Swanson School of Engineering 2016 AGEP Report

AGEP-TDAE 2016 ANNUAL REPORT Transition to the Doctorate by Adaptable Engagement: Understanding the Academic and Faculty Cultures for the Success of URM Doctoral Students1 Wosu, S. N., Abramowitch, S., Besterfield-Sacre, M., and Mena, I. University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering, Pittsburgh PA Abstract The University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering Transition to the Doctorate by Adaptable Engagement (TDAE) program was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate-Knowledge Adoption and Translation (AGEP-KAT). With the dearth of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in research universities, URM students face the barrier of not having enough faculty who share their background and to whom they can relate as role model and a faculty culture that appreciate differences and promote their success and transition to the doctorate. The primary purpose of this grant is to create such a culture by Adopting Evidence-Based Strategies to Improve Academic Climate and the Success of Underrepresented Doctoral Students in Engineering. The first year of the project was focused on collecting baseline and formative data from survey responses on a series of workshops, seminars, and interviews to better understand the academic and faculty cultures for the success of URM doctoral students. The goal was to understand, based on the data, how to improve faculty culture and engagement with students, advance their awareness of the barriers and problems the students experience, and understand studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perspectives of what the dominant departmental culture is currently. The preliminary results reported in this paper show that greater awareness about the support systems available for URM students was achieved. More majority faculty members than before are now aware of the importance of community learning activities whereby shared visions are created for the community regarding the success of URM students. During the various workshops, faculty members were exposed to different strategies and techniques in creating the shared vision for the success of the program. Introduction Black/African Americans (5.3%), Hispanic/Latinos (3.5%), Asian Americans (9.1%), and American Indians (1.4%) and other NSF recognized minority groups (<1%) are significantly underrepresented in the professoriate compared to the university/college student populations. Data from the National Center of Education Statistics show that representation of full-time URM faculty still remains a challenge at universities nationally (NCES, 2011). A recent comprehensive review of this subject showed that the overall fraction of engineering doctoral degrees awarded to URM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT : This project is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1434012. DISCLAIMER: 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

groups relative to the fraction of these groups in the U.S. population has remained relatively flat for the last three decades. In graduate school, URMs represent 17.7% of total enrollment but receive a minuscule 5.4% of doctoral degrees (Maton et al., 2012; Fraser, 1998). These studies revealed that URM faculty, for example, are almost nonexistent in science and engineering departments at research universities. Thus, URMs are likely to find themselves without URM faculty needed to serve as optimal role models. Academic culture and climate also affect URM motivation for graduate studies and their transition to the professoriate. According to Nelson (2005), â&#x20AC;&#x153;Minority students already perceive the status and environment of role models and use them to judge how they themselves will be treated should they pursue degrees and employment in those disciplines.â&#x20AC;? In response to increasing the representation of URMs receiving PhDs and making a successful transition to the professoriate, NSF programs, such as Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) and the ADVANCE programs, have led to measurable increases in the number of graduate students and faculty from URM in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Common activities in these programs include workshops by faculty to inspire and motivate students in doctoral programs; structured faculty mentoring and faculty-student engagement activities to maintain optimal communication; and a well-structured multi-campus plan for recruitment. Figure 1 shows that while the BS production of Latinos increased from 6.5% to 8.75%, the percent of BS production of African Americans declined from 5% to 3.5%, despite the fact that the minority population over the same period increased by 35% compared to a 3.4% increase for the Caucasians, non-Hispanic population (Bryant-Shanklin & Brumage, 2011).

Figure 1. Percent of URM BS graduates in engineering (Source: U.S. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, IPEDS . Reproduced from Wosu (2016): Relational Mentorship in Higher Education, KLI Publishing PA.) For about the same period, Figure 2 shows the direct effect of the low BS production: the percentage of URM doctoral enrollment in all engineering programs increased by less than 2.5% in the last ten years. Overall, the picture is not that great in all other fields, with Figure 3 showing

an increase of less than 1.5% for African Americans and 2.3% for Latino Americans in over 10 years. Figure 2. Doctoral engineering enrollment demographics (SOURCE: U.S. National Science Foundation National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Reproduced from Wosu (2016): Relational Mentorship in Higher Education, KLI Publishing PA). These disappointing statistics show the need for increased mentoring programs in higher education to assist institutions in improving the culture that can support minorities and women to overcome cultural, social, and organizational impediments to success in graduate education.

Figure 3. Percent of all doctoral degrees awarded to URM in all fields (SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Reproduced from Wosu (2016): Relational Mentorship in Higher Education, KLI Publishing PA). A study by Clutterbuck and Ragins (2002) (cited by Bryant-Shanklin & Brumage, 2011) shows that such institutional culture can be improved with diversified mentoring relationships involving interactions between mentors and mentees who differ with regards to power differences in the organization. A more recent study by Ragins & Kram (2007) concluded that the behavior of mentors can positively or negatively affect the menteeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s career and professional development depending on the perceptions and behavior of the mentor. Individuals were most successful in engaging in mentoring relationships if they had positive attitudes toward diversity and prior experiences with racially heterogeneous interactions. Barriers for Mentoring URM Graduate Students Despite the general agreement that female and URM students benefit greatly from functional mentorship relationships in a predominant majority culture, resistance still exists in those cultures for several reasons. Research by Thomas et al. (2007) on mentoring minority graduate students 3

