Elon University Home

Category Archives: engaged learning

How Do We Support Faculty to Develop as Mentors of Undergraduate Research?

By jmoore | Published August 15, 2013

by Paul Miller

Undergraduate research is well established as a high-impact practice. It helps students participate in knowledge creation, transition to the workplace, and develop their ability to think critically (Johnson, 2006).  Faculty who mentor undergraduate research report benefits related to teaching, career productivity, and renewed energy (Noe et al., 2002).  The student and faculty benefits of participating in a mentored undergraduate research program coalesce for institutions leading to increased faculty retention, enhanced alumni loyalty, and overall institutional commitment (Clark et al., 2000).  However, with the growth of mentored undergraduate research at the disciplinary and the institutional levels, the demand for faculty mentors has also grown resulting in added complexity to faculty expectations.  Despite extensive research on the practice’s value to students, faculty and institutions, there is still much to learn about mentoring undergraduate research and the most effective ways to support faculty in their development of mentoring skills and abilities.

Historically, most academics were introduced to the scholarship of their discipline, or at least became active participants in its creation, when they enrolled in their respective graduate programs.  With increasing access to undergraduate research programs across the academy, younger students have the opportunity to become creators of new knowledge rather than solely a consumer of existing knowledge.  These experiences provide rich, engaged learning opportunities for students and provide an earlier entry point into disciplines (Kierniesky, 2005).  This high-impact practice (Kuh, 2008) may be particularly impactful in allowing students to develop their abilities of inquiry, analysis, synthesis, and dissemination (Page et al., 2004; Seymour et al., 2004), skills that are among the most desirable for future employers and graduate programs (Hart Research Associates, 2013).

In 2004, Page et al. described the benefits of a well-rounded mentored research program.  Students who participated in a mentored research program reported a better understanding of research methodology, a more comprehensive understanding of disciplinary theory, and an increased chance for success in research-based graduate programs.  Additionally, students seemed to demonstrate an elevated self-confidence in academic pursuits.  This result was supported by Seymour and colleagues (2004), who reported that 91% of the students participating in mentored research reported positive experiences.  Students reported that they made personal/professional gains, developed their ability to think and work within their chosen field, gained professional skills, clarified or confirmed their career plans, prepared themselves for graduate studies, and increased their attitudes to learning and working as a researcher.

Mentored undergraduate research experiences are enriching for students, and the degree of success is predicated on establishing a solid collaborative relationship between faculty and students. Lopatto (2003) stated that in order to achieve a successful undergraduate research experience, a mentor needs to establish a balance between guided and autonomous activities for the student, develop an ongoing and dynamic relationship with the student, and be attuned to the student’s needs. Additionally, Lopatto (2006) described the impact effective, high-quality mentoring can have on the undergraduate research experience. Two traits, “responsive to questions” and “treats you like a colleague,” are highly desirable to students and directly related to students’ satisfaction with their research experience.

This prior research reiterates that students experience dynamic engaged learning by participating in a mentored undergraduate research experience.  What needs to be considered is how mentoring undergraduate research differs from teaching a traditional class.  Faculty may need to utilize different skills when engaged as a mentor in order to be effective.  By assuming the role as mentor, a faculty member may be called upon to act as a facilitator, guide or co-learner while the students take on the roles of explorer, cognitive apprentice, teacher and producer of knowledge (Jones et al., 1994, 1995).

For these outcomes to potentiate, effective faculty mentors must have access to tailored professional development activities and be encouraged to work with undergraduate students.  With the complexity of institutional demands facing faculty, mentoring activities must prove to be fruitful and mutually beneficial for both the student and the mentor (Hunt & Michael, 1983). Faculty need mentoring activities that are valued, rewarded, and supported by their institutions (Rowlett, Blockus and Larson, 2012). It has been further suggested that the implementation and integration of a comprehensive undergraduate research program should be tied to faculty development and that fostering a community of mentors would help faculty develop as teachers and scholars (Thomas & Gillespie, 2008). A study conducted by Dolan and Johnson (2009) found that mentors of undergraduate researchers reported perceived gains in productivity, confidence, understanding, teaching ability, and communication skills. While the benefits of participating in mentored undergraduate research for students and faculty are fairly well accepted, a void currently exists in the literature identifying evidence-driven strategies describing the best ways to support faculty in developing these mentoring skills and abilities.

The Characteristics of Excellence in Undergraduate Research (Rowlett et al., 2012) published by the Council on Undergraduate Research suggests several elements that are important for the training and support of undergraduate research mentors.  They are:

  1. Clear programmatic expectations
  2. Development of mentoring communities/networks
  3. Integration of mentoring into professional development plans
  4. Mentor training during graduate/post-doctoral programs

The COEUR document also describes several elements to incentivize the mentoring of undergraduate research.  They are:

  1. Recognition of excellent mentoring
  2. Inclusion of mentoring effectiveness into promotion and tenure decisions
  3. Incorporation of mentoring into salary decisions
  4. Awarding distinction to programs demonstrating excellence in undergraduate research mentoring
  5. Publicizing mentored publications

While these characteristics may be instrumental in the establishment of a vibrant mentored undergraduate research program, questions still remain regarding the most effective ways to support faculty in their development of mentoring skills and abilities:

  • What is needed to support the development of skilled mentors?
  • How do we identify the characteristics of successful mentoring and how is it assessed?
  • Where does mentoring undergraduate research fall in the hierarchy of faculty expectations?
  • How impactful is it to develop a community of mentors and how would such a community influence mentoring practices?
  • How can we equip faculty mentors with the skills to adjust their mentoring approaches for differing student needs?
  • How do different institution types either encourage or discourage faculty participation as undergraduate research mentors?

