1 / 16

Martin M. Chemers, PI University of California, Santa Cruz

Assessing Scientific Inquiry and Leadership Skills (AScILS) Report to NIGMS Advisory Council January 25, 2008. Martin M. Chemers, PI University of California, Santa Cruz. Overarching Research Questions.

hova
Télécharger la présentation

Martin M. Chemers, PI University of California, Santa Cruz

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Assessing Scientific Inquiry and Leadership Skills (AScILS)Report to NIGMS Advisory Council January 25, 2008 Martin M. Chemers, PI University of California, Santa Cruz

  2. Overarching Research Questions • How do activities implemented by biomedical research career support programs (especially research and mentoring) influence: • Scientific research skills • Science team leadership and membership skills • Beliefs in efficacy and collective efficacy regarding these skills • Identity as a scientist • Stage-appropriate educational and career outcomes? • Are these influences similar for minority and non-minority students?

  3. Program Components Psychological Processes Outcomes Research Experience Performance: ScienceInquiry and Leadership Skills Science InquirySelf-Efficacy { Mentoring: Instrumental Socio-Emotional Leadership and Teamwork Self-Efficacy Community Involvement Commitment: SatisfactionandContinuationin Science Education and Research Academic Support Identity and Belonging as a Scientist Financial Support Student Demographics: Ethnicity, Gender

  4. The Research Model • Theory-Driven • Interdisciplinary • Multi-Method

  5. Brief Overview of Methods • Qualitative Studies: (Assessment of Program Components) In-depth interviews (H.S., U.G., & Grad.) (Longitudinal Case Studies) • Retrospective Surveys (UCSC Students; COSMOS; SACNAS) • Performance Assessments (Simulations & Mentor Ratings) • Longitudinal Quantitative Studies

  6. Today’s Report: Quantitative Survey Studies • UCSC Undergraduate Retrospective Survey • SACNAS Retrospective Undergraduate and Graduate/Post-Doc Surveys

  7. Program Components Psychological Processes Outcomes Research Experience Performance: ScienceInquiry and Leadership Skills Science InquirySelf-Efficacy { Mentoring: Instrumental Socio-Emotional Leadership and Teamwork Self-Efficacy Community Involvement Commitment: SatisfactionandContinuationin Science Education and Research Academic Support Identity and Belonging as a Scientist Financial Support Student Demographics: Ethnicity, Gender

  8. UCSC Undergraduate Retrospective Survey Population • All 1095 participants from 14 UCSC science or engineering support programs, 1999/2000 to 2003/2004 • UCSC Science/Engineering majors not in programs during those same years • Invited 100% of 870 underrepresented minorities • Invited representative proportion of other ethnic groups: 548 Whites, 191 Asians, 131 Others

  9. UCSC Undergraduate Retrospective Survey Sample • 502 (18%) completed survey • 56% women • Ethnic background • 34% URM • 23% Asian • 40% White • 4% Other • Average age = 23.2 years

  10. UCSC Undergraduate Retrospective Survey Results Blue (Left) = URM students Red (Right) = White students Research Experience .42/.46 Science Inquiry Self-Efficacy .29/.21 .52/.42 .31/.25 Commitment Community Involvement .24/ns .69/.79 .11/.12 .37/.60 Identity as a Scientist .52/.52 ns/.23 .16/.15 Instrumental Mentoring Model Fit: χ2 (15) = 8.60, p = .90, CFI = 1.0, IFI = 1.0, GFI = .99, NNFI = 1.0, RMR = .03, RMSEA = .00 (.00, .02)

  11. SACNAS Undergraduate Retrospective Survey Sample • 327 completed survey • 74% Current Undergrads, 26% Recent Grads • 67% women • Ethnic Background • 74% URM • 14% Asian • 11% White • 1% Other • Average age = 24.06 years

  12. SACNAS Undergraduate Retrospective Survey Results Research Experience .34 Science Inquiry Self-Efficacy .24 .10 .32 .24 Community Involvement Identity as a Scientist Commitment .26 .53 .51 .29 .17 Teamwork & Leadership Self-Efficacy Instrumental Mentoring .23 Model Fit: χ2 (10) = 22.20, p = .01, CFI = .97, IFI = .97, GFI = .98, NNFI = .94, RMR = .02, RMSEA = .06 (.03, .10)

  13. SACNAS Graduate/Post-Doc Retrospective Survey Sample • 338 completed survey • 82% Current Graduate Students, 18% Post-Docs • 63% women • Ethnic Background • 86% URM • 7% Asian • 6% White • 1% Other • Average age = 29.83 years

  14. SACNAS Graduate/Post-Doc Retrospective Survey Results Research Experience .30 Science Inquiry Self-Efficacy .23 Professional Experience .12 .20 .23 .11 .12 Community Involvement Identity as a Scientist Commitment .49 Instrumental Mentoring .16 .12 .16 .12 Teamwork & Leadership Self-Efficacy .14 Socioemotional Mentoring .25 Model Fit: χ2 (12) = 54.42, p < .001, CFI = .96, IFI = .96, GFI = .97, NNFI = .87, RMR = .03, RMSEA = .10 (.08, .13)

  15. Summary & Conclusions • Identity most direct predictor of commitment and performance • Science inquiry self-efficacy both indirect (through identity) and direct predictor of commitment and performance • Research, mentoring, and community involvement predict science inquiry self-efficacy and identity

  16. Implications for Policy and Practice • Scientific self-efficacy and identity are positively affected by interventions involving research and mentoring. • Programs should place greater emphasis on these psychological mediators.

More Related