identified key challenges faced by this group in establishing healthy mentoring relationships with their white faculty mentors, issues and strategies for institutions, faculty, and students in dealing with these barriers, and the consequences of lack of productive mentoring relationships. These authors cited several evidence-based conclusions worthy of note. Minority graduate students are more likely to experience isolation in graduate school and less access to mentors and role-models than their non-minority peers (Girves et al., 2005) and even when mentoring relationships exist, they are often not the same as the mentoring provided to non-minority graduate students (BlakeBeard, 2001; Ellis, 2000). A study by Johnson and Huwe (2002) concluded that faculty, in general, do not always have the competencies nor the training required to effectively mentor any student. Such lack of mentoring competence may become exacerbated in cross gender or cross racial settings (Thomas et al., 2007). It is strongly agreed that increasing the presence of female and minority faculty in academia has the potential of increasing the number of possible mentors and role models that could in turn encourage the persistence of undergraduate and graduate women and URM students in the STEM fields (Sandler, 1993; Dresselhaus et al., 1995; Lenk & Lucca, 2001). Unfortunately, with respect to encouraging females and URMs to select academic careers, there is little evidence in the literature on strategies or best practices on how best to encourage underrepresented Ph.D. students toward academic careers. In fact, our current experience with recent graduate students has shown that URM graduate students are drifting away from tenure-track academic careers toward other career choices. To address the above needs with respect to the production of URM PhDs at the University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering (SSoE), the proposed TDAE program aims to adapt effective evidence-based strategies for successful integration at our institution and evaluate the impact of doing so. We posit that changing the academic climate for URM students from a faculty standpoint and structured faculty-student interactions will foster an academic culture of inclusive excellence that will be a key factor in propelling URM students to successful completion of their doctoral studies. The barriers to the success of URM students within SSoE are congruent with the major barriers that have been identified nationally (Simon, 1993; Thomason & Thurber, 1999; Cabrera, Nora, & Terenzini, 1999; Dumas-Hines, 2001; Smith, 1991; Nelson, 2010; Taylor & Olswang, 1997; Lee, 1991; Stewart, Russell, & Wright, 1997; Baker & Finn, 2008; ASEE and National Academy of Engineering, 2014). These barriers include the following: 1) Low academic preparedness and a lack of role models; 2) unsupportive institutional and faculty culture and environmental climate; and 3) socio-economic issues: lack of incentives or financial support. A higher percentage of URM students face challenges in having to cover educational expenses. This requires students to by employed while attending school and/or attend school close to home to avoid housing costs, resulting in less time for academics and less time to seek academic, emotional, and professional support. It is often a challenge to support all of the URM students in SSoE, especially those who are struggling academically. Our approach in accomplishing these goals is to adapt evidence-based strategies and model those strategies to improve faculty culture, allowing for the successful completion of doctorate programs by URM students in SSOE. The TDAE program will evaluate how well adopting structured faculty-student engagement and mentoring strategies from the UMBC model are being used to improve the success of URM transition to the doctorate and academic careers. Two key focus groups are emphasized â&#x20AC;&#x201D; URM doctoral student participants and SSoE faculty. Overall, successfully achieving the desired outcomes defined in each objective is expected to result in: 4

improvement in faculty engagement with URM students; improvement in faculty awareness of impediments to URM success in the SSoE PhD program; a shared vision among vested faculty regarding the success of URM students within SSOE; and establishment of a systemic inclusive academic culture and climate that supports the success of URM doctoral students. Project Strategies and Outcomes Activities completed under the project during the reporting period (September 1, 2015 to August 31, 2016) are grouped under the following: I. Student Level Objectives Activities/Programs for Student Recruitment and Enrollment: The objective of this ongoing activity is to implement a systemic plan for recruitment of URM students into engineering doctoral programs. Initial recruitment efforts have focused on students who have already completed or are nearly finished with their master’s degree. SSoE allows for students to be enrolled directly into its PhD programs following completion of their undergraduate degree. They are required to pass a qualifying exam after their first year and, if successful, they can bypass a master’s degree and go on to pursuing their PhD. The majority of our PhD student population chooses this route. Typically, these students take 5 years to graduate compared to the 3-4 years for students who have already completed a master’s degree. Thus, to maximize the number of PhD graduates within the 5-year timeframe of this AGEP award, initial recruiting efforts have focused on master’s students. We have also established two additional programs to aid in recruitment and enrollment: 1) the Early Bridge to the Doctorate, and 2) the Pre-PhD Undergraduate Research Experience (PURE) Program. Through these programs, students are identified through faculty mentoring relationships, direct engagement with the students, and campus visits to HBCUs (e.g. University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) Meyerhoff program, and others). Early Bridge to Doctorate to Expand the Pipeline: This strategy is designed to identify potential students at the end of their junior year and prepare them for graduate school through faculty mentoring and community engagement until they receive a BS or MS. Early Bridges to the Doctorate strategies are designed to adopt the successful approaches from of our existing Pre-PhD Transition to the Doctorate program and UMBC’s Meyerhoff program. For more than a decade, SSoE has enjoyed a strong partnership with UMBC in the recruitment of URMs into SSoE graduate programs through an annual campus visit. An average of 100 students attend the information session offered by SSoE faculty during these visits. Over 30% of SSoE URM PhD enrollments are recruits from UMBC. Thus, our partnership and adaptation recruitment strategies based on the UMBC model has proven successful. The Pre-PhD Undergraduate Research Experience (PURE) program at SSoE focuses on creating a training platform for Pitt students who wish to pursue PhD degrees in STEM by guiding their career focus, inspiring them for excellence in their courses, and aiding them through the graduate school application process. Students also engage in research with their Pitt faculty mentors during the academic year. The goal is to motivate and prepare these students, through their research, on the importance of earning a doctoral degree in engineering. The goal of the PURE program to prepare prospective students for the transition into graduate school. The PrePhD Scholars (PPS) program, though not funded by AGEP-KAT, will run parallel to the AGEPfunded program to support the recruitment efforts to our PhD application pool of URM BS/MS graduates. The PURE program is currently running with 5 students participating. 5

