eval-report/ 40750 47532 47532 0 6077136124 11307 5 ustar caitlin eval-report/about.html 100664 47532 47532 1446 6077137073 13424 0 ustar caitlin
January 15, 1996
prepared
for
Professor Anne Condon
University of Wisconsin-Madison
by
The LEAD Center, UW-Madison
Evaluation Research Team:
Baine B. Alexander, Sue M. Daffinrud, & Heather A. Lewis
This evaluation is funded by the National Science Foundation grant, #CDA-9312038, awarded to the Computing Research Association.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
Table of Contents | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
Ten of the students had not graduated before fall, 1995. All of these student plan to pursue graduate studies -- one specifically for her MBA.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
We interviewed ten out of the twenty-eight total 1995 student participants in the summer of 1995. Each student participated in two interviews: one at the beginning of her program and another upon the completion of her program. We conducted one interview with ten out of the twenty-five total 1994 student participants. (One of these students participated in 1994 and 1995.)
We conducted a single interview with nine out of the twenty-five 1995 mentors in the fall of 1995. Four of these mentors participated in the DMP in both 1994 and 1995. We interviewed ten out of the twenty-four 1994 mentors once in the fall of 1995.
The reader should note that qualitative and quantitative research methods differ not only with respect to data collection but with respect to analysis. Individual interviews allow the researchers to "get inside of" the experiences of these diverse participants. Data collection methods are as open-ended and subject-responsive as feasible to ensure that the experiences of the study participants, not the researchers, are reported. Likewise, analysis processes are fundamentally inductive to ensure that the participants' experiences shape the findings. In practice, this means that the researchers make every effort to at least temporarily suspend the ideas that structured their interview protocols. The analysis of interview transcripts is focused on determining what is most important to the participants. The primary analytical categories that emerge as the researchers process the transcripts are apparent in the table of contents. In contrast to survey methods, these methods do not yield precise, quantitative assessments of the proportion of participants holding pre-specified opinions. However, these methods provide extraordinarily rich information expressing the complexity of the lived experiences of the study participants.
In the DMP, students were immersed in an academic environment through the following processes:
Some students enjoyed their work in an academic environment, but were still ambivalent about choosing academic CS&E as a career. Many of these students stated that they had not worked in industry and had no basis for comparison and so were hesitant to decide upon a career in academia. Some of these students commented that although they enjoyed the freedom and flexibility of an academic schedule, they also had reservations about working in such an unstructured environment.
Some students came to realize that an academic career did not appeal to them. Many of these students expressed that they needed more external direction and structure than a career in research would offer them.
If students encounter serious problems in the DMP, do they allow this negative experience to be the defining factor in whether they attend graduate school? We are defining "serious problems" as students feeling that their mentor excluded them from professional and personal interactions with her and as a result, encountered problems with the program itself.
Due to the small number of students who had negative experiences in the program, we cannot draw definitive conclusions about this question. Despite this small sample, their experiences raise important questions and issues about the implementation of the DMP and its effects on the students. In subsequent years of this evaluation as more data is gathered, we will be able to more completely explore the relationship between program implementation and its effects.
Moreover, students were more motivated and inspired to do research when their mentor treated them as valuable members of the research group, capable of providing input about their research. A few students said that they felt excluded from the collaborative research process as a result of being assigned to a project that was irrelevant to their mentor's research or not working with members of the research team. These students stated that they felt isolated from the research process and became less motivated to work on their project.
We came to understand that students viewed their mentor as an authority figure and were uncomfortable, at least initially, with approaching her with questions and concerns. A number of these students lacked confidence about their skills and abilities, and were reluctant to initiate interactions and discussions with the mentor. As a result, the students placed the responsibility on the mentor for defining the nature and frequency of interactions during the program. Thus, the mentor can reduce her student's anxiety about their interactions, both professional and social, by defining when and how often they would meet, what was expected of them in these meetings, and the times at which the mentor would be available for questions (outside of the regular meetings). If the student worked with graduate students, the mentor also needed to provide a clear delineation of their working relationship.
Virtually all mentors stated that the focus of the DMP was to introduce undergraduate females to research and a graduate school environment in CS&E with the intention of encouraging these students to consider going to graduate school. Many mentors expressed that although they encouraged students to pursue graduate studies in CS&E, they did not pressure these students into going to graduate school. Rather, they attempted to provide an introduction to graduate school and research as well as reinforcing confidence about their capabilities of succeeding in graduate school in CS&E. With this information and encouragement, the mentors stated that the DMP students would be able to make a more informed choice about attending graduate school.
