are likely to be felt in the long-term and allow increased capacity to build and sustain diverse research environments. 

As part of the Deeper Dive discussions, we will explore a number of different designs and approaches groups could adopt, and offer guidance on how to facilitate these groups. Done effectively, such efforts could be effective in reshaping the norms and expectations for cross-cultural understanding so essential for effective mentoring.

References:

1. Byars-Winston, A., Womack, V., Butz, A., McGee, R., Quinn, S., Utzerath, E., Thomas, S. (2018). Pilot study of an intervention to increase cultural awareness in research mentoring: Implications for diversifying the scientific workforce. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2(2), 86-94. PMCID: PMC6191051
2. Womack VY, Wood CV, House SC, Quinn SC, Thomas SB, McGee R, et al. (2020) Culturally aware mentorship: Lasting impacts of a novel intervention on academic administrators and faculty. PLoS ONE 15(8): e0236983. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236983 PMCID: PMC7413486
3. Thakore BK, Naffziger-Hirsch ME, Richardson JL, Williams SN, McGee R Jr. The Academy for Future Science Faculty: randomized controlled trial of theory-driven coaching to shape development and diversity of early-career scientists. BMC Med Educ. 2014 Aug 2;14:160. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-160. PMCID: PMC4121509.
4. Williams SN, Thakore BK, McGee R. Coaching to Augment Mentoring to Achieve Faculty Diversity: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Acad Med. 2016 Aug;91(8):1128-1135. PMCID: PMC4909583



So you've had your first diversity and inclusion event...Now What?

Introduction

The Biology Scholars Program ("BSP") is an equity and inclusion program at UC Berkeley that aims to support the success of historically underrepresented undergraduates in STEM. BSP has documented student success for over 28 years and continues to cultivate student growth and inclusivity at UC Berkeley for PEER and first-generation science students (Estrada et al., 2019). While UC Berkeley is highly renowned for its prestigious and rigorous academic programs, there still exists institutional barriers that disproportionately negatively affect historically underrepresented students' persistence (Ballen & Mason, 2017). We therefore sought to understand the impact and influence of the Biology Scholars Program on UC Berkeley. In particular, we wanted to understand its influence on members of the campus community (i.e., faculty, staff, and administrators) and its effect on the larger institution. 

Methods

Data were collected via a brief one-time online survey in fall of 2020, which was distributed to participants using Qualtrics, a survey website. Participants were selected based on past attendance to BSP workshops and conferences between 2015 through 2020. Of 172 participants, 38% were staff, 35% faculty, 14% graduate students, 4% administrators and 9% "others" (i.e. alumni, postdocs, program directors). Over half of the sample self-reported as white (57%), hispanic/latinx (12%), black/african american (9%), filipino (3%), asian (3%), chinese (3%), vietnamese (2%), asian indian (2%), japanese (2%), american indian (1%), korean (1%), and declined to state (5%). Respondents self-identified as female (54%), male (34%), transgender (1%), nonbinary (2%), declined to state (1%), and did not answer (8%). The majority of respondents were between 30 - 50 years old. 

Results

The results from the one-time survey provides robust descriptive data to increase understanding of how BSP has impacted UC Berkeley. The first set of questions assessed participants' familiarity with BSP. The data show that over half of participants had experience interacting with members of the BSP community (e.g., BSP faculty and staff [68%] or BSP students [83%]). A subset of questions was dedicated to understanding participants' knowledge of BSP. In terms of correct responses, participants scored relatively high on 5 sections: selection of students (86%), treatment of students (73%), goals of BSP (85%), who participates in the program (65%) and criteria for student success (85%). These data show that participants understand how BSP functions or "works." With respect to BSP's influence on UC Berkeley members, the category most frequently selected by faculty, staff, and administrators was "mentoring" in relation to 1) influence in their own work (28%) and 2) student persistence in STEM (16%). Importantly, 81% of participants agreed that BSP has influenced the minds of UC Berkeley faculty, staff and administrations about growing student talent instead of selecting for it; a key principle of BSP. 

The Biology Scholars Program was also reported to provide a model of how to create a safe and positive environment for UC Berkeley students. In fact, 97% of participants agreed that BSP's scholars created positive "ripple" effects into UC Berkeley and 90% agreed that BSP's Inclusive Excellence Communities of Practice also created positive "ripple" effects into UC Berkeley. A number of questions were also asked about BSP's influence. Seventy-seven percent of participants reported that BSP's presence on campus changed UC Berkeley. More to this point, the program was also reported to have positively influenced perceptions of equity (75%), inclusion (81%) and bias reduction (77%). Lastly, an open-ended question asked participants to describe BSP's greatest impact on UC Berkeley and the top two most frequent descriptions were modeling how to be supportive (19%) and creating a sense of belonging or community (17%) for students.