As a result of each of the aforementioned activities, six (6) students have been successfully recruited to the AGEP-KAT PhD program in different engineering fields within SSoE. Students from UMBC, Arizona State University, University of Pittsburgh, and Georgia Tech University were interviewed as part of the recruitment strategy to ensure their preparation and motivation for doctorate in engineering. Another recruitment strategy that we recently implemented in the Fall 2016 is the Discover Graduate Education recruitment weekend event — an expense-paid weekend designed to host underrepresented juniors from partnering pipeline institutions (HBCU/MI and non-PhD granting institutions) to foster opportunities for students to discover graduate school at the SSoE. During this weekend, URM students have the opportunity to meet faculty, explore research opportunities; interact with current graduate students; visit the research facilities; participate in a campus tour; and experience the feel of the university’s culture. Activities/Programs for Student Retention: We have also established a Graduate StudentCentered Community for a Culture of Inclusive Excellence. The objective of this activity is to provide strategic student-centered support services and programs to increase persistence and retention in graduate programs. The following activities were successfully implemented during the report period and their impact measured via survey: a. A workshop on Individual Development Plans (IDP) to “Guide Transition to the Doctorate” was conducted by Dr. Irene Mena. An IDP is an essential tool that a graduate student develops in consultation with a mentor to guide his/her successful transition to the doctorate and ultimately a professional career. The IDP is a road map toward purposefully achieving a desired goal as a graduate student. The objective of the workshop was to take students through the process of preparing IDPs and the importance of the plan for achieving their professional goals. The workshop was attended by 18 URM AGEP Community Fellows. b. Time Management Workshop: This workshop was a peer-group mentoring activity for graduate students to help them in managing their time. It has been discovered that graduate students and PhD students oftentimes have challenges managing their time effectively between and among their many competing interests. The goals of the workshop were to help students identify common distractions, providing strategies to address them, and discussing various time management strategies that students could implement. The workshop focused on how to plan and prioritize more effectively while managing interruptions and distractions. The workshop offered practical techniques that should be used to gain control over students’ time so that they can achieve more with less time. The workshop was attended by 10 AGEP Community Fellows. c. Graduate Diversity Workshop: The overarching goal of this workshop was to create a healthy awareness within new graduate students of the school’s diversity and inclusion goals and to foster intercultural sensitivity and a positive non-discriminatory working, teaching, and learning climate in an inclusive engineering community. Specific objectives of the workshop were for URM and other new graduate students to:  Appreciate the shared contributions of different groups to diversity, as well as a climate and culture of inclusion within the school;  Develop positive attitudes about groups of people who are different from themselves;

   

Become good citizens of the school, the community, the country, and the world community; Enrich and evaluate their own knowledge regarding different perspectives; Have a better knowledge of their individual cultural-self; and Gain better diverse-team management skills.

Evaluations of Student Level Activities Understanding Faculty/department culture and climate for URM success: This first year of the AGEP grant, we have been focusing on gathering data and determining a baseline for SSoE. We began by having engineering graduate students complete a climate survey in which they rated their departments in the areas of academics, mentors, and environment. These data were collected to learn about graduate students’ perceptions of the climate in the school of engineering, and to collect data pertaining to Objective 1 (adaption effectiveness). 138 graduate students completed the survey; other URM students who did not attend the workshop also completed the survey. The items, listed below (Table 1), had possible responses of strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, and strongly agree. Students’ responses indicated that they are overall satisfied with all of the survey item areas; meaning that items had means of approximately 4 (“Agree”) or 2 (“Disagree”) for reverse-coded items. Only one item was lower: the item asking about the presence of cultural sensitivity in their departments had a mean of 3.82. This is one area that can be targeted for improvement. Table 1: List of Survey Items, by Area Academic - The department helps to improve my academic preparedness and my success as graduate student - The department does not provide a supportive academic culture for my success - Presence of the following in your department: caring academic culture Mentor - There is a lack of role models to improve my transition to the completion of the doctoral or graduate degree - The department does not provide a supportive mentorship culture for my success - Presence of the following in your department: good faculty mentoring Environment - The department does not provide a supportive environmental climate for my success - Presence of the following in your department: adequate faculty commitment to my success - **Presence of the following in your department: cultural sensitivity - Presence of the following in your department: acceptable language/behavior - Presence of the following in your department: conducive environment ** indicates the item with the lower mean, as described in the text

Figure 1 shows the comparison of responses of 123 non-URM (White and Asian American) students and 25 URM (Blacks/AA and Hispanics/Latino) students to their assessments of the dominant culture/climate in their departments. Comparative assessment of departmental culture/climate 100% 94%

Supportive success climate 84%

Supportive mentorship culture

94%

Supportive success culture

88%

Role models to help my transition

84% 88%

Conducive environment

92%

83%

Acceptable language

95%

89%

Cultural sensitivity

68% 68%

Good faculty mentoring

68%

96%

80% 76% 80%

Adequate faculty commitment

84% 81%

Caring academic culture 72%

Department supports my success 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

89%

100%

120%

Percent of agree or strongly agree URM (Blacks/AA, His/Latinos)

Non-URM (White/Asians)

Figure 1. Comparative assessment of departmental culture/climate The result shows that while both URM and non-URM students equally (68%) agree or strongly agree that their departments were culturally sensitive to diversity and inclusion, there appears to be a statistical difference in URM agreement on presence of good faculty mentoring (68%), supportive mentorship culture (84%), and department’s support of students’ success (72%), compared to non-URM agreements, 80%, 94%, and 89%, respectively. All (100%) URM respondents agree that there is a supportive climate for their success compared to 94% for nonURM. This can mean more focus on changes in faculty and departmental cultures than in the environmental climate. Table 1a is a summary of comparisons based on the average agreements in different groups in a scale of 1-5. There is statistical significant difference in average agreement between male and female in items #1, 3, 5, and 6a than between URM and non-URM for the same items. In Item #2 (lack of role models), the mean for White is significantly different from the mean for URM and Asian. Table 1a. AGEP Grad student climate survey – Data analyses 1=strongly disagree; 2= disagree; 3= not sure; 4=agree; 5=strongly agree Significant differences at the 0.05 level are highlighted. T-test: Foreign vs. USA Foreign USA (n=84) (n=61) 1- The department helps to improve my academic 4.23 4.08 preparedness and my success as graduate student 8

Pvalue 0.351

2- There is a lack of role models to improve my transition to the completion of the doctoral or graduate degree 3- The department does not provide a supportive academic culture for my success 4- The department does not provide a supportive mentorship culture for my success 5- The department does not provide a supportive environmental climate for my success 6a- Presence of the following in your department: caring academic culture 6b- Presence of the following in your department: adequate faculty commitment to my success 6c- Presence of the following in your department: good faculty mentoring 6d- Presence of the following in your department: cultural sensitivity 6e- Presence of the following in your department: acceptable language/behavior 6f- Presence of the following in your department: conducive environment