While the benefits for faculty and students of participating in a comprehensive undergraduate research experience have been fairly well articulated, it does leave room to consider what additional benefits could arise if best practices related to mentor training and support were identified and implemented. Would such information help faculty be more efficient in their mentoring efforts? Would student learning be enhanced? What would be the impact of a mentor training program to the university culture and the community of mentors? These questions and others are potential areas of investigation for the upcoming Center for Engaged Learning Research Seminar on Mentoring Undergraduate Research.  Check back for a call for applications, next month.

References

  • Clark, R. A., Harden, S. L., & Johnson, W. B. (2000). Mentor relationships in clinical psychology doctoral training: Results of a national survey. Teaching of Psychology, 27, 262–268.
  • Dolan, E. & Johnson, D. (2009). Toward a holistic view of undergraduate research experiences: An exploratory study of impact on graduate/postdoctoral mentors. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 487-500.
  • Hart Research Associates (2013). It Takes More Than a Major: Employer Priorities for College Learning and Student Success. Liberal Education, 99 (2), 1-8.
  • Hunt, D. & Michael, C. (1983). Mentorship: A career training and development tool, Academy of Management Review, 8, 475 – 480.
  • Johnson, B. W. (2006).  On being a mentor. New York: Psychology Press.
  • Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J. & Rasmussen, C. (1994) Designing learning and technology for education reform. North Central Regional Educational Lab., Oak Brook, IL.
  • Jones, B.F., Valdez, G., Nowakowski, J. & Rasmussen, C. (1995) Plugging in: Choosing and using educational technology.. North Central Regional Educational Lab., Oak Brook, IL.
  • Kierniesky, N.C. (2005). Undergraduate research in small psychology departments: Two decades later. Teaching Psychology, 32(2), 84-90.
  • Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
  • Lopatto, D. (2003).  The essential features of undergraduate research.  CUR Quarterly, 24, 139 – 142.
  • Lopatto, D. (2006). Undergraduate research as a catalyst for liberal learning.  Peer Review, 8 (1), 22-25.
  • Noe, R.A., Greenberger, D.B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 21, 129 – 173.
  • Page, M.C., Abramson, C.I., & Jacobs-Lawson, J.M. (2004). The National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program: experiences and recommendations. Teaching of Psychology, 31(4), 241-247.
  • Rowlett, R. S., Blockus, L. & Larson, S. (2012).  Characteristics of excellence in undergraduate research (COEUR).  Council on Undergraduate Research, Washington, DC.
  • Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three-year study. Science Education, 88(4), 493 – 534.
  • Thomas, E. & Gillespie, D. (2008). Weaving together undergraduate research, mentoring of junior faculty, and assessment: The case of an interdisciplinary program. Innovations in Higher Education, 33, 29-38.

 

Paul Miller is a Professor of Exercise Science and Director of Undergraduate Research at Elon University.

Also posted in studying EL, undergraduate research | Comments Off on How Do We Support Faculty to Develop as Mentors of Undergraduate Research?

New Research Expands What We Know about How To Use Writing To Enhance Student Learning

By jmoore | Published July 29, 2013

by Paul Anderson

Educators have long appreciated the power of writing to enhance learning. In the United States and Canada, this knowledge has underwritten the forty-year growth of writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) and writing-in-the-discipline (WID) programs. More recently, it has supported the expansion of writing-for-academic-purposes programs in Europe and elsewhere.

Results of a new study will reorient the focus of these programs and inspire new ways of using writing to advance the goals of higher education.

EVIDENCE OF THE POWER OF WRITING TO ENHANCE LEARNING

For the past forty years, the central aim of WAC, WID, and similar programs has been to encourage instructors and institutions to increase the amount of writing they assign to students. Toward this end, these programs have advocated the introduction of writing into courses that have none, an increase in the amount of writing in courses that have some, and the establishment of requirements that students take courses designated as writing intensive in order to earn their degrees. The writing activities promoted by these programs range from one-minute essays and microthemes to major writing projects for which instructors design scaffolded sets of sub-assignments to help students gradually build their writing skills and final products.

The emphasis on the amount of writing in a course or program is supported by three large-scale studies. Each looked generally for the institutional and course-based factors that promote learning. Each used a different research method. All ended up discovering the special power of writing.