All of the mentors that we interviewed commented that the DMP provided an excellent opportunity to both encourage women to consider graduate school in CS&E and prepare them for a career in CS&E because it immersed them in a research environment and "plugged" them into a network of CS&E professionals:
Most mentors that we interviewed commented that a positive outcome of the DMP was that it matched students and mentors from different universities. Given the low numbers of women in many areas of CS&E, many mentors viewed the matching as a good way to create connections between female CS&E professionals and to provide role models for undergraduates that they may not have access to at their own institution.
Evaluator Question
Should there be a minimal background requirement of students?
Inevitably there are students who experience difficulties in any program. In some cases, these problems result from personals issues and little can be done to alter the student's experience in the program. However, in some situations, the problems may result from circumstances involving program implementation. As remarked above, a few mentors described their students as unmotivated. Our interviews indicated that there was a disjuncture between the student and mentor perceptions of the student's intentions. While mentors characterized their student as unmotivated, the students expressed that they wanted to contribute, but felt lost and without direction. These students lacked the confidence to assert themselves and felt shy about asking "basic" or "obvious" questions of the mentor. The students thus retreated from interaction with the mentor and this was misinterpreted as a lack of motivation and interest in working on the research project. We came to realize that initially these students may need more structure and guidance from the mentors in order to proceed in the research and develop confidence. Through gaining knowledge and experience in the programs such as the DMP, these students can develop independence and goal orientation.
Through trying to ensure that the students have the proper background needed to conduct research in the mentor's area of expertise, the mentors are attempting to create an experience that may be beneficial for both mentor and student. However, this could be problematic. As noted earlier, students entered into the DMP with the intention of making decisions about future career paths. Thus, many viewed the DMP as more than a research experience; they viewed it as a way to learn about graduate school and academic life. In fact, through their experience in the DMP, many students were able to decide if a career in CS&E was "right" for them. If the selection process is defined solely by student background, this may prevent the program from reaching students who are at a critical juncture in a career decision and would benefit from a valuable experience such as the DMP.
Evaluator Questions
Would allowing mentors to participate in the selection process fit with the goal of the program?
Giving students an idea of the research process. Many mentors realized that their students had little or no conception of what research was about and, as part of their role, involved and discussed with their student the nature of the research process. As these mentors explained, this immersion involved introducing students to the day-to-day process of "doing" research, providing them with the context of how their area of interest fits in to the larger body of current research, introducing students to other people who can assist them, and giving them names of journals to which they can submit their research.
Orienting students to the professional culture of academic CS&E. Some mentors took their students to conferences and remarked that this was a way for the students to interact on a professional and social level with other CS&E professionals.
All of the mentors we interviewed placed their student in an office in their building so the mentors could easily stop by the student's office. Many mentors commented that they did not have a set meeting time with their student, but made sure that they were in contact with their student at least a few times a week. These mentors felt that the almost day-to-day interaction precluded the need for weekly meetings because they could follow the student's progress on her project more closely. Other mentors set up weekly meetings for their student. Many of these mentors commented that the structure of weekly meetings provided a framework and guidance for the student learning and motivated the students to work on the project. Some mentors commented that weekly meetings helped to ensure that their student were enjoying their project and was also working hard on it.
Many mentors stated that, given the short time frame of the program, it was important to be able to assess their student's background accurately so that the student can work on a project without a large degree of initial preparation time. Some mentors commented that their student was unable to finish her project because they had overestimated her background knowledge and needed to spend time at the beginning of the program providing information. These mentors expressed that they should have contacted their student before she arrived to determine her background in order to frame a project more suited to her needs.
In addition, many mentors suggested having multiple projects prepared at the beginning of the program. These mentors expressed that the student would be more motivated when she was able to choose a project that interested her and having multiple projects would prevent the student from getting too frustrated or bored by one project and allow her to learn different material.
Evaluator Question
In the 1994 and 1995 program years, the mentors received neither monetary nor professional recognition for their participation. Many mentors commented that they would have preferred to receive some sort of recognition for their participation in the DMP in the form of:
Publicity for their participation in a journal. A few mentors mentioned that they would have liked to have been honored for their participation in the DMP by having their name listed in some publication, like the Computing Research News. These mentors felt that this publicity would benefit the mentor, her institution, and the DMP.