2.63

2.02

0.00

2.08

1.98

0.423

2.14

2.21

0.631

2.11

1.92

0.159

4.04

4.02

0.886

3.95

4.08

0.4

3.97

0.825

3.7

3.87

0.273

4.11

4.21

0.354

4.02

4.2

0.135

T-test: Male vs. Female

1- The department helps to improve my academic preparedness and my success as graduate student 2- There is a lack of role models to improve my transition to the completion of the doctoral or graduate degree 3- The department does not provide a supportive academic culture for my success 4- The department does not provide a supportive mentorship culture for my success 5- The department does not provide a supportive environmental climate for my success 6a- Presence of the following in your department: caring academic culture 6b- Presence of the following in your department: adequate faculty commitment to my success 6c- Presence of the following in your department: good faculty mentoring 6d- Presence of the following in your department: cultural sensitivity 6e- Presence of the following in your department: acceptable language/behavior 9

Male (n=97)

Female (n=50)

PValue

4.07

4.36

0.05

2.43

2.28

0.349

2.14

1.82

0.004

2.25

0.064

2.14

1.78

0.004

3.95

4.22

0.047

3.93

4.2

0.076

3.98

4.04

0.699

3.74

3.88

0.42

4.14

4.18

0.775

6f- Presence of the following in your department: conducive environment

4.02

4.26

0.067

T-test: MS vs. PhD

MS (n=76)

PhD (n=66)

Pvalue

4.17

4.15

0.902

2.55

2.23

0.05

2.13

1.91

0.07

2.28

2.05

0.11

2.07

1.96

0.422

3.96

4.15

0.17

3.95

4.14

0.221

3.88

4.12

0.114

3.81

3.76

0.73

4.2

4.12

0.539

4.04

4.2

0.195

ANOVA: Asian vs. URM vs. White Asian (n=67)

URM (n=25)

4.24

3.84

4.19

0.177

2.57

2.6

2.02

0.006

2.07

2.12

1.94

0.516

2.15

2.24

2.21

0.876

White (n=47)

Pvalue

5- The department does not provide a supportive environmental climate for my success 6a- Presence of the following in your department: caring academic culture 6b- Presence of the following in your department: adequate faculty commitment to my success 6c- Presence of the following in your department: good faculty mentoring 6d- Presence of the following in your department: cultural sensitivity 6e- Presence of the following in your department: acceptable language/behavior 6f- Presence of the following in your department: conducive environment

2.15

1.8

2.02

0.198

4.09

4.04

3.98

0.787

4.1

3.89

0.501

4.12

3.76

3.92

0.195

3.7

3.63

3.96

0.258

4.16

4.24

4.06

0.582

4.09

4.16

4.08

0.9

A post-hoc Tukey test for Item #2 showed that the mean for White is significantly different from the mean for URM and Asian. Professional development and community building opportunities: Throughout this first year, we have also been focusing on providing professional development and community building opportunities for the AGEP graduate students. Three such activities were organized: one workshop on developing cultural self-awareness, one workshop on career goals and creating individual development plans, and one informal seminar on time management. These activities and their corresponding evaluations pertain to Objectives 2 and 3 (enhancing professional and educational skills in participants, and encouraging participants to maintain an interest in a PhD). In total, 132 students completed an evaluation for the workshop on cultural self-awareness. The items used to evaluate this workshop are below (Table 2). On average, students responded with a 4 (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Agreeâ&#x20AC;?) or above for most items, indicating that overall, they felt that the workshop successfully addressed the stated goals. A few items, marked with a **, had slightly lower scores (means of 3.5-3.9), indicating that the students would have liked more information on those specified topics. Table 2: List of items used to evaluate the workshop on cultural self-awareness 1. The workshop was effective in assisting me in identifying my cultural self and recognizing the framework for understanding my cultural self 2. I became aware of my self-cultural identities within my own group and recognize differences and similarities with other cultures 3. The workshop helped me understand group diversity and reconcile similarity, unity and diversity 4. The workshop assisted me in understanding the categories and frameworks in understanding my own culture including my values and beliefs **5. I understood the six elements of wholeness - communication that builds strong teams

**6. I understand how to adapt to acceptable classroom and research group behaviors and create intercultural groups **7. I understand how to navigate, negotiate, and adapt across U.S. culture and other cultures **8. I learned transformational leadership strategies of building strong diverse community teams **9. This workshop made me aware of the three critical elements of building strong diverse community teams **10. The workshop increased my capacity for self-transformation 11. Overall, the workshop was effective in accomplishing the stated objectives ** indicates means of 3.5-3.9; all other items have means of 4 or greater The analyses were organized in two groups: 1) Understanding self and group cultures and 2) Framing cultural identity and adaptation to others' culture. For understanding self and group cultures, Figure 2 (a) shows that 80% of the participants agreed that the workshop made them aware of their self-culture and orientation to differences and diversity, all of which will sustain a positive academic climate and increase their abilities to adapt acceptable behavior toward othersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; differences (as in Figure 2 (b)) Workshop improved my understanding of cultural-self and group cultures by increasing my ... Communication in Diverse team

60%

Understanding Cultural beliefs and values

80%

Awareness of Group Cultural Divesity

74%

Awareness of self-culture and difference

80% 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Percent agree or strongly agree

(a) Workshop helped me frame my cultural identity and adaptation to others' culture by improving my... Capacity for Self-Transformation

75%

Navigation and Adaptation in other culture

73%

Adaptation of appropriate behavior

78%

Framework for cultural idenity

77% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Percent agree or strongly agree

(b) Figure 2. Evaluations of workshop on cultural awareness.