Conclusions and Discussion

The results of this study provide insight into the experiences and perceptions of faculty, staff and administrators with BSP and its impact on UC Berkeley. Overall, results showed that the Biology Scholars Program has had a positive effect on the members of the UC Berkeley community by modelling successful mentorship, and creation of contexts that provide support, inclusivity and equity for students who develop (rather than arrive with) the skills and preparation necessary to thrive in scientific disciplines. On a larger scale, BSP has had a "ripple" like effect on UC Berkeley, influencing not only individual members of the university, but other programs on campus, that seek to adapt the BSP model to other disciplines. How these "ripples" might extend to other universities is a topic of interest and future research. 

Acknowledgments

The present research was supported by a grant from Howard Hughes Medical Institute ("HHMI") (Internal ID: 25087). We thank Missy Soto and Brook Yu for their contributions to this research.

Understanding the Biology Scholars Program's Impact on UC Berkeley

Introduction. Effective mentoring through research experiences supports student’s learning in science courses and interest in science careers. It also impacts academic performance and success by increasing independent learning (Lopatto, D. (2007). Research improves undergraduate student attitudes towards science including self-reported curiosity, science identity, confidence, it also increases communication skills, creativity and knowledge of scientific content (Laursen, S. et al, 2010). Faculty interactions in this context are particularly relevant, as these promote self-efficacy, scientific identity, and scholarly productivity (Joshi, M., Aikens, M. L., & Dolan, E. L., 2019) While the benefits of undergraduate research are well documented, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) reports that only 19% of students engage in research activities during their undergraduate education, a number that is even smaller for those attending 2-year colleges. 

Students from backgrounds underrepresented (URM) in STEM fields show larger gains than other students when engaging in research experiences (Lopatto, D. (2007). The COVID-19 pandemic further impacted the availability of research experiences for undergraduates, and data shows that this has particularly impacted URM and first generation students (Barber, P. H. et al, 2021). Therefore, the development of programs that engage URM students in remote research experiences is a priority. Here we describe an intervention that engages 2- and 4-year college students in biology-related research and present a preliminary assessment of their experiences.


Goal of Research: In an effort to support research experiences for undergraduates at 2- and 4-year colleges and to increase opportunities to engage community college students in research, an interdisciplinary undergraduate research experience was developed by two professors at the City University of New York. This pilot intervention had the goal of providing STEM undergraduates from mostly URM backgrounds with research opportunities during the 2020 distance modality period of instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic.


Methods. Students from a 2-year and a 4-year college that had expressed interest in participating in research were recruited at both schools. A total of 15 undergraduates worked on research projects during the spring and summer semesters of 2020. The experience was designed as an interdisciplinary collaborative research project in which students of both schools worked together. The students and professors met periodically via Zoom to participate in theoretical lectures, experimental analysis of data, peer reviewed paper discussions, and hands-on activities. The students also scheduled meetings with their research partners independently of the planned overall group meetings, students were asked to organize these considering the progress and needs of their project, and their time availability. The preliminary findings of the research were presented in shared meetings, and also students submitted abstracts to local and national conferences. 

The assessment of the student experiences was performed qualitatively by the use of a 9-question open survey that evaluated the implementation of the intervention and identified strengths and areas in need of improvement. The survey was voluntary and anonymous. 12 of the participants provided responses. It is important to highlight that there are limited qualitative studies discussing close mentoring research engagement of URM students in STEM. In order to achieve depth and intersubjectivity in the data analysis, the analysis was carried out in various temporal instances. In the first stage, the data corpus was coded and analyzed based on its content using grounded theory. In a second stage, units of meaning were created, the research team categorized, filtered and reorganized based on the research objectives. In a third moment, and after the systematic reading of the codes and their context, a selection was made of the categories that specifically accounted for students' experience during the research intervention. 


Results. A total of 15 students participated in this intervention, 14 of which are URM in STEM (either African American or Hispanic). The group had 9 (60%) females students and 6 (40%) male students. The students worked in pairs with specific research projects, and met independently and with the overall group throughout the intervention period with similar frequency. As the intervention progressed, student-only research meetings were more common than whole group meetings. A total of 12 students participated in local and/or national conferences during the summer and within the 6-month period following the intervention. 

In the qualitative assessment, the students highlighted a (1)new understanding of the research process in which they understood the times and movements of the process, a (2)development of personal, academic and professional skills, and an (3)increase in their confidence. The latter resulted from their engagement in activities of different kinds. The students also expressed the importance of having a community during the COVID-19 pandemic, they expressed a (4)higher sense of belonging that prevented isolation as a result of participating in the intervention.Students expressed satisfaction with their ability to manage several projects at the same time, with limited free time and working through weekends. They also provided suggestions for future interventions, in areas where they considered there could be improvement, which included the availability of financial support and the planning of more frequent sessions. 