  • Astin (1992) surveyed 25, 000 students who completed four years at 217 baccalaureate institutions. He found that a focus on developing students’ writing skills correlated positively with a larger number of general education outcomes than any other course attribute.
  • Richard J. Light (2001) coordinated interviews with more than 1,600 students at 25 colleges and universities. He concluded that, “The amount of writing in a course has a stronger relationship with students’ level of engagement than does any other course characteristic.” The more writing a course includes, the more time students spend on it, the more intellectually challenging they find it to be, and the more personally invested they are in the course.
  • Arum and Roksa (2011) studied the performance of more than 23,000 students at 24 colleges on the College Learning Assessment. The researchers reached the discouraging conclusion that after three semesters of college, the students overall made “barely noticeable” improvement in critical thinking and complex reasoning (p. 35).  However, they also discovered one exception: Students made significant gains in both areas if they had taken courses requiring 20 or more pages of writing in a semester and 40 or more pages of reading per week.

COMPLICATING EVIDENCE

The relationship that the three large-scale studies found between writing and learning has not been supported as uniformly or persuasively as one might expect in quasi-experimental studies that compared the outcomes for the same course taught with and without writing.  Some studies show positive outcomes. Others did not. Consequently, some researchers have questioned the underlying assumption that more writing inevitably leads to more learning (Ochsner and Fowler, 2004; Bangert­Drowns, Hurley, and Wilkinson, 2004).

THE RESOLUTION

Working in partnership, the Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA) and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) conducted a study that resolves the discrepancy between the large-scale and small-scale studies. The research team added 27 questions about students’ writing experiences to the regular NSSE survey form for 80 U.S. colleges and universities. More than 70,000 students responded (Anderson, Anson, Gonyea, and Paine).

The results revealed the perhaps unsurprising fact that some writing assignments are more effective than others at increasing learning. Thus, mixed results of small-scale studies are to be expected. Those that use effective assignments would produce positive results. Those that used less-effective or ineffective assignments would not. This insight makes the results from the large-scale studies are even more impressive: The positive impact of the more-effective assignments is strong enough to show through even when they are mixed with less-effective and ineffective ones.

THE MOST IMPORTANT OUTCOME OF WHAT WE’VE LEARNED

The most important outcome of the CWPA/NSSE study is that it reveals specific features that make some assignments more effective than others. Instructors can increase student learning by creating assignments in which they do the following.

  • Engage students in meaning-constructing writing tasks, such as summarizing, evaluating, arguing a position with evidence and reasoning, describing data collection methods, explaining numerical data, using the style of a specific discipline, and addressing real or imagined audience.
  • Encourage students to engage in interactive writing processes, such as having students talk about their assignments with their instructor, classmates, friends, and family members; obtain feedback about a draft from their instructor or other person; visit a campus-based writing or tutoring center; and exchange feedback on their writing with classmates.
  • Explain their writing expectations clearly to students, for instance by giving clear instructions about what students are supposed to do, describing what students are supposed to learn, and explaining the criteria that will be used to grade students’ work.

These results suggest that faculty and programs should focus to developing more effective writing assignments, not merely more writing (Bean).

In addition, because the results indicate that well-designed writing assignments are positively associated with self-reported gains in general education learning and in personal and social development (two areas not previously identified by research), they suggest the value of expanding writing initiatives into community service, leadership, and other co-curricular and extracurricular programs.

OTHER IMPACTS OF RESEARCH ON ENGAGED LEARNING

While the CWPA/NSSE study increases our ability to enhance student learning, it also challenges some deeply entrenched assumptions and practices related to engaged learning (Kuh). Rather than simply describing a broad array of writing activities instructors can use in their courses, WAC and other partners in faculty development must help instructors create effective assignments, ones in which they engage students in meaning-making tasks, develop interactive writing processes for their students, and explain their writing expectations more clearly.

The study also cautions us against becoming overconfident about what we think we know about instructor and institutional practices that promote student learning and development. What we “know” is what we know for now. We can know better. Even as we urge our colleagues and institutions to act on our current knowledge, we should undertake the research that puts that knowledge at risk and that might require us to advocate refined or different practices in the future.

References:

Anderson, Gonyea, Anson, and Paine. (2009). Using results from the Consortium on the Study of Writing in College. Webinar handout. National Survey of Student Engagement. Retrieved July 22, 2013, from http://nsse.iub.edu/webinars/TuesdayswithNSSE/2009_09_22_UsingResultsCSWC/Webinar%20Handout%20from%20WPA%202009.pdf.

Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Astin, A. W. (1992). What really matters in general education:  Provocative findings from a national study of student outcomes. Perspectives, 22(1), 23-46.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Hurley, M. M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). ”The effects of school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis.” Review of Educational Research 74(1), 29-58.

Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging Ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Light, R. J. (2001). Making the most of college: Students speak their minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Ochsner, R., & Fowler, J. (2004). Playing devil’s advocate: Evaluating the literature of the WAC/WID movement. Review of Educational Research, 74(2), 117-140.

 

Paul Anderson is Director of Writing Across the University at Elon University and a leading scholar and advocate for excellence in writing. Anderson is the author or editor of four books related to writing and communication, and the author of more than 40 articles.

Also posted in studying EL, writing | Comments Off on New Research Expands What We Know about How To Use Writing To Enhance Student Learning