IDPs: Seventeen students completed an evaluation for the workshop on IDPs. The items used to evaluate the workshop are below (Table 3). Students’ responses of 4 (“Agree”) and above were marked for all items, indicating that overall, they felt that the workshop successfully addressed the stated goals. As part of the workshop, students completed their own IDPs, in this way beginning to think of and plan for their career goals. Table 3: List of items used to evaluate the workshop on IDPs 1. The workshop was effective in assisting me to learn the importance of individual development plans (IDPs) 2. I understand how to create vision for my desired career 3. The workshop assisted me to understanding how to conduct self-assessment and analysis of assets and proficiency skills to support growth 4. I understand how to use the IDP to map my professional direction 5. I learned how to cultivate a sense of progress in my growth in the IDP 6. The IDP will increase my ability to track my progress in my transition to the doctorate 7. I understand success attitudes to support my transition to the doctorate 8. I am aware of the critical elements of building strong diverse community teams 9. This workshop will continue to change in academic culture that support the success of URM students 10. Overall, the workshop was effective in meeting the stated objectives As demonstrated in Figure 3, between 70-90% of the URM students agree that the IDP workshop helped or will help them in 10 key elements of creating their own culture and ownership of their success and transition to the doctorate.

Individual Development Plan.... Effective in meeting goals

100%

Improve my culture for my success

88%

Build critical skills to support my progress

71%

Improve my success-attitude for PhD transition

71%

Track progress in my PhD transition

100%

Learn to cultivate a sense of progress in my IDP

82%

Understand how to use IDP to map my direction

88%

Conduct self-assessment of proficiency skills

71%

Understand how to create vision

94%

Learn the importance of IDP

100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Percent of agree or strongly agree

Figure 3: Impact of IDP workshop on elements of URM students’ success This first year focused on collecting baseline data and on starting the graduate students’ professional development. Additional data to measure Objectives 1-3 will be collected starting in the fall 2016 term. Faculty Level Objectives From a faculty perspective, this first year of the AGEP grant aimed to gather data and determine a baseline for our school of engineering, and also to raise awareness among faculty (Faculty Objective 2). Regarding Faculty Objective 2, in order to gather data, we asked both department chairs and faculty their opinions of the current state of diversity in terms of the school’s culture towards URM students in SSoE. Further, several workshops were held during the 201516 academic year aimed at increasing diversity awareness for faculty. Faculty Interviews Data was collected from faculty members to learn their perspectives on diversity and their departmental culture as a way to triangulate and add to the data obtained from the chairs (provided in the next sub-section). Individual, safe conversations were organized with a subset of faculty members from the different departments. Specifically, two people were selected from each department. Where possible, a younger and a more senior faculty were selected. All individuals 14

were research active; hence, they actively mentored PhD students. The notes taken during these informal conversations were analyzed to determine common themes. No predetermined themes were used to analyze this data; the themes emerged from the data itself. The common themes in the interviews were: 1. There is currently a lack of URM faculty and graduate students in the departments, as well as a lack of URM candidates/applicants to choose from. 2. URM faculty and graduate students accept offers from other institutions (we lose them to other institutions). o But while many URM graduate students are lost to other institutions, this is not the case for international graduate students. There are currently a significant proportion of international students in the departments. 3. There is, with some faculty, the perception that URM lack preparation and/or confidence; for others, they cite examples of URM who did in fact lack preparation and/or confidence (for example, faculty cite examples of URM who have failed qualifier exams). In addition to these common themes, the following comments from individual faculty provide additional information regarding the current departmental culture: 1. Communication and awareness of URM issues seems to be a major issue with URMs and mentors. Other findings include: o Faculty are fearful of saying something “wrong;” o URMs are not understanding expectations, especially first year students; o URMs are thinking that graduate school is more about classes; o Mentors are waiting for them to engage in the lab; and o URMs are not seeking advice nor are they taking full advantage of opportunities to learn in the lab and this often results in a “wasted” first year and poor performance on qualifying exam. 2. Faculty have little ability to appreciate the lens through which these students are looking. Other findings include: o Overall, they feel that racial bias doesn’t exist for the most part anymore; o Some faculty admitted that they are less likely to take URM students because they are “more work” and present “cultural differences” that they are afraid will be used against them; o They fail to realize the differences pertaining to the influence of family between themselves and URM students; o They don’t appreciate that family is generally valued more by URM students; o They don’t realize that many of these students aren’t getting the same support for further education from parents that the faculty received; o They don’t realize that many of the URM students’ families don’t understand what it means to get a PhD, nor the work involved; o Mentors also don’t appreciate that the grandparents of URMs (who are important members of the family) lived through the days of the civil rights movements; and o Mentors also don’t appreciate that these students might have faced a significant amount of racial bias leading up to their graduate career.

3. Faculty don’t appreciate the difference in the education system (K-12) and undervalue HBCU education. Other findings include: o Faculty feel that most K-12 schools are achieving the minimum standards that will prepare motivated students for undergrad. One faculty said “Are schools still that segregated? Are there primarily Black schools versus White schools?;" o Faculty don’t appreciate why a motivated student would choose an HBCU; and o Faculty don’t appreciate the social and academic adjustments that URMs are making when transitioning from HBCUs. Some departments are quite active in recruiting URM PhD students as they have strong relationships with an HBCU and are able to coordinate further with the SSoE Office of Diversity, while other departments struggle to have such connections. Other themes that emerged were the lack of resources in departments, which could be a reason why qualified applicants accept offers from other institutions, and the lack of incentives for faculty to promote diversity. In addition, some faculty feel that there is no departmental culture for diversity, and that many faculty in their departments don’t care. They also mentioned the lack of diversity champions in their departments. With that said, a few departments did mention that they have a few strong champions who are keeping the department on track – constantly reminding their faculty about URM issues and to be conscientious when hiring faculty and certainly when recruiting URM students. However, if these people leave the university for any reason, there is a concern that diversity awareness will wane in certain departments. Several of the faculty mentioned that they strive to have diversity across their research labs, both in terms of females, URM, and international students. This can be challenging, but they believe that this is important. Despite the above concerns expressed in the interviews, many of the interviewees did mention that their departments were making progress in the area of diversity; for example, some mentioned improvements in terms of the current proportion of women in the departments. The faculty’s comments support the chairs’ comments (below): both mention the small pool of candidates to choose from, and the lack of URM role models in the departments as challenges in their departments. Although there are variations between departments and among faculty, these interviews in general validated the presence of Barrier 1 (Low academic preparedness and a lack of role models; Barrier 2 (Unsupportive Institutional and Faculty Culture and Environmental Climate); and Barrier 3 (Socio-economic issues: Lack of Incentives or Faculty Financial support) that need to be addressed and are being addressed for the success of URM doctoral students. Leadership/ Department Chair Surveys A survey of the SSoE department chairs was conducted to answer several questions about their department’s culture on the topic of diversity. Department chairs were provided with an indepth survey during the late fall of 2015. The main questions and a summary of the responses are below. The chairs’ responses were analyzed to determine common themes. No predetermined themes were used to analyze this data; the themes emerged from the data itself. Question #1: What does your department see as the roles of the Office of Diversity and the Engineering Diversity Advisory Committee (EDAC)?