Conclusions and Discussions. Our intervention adds to other available evidence that indicates remote undergraduate experiences are possible and can support learning for undergraduate students (Tripepi, M., & Landberg, T. 2021; Jensen-Ryan, D. et al, 2021). This work also shows that interventions of this kind can promote remote interactions between students and faculty, as well as among students impacting positively the college experience for undergraduates. We found that students build on skills beyond the realm of the academic and professional world, with gains in personal development as well. We also think it will be important to more critically explore the impact of the overwhelming and hyperproductive academic lifestyle and how this model, which instructors share and students reproduce, can be damaging to long-term sustainable interaction with research and learning (Enciso Dominguez, G. et al 2021). Because URM STEM students already faced multiple structural barriers, to provide successful models of success requires us to further explore this dynamic to ultimately enhance interventions at the undergraduate level that aim to increase their numbers in these fields.

Supporting STEM students through remote interdisciplinary collaboration in undergraduate research

The Syracuse University CHANcE (Collaborative High Impact Activities in Natrual sCience Education) Project is a five-year program designed to provide the professional support biology and chemistry faculty need to transform their courses to include high impact practices such as active learning and inclusive pedagogy. Participation in the Project is open to all faculty in the 2 departments including tenure-earning and teaching faculty. The Project is in its third year and most of the faculty in the 2 departments are participating. To compensate faculty participants for the additional work involved in course transformation, a $5,000 grant is made available to each instructor who submits a course transformation proposal that is approved, who agrees to implement the changes specified in the proposal, and submits a final report including assessment of the implementation. Professional support is provided during both the redesign and implementation phases to help instructors develop specific learning goals, introduce specific active-learning and inclusive practices for accomplishing these goals, and assess learning outcomes. Professional assistance includes regular meetings with a CHANcE Project Education Specialist, postdoctoral fellow, graduate research assistants, peer mentors, administrative personnel, communities of practice, and semi-annual two-day professional development workshops held in January and June of each year. 
To date, over 12 courses have been or are in the process of being transformed, including general chemistry, introductory biology, ecology and evolution, cell biology, anatomy and physiology, organic chemistry laboratory, inorganic laboratory techniques, and integrative biology laboratory. Additionally, the upper-division courses “perspective in biochemistry,” “the science of GMOs,” and “personalized medicine” are being transformed. High impact practices introduced thus far in these courses include writing-to-learn, case studies, messy problems, clicker questions, interactive video lectures, transparent assignments, peer learning assistants, and assignments to highlight the contributions of BIPOC scientists. These transformed courses affect over 1000 students annually, and thereby increase our capacity for inclusion.
The faculty response to the CHANcE Project has been exceptional. The level of participation indicates that faculty care, and they stepped up. However, we found that inclusion is hard to grasp and implement because of the normativity of dominant culture. The practice of inclusion is known to touch on values, emotions, and long-held beliefs about who scientists are and who belongs. In addition, overcoming built-in thoughts about group affiliations is a difficult, nonlinear process that is not considered in faculty load. For students who have been historically excluded because of ethnicity or race, the challenge of having to develop a sense of belonging without sacrificing their cultural identity or adopting the oppressive views of the dominant group is daunting. We are able to address many of these difficult challenges in faculty thinking and practice through the semi-annual 2-day professional development workshops.


How to transform course in biology adn chemistry using high impact practices

With support from the NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM), the Culturally Adaptive Pathway to Success (CAPS) program aims to build an inclusive pathway to accelerate graduation for academically talented, low-income students in Engineering and Computer Science majors at Cal State LA. The campus context primarily serves underrepresented and economically disadvantaged students in the Los Angeles area. Within the College of Engineering, Computer Science, and Technology, the average graduation rates of first-time freshman (since 2007) are: 4 years: 3.5%, 5 years: 18.5%, and 6 years: 29.4%. The CAPS program seeks to improve on these levels of student achievement by scaffolding student development with multiple supports. 

The CAPS program aims to develop social and career competence in our students via three integrated interventions: (1) Mentor+, an advising strategy that trains mentors to engage with students in relation to their academic work, and the connections between work and community. (2) Second CAPS established peer cohorts, providing a structure for social support among students and training models of peer mentorship (3) Finally, CAPS structures professional development from faculty who have been trained to support students with a holistic understanding of the antecedents of college success. 

The success of the CAPS program will ultimately be determined by the improved graduation rates of the involved scholars. Preliminary results suggest that CAPS scholars are progressing faster than non-CAPS students academically. As of Spring 2021, 86% of scholars were retained. 70% of the first cohort graduated in 4 years, and more than half of the second cohort are expected to do the same next year. Further, 100% of the retained scholars are on pace to graduate in 5 years. This is compared to average graduation rates of <4% achieving 4-year graduation and <19% achieving 5-year graduation, among comparable students in the college. The results of the study suggest that others looking to support low income underrepresented students could benefit from pairing financial support with mentors trained to consider the experiences of economically and racially diverse student populations, as well as providing infrastructure for the development of peer mentorship groups.

Downloads

Next from 13th Conference on Understanding Interventions 2021

Research Experiences in Classroom and their Impacts on Biology Freshmen at an HBCU

Similar lecture

All Eyez on Me: Abolitionist Anthropology and Refusing the White Gaze with Incarcerated Youth