The two most common themes in participants’ responses were that the role of the Office of Diversity and EDAC should be: 1. To educate on and/or promote diversity. This could be done by organizing seminars in which important issues are discussed, and providing tools and resources to address these issues. 2. To participate in the recruitment and retention of faculty and students. Question #2: How can the chair encourage more faculty to play intentional roles in meeting the school’s diversity goals (recruitment, retention, mentoring, URM PhD production, etc.)? The chairs listed many possible courses of action, including: 1. Educating faculty on the value of diversity. One way to promote this is to encourage faculty attendance at diversity workshops. 2. Appropriate rewards and incentives. This includes monetary rewards and public acknowledgment. Question #3: What are some unique challenges your department faces in dealing with diversity and inclusion issues, and how can EOD help? Specifically in: a) Diversifying the workforce (faculty and staff) and graduate student body; b) Improving retention (mentoring); c) Fostering a culture/climate for inclusive excellence. Two common themes emerged: 1. There is a small pool of candidates to choose from. Some chairs also mentioned that more resources are needed to identify, attract, and bring in possible candidates. 2. There is a lack of role models for URMs. In addition to these common themes, some concerns were expressed by certain chairs, which shed light on what their existing departmental culture might be. These concerns were related to worry on the part of faculty about what the rules are and whether they are breaking them; worry about accepting what they consider to be unqualified students; and lack of committed faculty. In their words: “Faculty feel that they are obligated to bend over for students who are URM … Apprehension in dealing with the issues and they fail to provide special attention to URM … Worried about breaking the rules.” “… problems arise when there is a discrepancy between what EOD considers to be [a] quality graduate student to what [the department] considers to be a quality student … Faculty accepts a student unconvincingly with respect to quality … ” “Not enough committed faculty; some are not capable because some are not culturally sensitive to a diverse population … Sense of feeling by some that affirmative action is not good for the country.”

This drives the current culture in regards to Barriers #1 and #2. Faculty and Leadership Workshops Aside from determining the baseline in terms of climate and sensitivity as it relates to diversity, our other goal was to raise awareness among the faculty. To accomplish this, two speakers were invited to give seminars: Dr. Ebony McGee on “Making Diversity Work” and Dr. Renetta Tull on the topic of “The Jessica Effect” and the relationships between URM students and their families. Both speakers prepared seminars for SSoE faculty and staff, and Dr. McGee also prepared an additional seminar specifically for the SSoE leadership. Participants at the seminars completed evaluations, and this data corresponds to Objective 2 (improving faculty awareness of the problems facing URM students). Data on the workshops is included below: a) A faculty workshop on “The Jessica Effect: Valuing Cultural and Familial Connections to Broaden Success in Academe,” with Dr. Renetta Tull. The workshop on the “Jessica Effect” is a strategic institutional planning decision to definitively invite and actively include the family members and friends of graduate students in informative and celebratory events and programs. This practice of “family and friend” inclusion is the legacy of Jessica, a graduate student who was murdered by her husband. It ultimately achieves several purposes including, but not limited to (1) serving as an advising model that faculty and administrators can utilize to both recognize and value the cultural and familial connections of their graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and colleagues in the STEM disciplines; (2) promoting an understanding of the university experience among those who may not be familiar with academic processes and timelines; (3) reducing feelings of isolation on the part of students and family members; and (4) expanding the opportunities for family members to offer their students the support necessary for degree completion. A total of 40 faculty and staff attended this workshop. Thirty-seven of the participants who attended Dr. Tull’s seminar completed an evaluation. The items addressing the speaker and topic are below, and all these items had means greater than a 4 (“Agree”), indicating that the attendees believed the seminar effectively addressed the stated objectives. Table 4: List of items used to evaluate Dr. Tull’s seminar

1. The presenter was effective in explaining the "Jessica Effect" 2. The speaker was effective in explaining how graduate school can have an effect on families of students 3. The speaker was effective in giving examples of how to support the family of graduate students who may not understand the process or have cultural barriers 4. The speaker was able to explain the need for an advising model that recognizes and values the cultural and familial relationship 5. The speaker was able to convey the need to reduce the isolation of the student and their families b) Creating Faculty awareness URM success-culture: A seminar for faculty and staff was provided by Dr. Ebony McGee on “Creating an Inclusive academic culture or climate that support the success of URM PhD students.” The objectives of the seminar were to address (1) the negative racial and gendered experiences that trouble URM engineering doctoral students; (2) expose the 18

damage done by negative racial and gendered experiences, including the loss of many potential URM faculty members who are dissuaded from entering academia; (3) provide faculty/staff education on some practical aspects of enhancing diversity and inclusivity; (4) understand the various motivational strengths and factors that influenced URM PhD students’ decisions to enroll in engineering and computing doctoral programs. The seminar was also designed to identify intentional practices that create an academic culture that supports the success of URM engineering graduate students as they work toward a doctorate. The seminar for faculty and staff was attended by 48 participants. The items used to evaluate Dr. McGee’s seminar for faculty and staff are below; the evaluation was completed by 41 attendees. Most items had a mean of 4 (“Agree”), but a few items, marked with a **, had slightly lower scores (means of 3.5-3.9), indicating that the attendees would have liked more information on the specified topics. Table 5: List of items used to evaluate Dr. McGee’s seminar for faculty and staff 1. The workshop addressed the negative racial and gendered experiences that trouble URM engineering doctoral students 2. The workshop exposed the damage done by negative racial and gendered experiences, including the loss of many potential URM faculty members who are dissuaded from entering academia **3. The workshop provided faculty/staff education on practical aspects of enhancing diversity and inclusivity 4. The workshop helped me understand the various motivational strengths and factors that influenced URM PhD students' decisions to enroll in an engineering doctoral program 5. The workshop enhanced my ability to identify intentional practices that create an academic culture that supports the success of URM engineering graduate students as they work toward a doctorate 6. The workshop increased my awareness of the challenges URM graduate students face 7. I have a better understanding of my role as faculty/staff to support URM graduate students in their transition to the doctorate **8. The workshop showed me some strategies for creating an inclusive academic culture that will support the success of underrepresented minority PhD students increased **9. The lessons learned from this workshop will contribute to change in academic culture that support the success of URM students 10. Overall, the workshop was effective in meeting the stated objectives ** indicates means of 3.5-3.9; all other items have means of 4 or greater Figure 4 demonstrates that while the workshop did not quite meet our high expectation of faculty awareness of their roles in supporting URM students (59%); how to improve academic culture for URM success (63%); strategies for creating academic success-culture (66%); and the practical aspect of enhance diversity (61%); the workshop did significantly increase faculty awareness in other important aspects of URM success: Challenges faced by URM PhDs (83%); negative racial and gendered experiences of URMs (98%); damage done by negative URM racial and gendered experience (83%); how to create academic culture that supports URM success (83%); and the various motivational factors that influence URM students’ success (90%). 19

Faculty Cultural Awareness: Workshop on creating a success-culture for URM, PhDs, increased my understanding of ... Workshop was effective overall in meeting goals

83%

Improving aademic culture for URM success

63%

Strategies for creating academic success-culture

66%

My role in supporting URM doctoral students…

59%

Challenges faced by URM PhDs

88%

Creating academic culture that supports URM…

83%

Various motivational factors that infleunce URMs

90%

Practical aspects of enhancing diversity

61%

Damage done by negative URM racial and…

83%

Negative racial and gendered experiences of… 0%

98% 20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent agree or strongly agree

Figure 4. Faculty awareness on creating the culture for URM success in doctorate. Leadership Receptivity: Making diversity work for inclusive success-culture: Nine members of the SSoE leadership also attended a second seminar provided by Dr. McGee that was reserved just for the leadership of SSoE. All department chairs (except for one) and deans of SSoE were in attendance. The items used to evaluate the seminar are below. Most items had a mean of 4 (“Agree”), but a few items, marked with a **, had slightly lower scores (means of 3.5-3.9), indicating that the attendees would have liked more information on the specified topics. Table 6: List of items used to evaluate Dr. McGee’s seminar for the leadership 1. The workshop made me aware of the intentional roles the leadership can play to meet the school's diversity goals in recruitment, retention, mentoring, and URM PhD production 2. The workshop made me aware of innovative approaches to faculty recruitment and the expansion of URM doctoral engineering **3. The workshop introduced me to effective metrics and best practices for monitoring recruitment and retention strategies **4. The workshop reflected on the ways that engineering departmental cultures might be problematic for both majority and minority students **5. The presentations educated the leadership about practical aspects of enhancing diversity and discovering why being around people who are different from us makes engineering programs more creative and more diligent 6. The workshop made me aware of the challenges faced by underrepresented minority (URM) graduate engineering students 20

**7. The presentations detailed the importance of mentoring for junior faculty and URM doctoral students **8. The workshop increased my awareness of strategies for creating an inclusive academic culture that will support the success of underrepresented minority PhD students 9. The lessons learned from this workshop will contribute to change in academic culture that support the success of URM students 10. Overall, the workshop was effective in meeting the stated objectives ** indicates means of 3.5-3.9; all other items have means of 4 or greater Figure 5 shows that the SSoE leadership agreed or strongly agreed that the workshop was 89% effective in helping them understand their intentional roles for recruitment and retention of URMs (78%); approaches for faculty and URM recruitments (89%); practical aspects of enhancing diversity (78%); and challenges faced by URM PhD students (78%). The workshop was, however, somewhat weak in helping the leadership understand the importance of mentoring faculty and URM PhD students (67%); strategies for creating inclusive academic culture (56%); metrics for best recruitment and retention strategies (56%); and barriers in engineering culture to URMs success (56%). The project team hopes to address these issues in subsequent workshops.

Leadership Receptivity: Working on making diversity work for URM success increased my understanding of ... Overall workshop effective in meeting goals

89%

How to improve academic culture for URM…

89%

Strategies for creating inclusive academic…

56%

Importance of mentoring faculty and URM…

67%

Challenges faced by URM PhD students

78%

Practical aspect of enhancing diversity

78%

Barries in engineering culture to URMs success

56%

The metrics for best recruitment and retention…

56%

Approaches for Faculty and URM recruitments

89%

Intentional roles for receruitment and…

78%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Percent of agree or strongly agree

Figure 5. Leadership receptivity to making diversity work for URM success. Faculty Financial Incentives Finally, regarding Objective 3 and the financial support that is being provided, five of the six department chairs are fully committed to providing a 50-50% match on the dean’s support for each AGEP URM PhD student for the first two years or until the student has passed the qualifier. The 21

sixth department chair responded that this will need to be put in the budget, indicating that it is the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s intention to commit to this. Faculty Training on Diversity and Student Success Conference by AACU Three faculty members attended this conference to gain more insight on diversity, inclusion, and helping students to succeed. The major take from this conference is that leadership and faculty members should create a more diverse and inclusive learning environment in their institutions, schools, and departments that will build a positive academic learning environment where URMs students can thrive and succeed. This first year focused on collecting baseline data from the chairs and faculty and on initiatives for faculty awareness. Additional data to measure Objectives 1-3 will be collected starting in the fall 2016 term. Summary of Significant Results from Year 2015-16 1. Greater awareness about the support systems available for URM students was achieved. As a result of various workshops and the informational session conducted with the students, there is a greater awareness among the students on various resources available to them to guide them in their academic pursuits.. 2. Increased culture of our faculty learning community. Many faculty members are now aware of the importance of community learning activities whereby shared visions are created for the community regarding the success of URM students. During the various workshops, faculty members were exposed to different strategies and techniques in creating the shared vision for the success of the program. 3. Leadership receptivity. There is very clear commitment from the school and university leaderships, with a combined financial support of over $731,000 to cover some critical activities not supported by NSF AGEP KAT plus 100% tuition for every AGEP scholar for the first two years of graduate studies. The departments have committed to continue the support beyond the first two years.

References Brent, R., & Felder, R. M. (2003). A model for engineering faculty development. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(2), 234–240. Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984. Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102. Marbach-Ad, G., Briken, V., Frauwirth, K., Gao, L.-Y., Hutcheson, S.W., Joseph, S.W., Smith, A.C. (2007). A faculty team works to create content linkages among various courses to increase meaningful learning of targeted concepts of microbiology. CBE Life Sci Educ 6(2), 155–162. Brent, R., & Felder, R.M. (2001). A model for engineering faculty development. Intl. Journal of Engr. Education, 19(2), 234-240. Brent, R. &, R.M. (2001). Engineering faculty development: Getting the sermon beyond the choir,Journal of Faculty Development, 18(3),73-81. Brent, R., Felder, R., Regan, T., Walser, A., Carlson-Dakes, C., Evans, D., Malave, C., Sanders, K. & McGourty, J. (2000). Engineering faculty development: A multicoalition perspective. Proceedings, 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, ASEE, June 2000. Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4). Nelson, D.J. & Rogers, D.C. (2007). A national analysis of diversity in science and engineering faculties at research universities. Retrieved from http://www.now.org/issues/diverse/diversity_report.pdf. Nelson, D.J. & Brammer, C.N. (2010). A national analysis of minorities in science and engineering faculties at research universities, Second edition, Retrieved fromhttp://chem.ou.edu/~djn/diversity/Faculty_Tables_FY07/07Report.pdf. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., & Associates. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gandara, P., & Maxwell-Jolly, J., (1999). Priming the pump: Strategies for increasing the achievement ofunderrepresented minority undergraduates. New York: College Board.

Gandara, P., Rumberger, R., Larson, K., & Mehan, H. (1998). Capturing Latino students in the academic pipeline. Berkeley, CA: University of California, California Policy Seminar and Chicano/Latino Policy Project. Langley-Turnbaugh, S.J., Locke, S., Cohen, L., & Lightbody, N. (2007). Research experiences for undergraduates with disabilities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors. In Karukstis, K.K., & Elgren, T.E., (Eds). Developing & sustaining a research-supportive curriculum: A compendium of successful practices. Washington, D.C.: Council on Undergraduate Research. Ishiyama, J.T., & Hopkins, V.M. (2002). Assessing the impact of a graduate-school preparation program on first-generation, low-income college students at a public liberal arts university. Journal of College Student Retention.; 4:393-405. Barlow, A., & Villarejo, M., (2004). Making a difference for minorities: Evaluation of an educational enrichment program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41:861-881. National Research Council. (2003): Transforming undergraduate education for future research biologists. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., & Gonyea, R.M. (2007b). Connecting the dots: multi-faceted analyses of the relationships between student engagement results from the NSSE, and the institutional practices and conditions that foster student success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Retrieved August 2, 2008, from http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/Connecting_the_Dots_Report.pdf. Lipka, S. (2007). Helicopter parents help students, survey finds. Study abroad, research, and big projects are said to improve learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(11): 1, 32. Barr, R.B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learningâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change. 13:10 Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). Howcollege affects students. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Malachowski, M. (1996). The mentoring role in undergraduate research projects. CUR Quarterly. (December): 91-93, 105-106.

Malachowski, M. (2006). Undergraduate research as the next great faculty divide. Peer Review, 8:26-27. Zydney, A.L., Bennett, J.S., Shahid, A., & Bauer, K.W. (2002). Faculty perspectives regarding the undergraduate research experience in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Education,91:291-297. Koch, C, & Johnson, W.B. (2000). Documenting the benefits of undergraduate mentoring. CUR Quarterly, 19:172-175 Prince, M.J., Felder, R.M., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of Engineering Education, 96:283-294. Nagda, B., Gregerman, S., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., & Lerner, J.S. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Review of Higher Education, 22:55-72. Karukstis, K.K (2005). Community-based research: New paradigm for undergraduate research in the sciences. Journal of Chemical Education, 82:15-16. Alexander, B.B., Foertsch, J., Daffinrud, S., & Tapia, R. (2000). The â&#x20AC;&#x153;Spend a Summer with a Scientistâ&#x20AC;? (SaS) Program at Rice University. A study of program outcomes and essential elements1991-1997. CUR Quarterly, 20:127-133. Karukstis, K.K., & Elgren, T.E., eds. (2007). Developing & sustaining a research-supportive curriculum: A compendium of successful practices. Washington, D.C.: Council on Undergraduate Research. Nyden, P. (2003). Academic incentives for faculty participation in community-based participatory research. Journal of General Internal Medicine,18:576-585. Sharp, L., Kleiner, B., & Frechtling, J. (2000). A description and analysis of best practice findings of programs promoting participation of underrepresented undergraduate students in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology fields. Report No. NSF 01-31. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Summers, M.F., & Hrabowski III, F.A. (2006). Preparing minority scientists and engineers. Science, 311:1870-1871. 25

Wosu, S.N. (2016). Relational Mentorship in Higher Education, KLI Publishing, PA ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This project is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1434012. DISCLAIMER: 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