Funding which may influence more faculty to participate. Many mentors commented that if the DMP provided some sort of funding, more faculty may be inclined to participate. Many of these mentors stated that the funding would not have to be directed toward the mentor. The funding could be applied to cover expenses of having the student, or to the department, or to be a stipend for both the student and mentor to attend a conference.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
The Distributed Mentor Project (DMP) Evaluation Report #1 is the first in a series of three reports as part of a three year evaluation project (1995 - 1998) conducted by the UW-Madison's
A second purpose is to inform and prepare prospective mentors and student participants about the program.
Did the mentee and/or mentor believe that the DMP program helped effect changes in the student's:
Did other factors in the DMP students' experience have an effect on their decision to attend graduate school, including:
The reader should note that it is not necessary to read this report in its entirety nor is it necessary to read the document in a specific order; each piece in the document may be read independently without a loss of context or meaning.
This evaluation report contains three sections. The two sections are based on a qualitative analysis: The Students' Point of View: Issues Involved in Participating in the DMP and The Mentors' Point of View: Issues Involved in Mentoring in the DMP. The purpose of the qualitative section is to present the student and mentor perspectives on the Distributed Mentor Project. The third section of this document consists of the presentation of the results of a survey that we conducted via email with the student and mentor participants in 1994 and 1995. The purpose of the survey was to allow us to triangulate across a range of different data sources during the analysis process.
The qualitative analysis is intended for a varied audience that includes: former and prospective student participants of the DMP, faculty who participated as mentors in the program, faculty who are considering participating in the program, and other interested individuals.
The reader should note that qualitative and quantitative research methods differ not only with respect to data collection but with respect to analysis. Individual interviews allow the researchers to "get inside of" the experiences of these diverse participants. Data collection methods are as open-ended and subject-responsive as feasible to ensure that the experiences of the study participants, not the researchers, are reported. Likewise, analysis processes are fundamentally inductive to ensure that the participants' experiences shape the findings. In practice, this means that the researchers make every effort to at least temporarily suspend the ideas that structured their interview protocols. The analysis of interview transcripts is focused on determining what is most important to the participants. The primary analytical categories that emerge as the researchers process the transcripts are apparent in the table of contents. In contrast to survey methods, these methods do not yield precise, quantitative assessments of the proportion of participants holding pre-specified opinions. However, these methods provide extraordinarily rich information expressing the complexity of the lived experiences of the study participants.
We interviewed ten out of the twenty-eight total 1995 student participants in the summer of 1995. Each student participated in two interviews: one at the beginning of her program and another upon the completion of her program. Interviewing the students at the beginning and end of the program allowed us to observe if and how the students' experiences and attitudes towards graduate school and research in CS&E changed throughout the program. These students will be interviewed a third time in the summer of 1996 in order to determine the long-term effects of the program on their career choices.
We conducted one interview with ten out of the twenty-five total 1994 student participants. (One of these students participated in 1994 and 1995.) The purpose of these interviews was to develop an understanding of their experience in the DMP and also to assess the impact of the program on their career decisions. Only three of the student participants had graduated from their undergraduate institution at the time of the interview and as a result, we were not able to conduct a definitive analysis of the program effect on career decisions. However, our interviews strongly indicated that these students' experiences were similar to those of the 1995 participants and thus served to strengthen our analysis. In addition, many of these students emphasized the effect of their experience in the DMP on their understanding of graduate school and academia reflecting a long-term effect of the program.
We conducted a single interview with nine out of the twenty-five 1995 mentors in the fall of 1995. Four of these mentors participated in the DMP in both 1994 and 1995. We interviewed ten out of the twenty-four 1994 mentors once in the fall of 1995. Six of these mentors participated in the DMP in 1994 and 1995. The purpose of these interviews was to understand the faculty's experiences and attitudes toward mentoring in the DMP.
The survey response rate is as follows:
Twenty-two of the twenty-eight 1995 student participants and eleven of the twenty-five student participants responded to the survey. Two of the students who responded to the survey participated in 1994 and 1995 and we included their response in the 1995 survey results and not in the 1994 survey results. The low response rate among the 1994 results from the difficulty of contacting students who had graduated and did not have email address. Due to the low response rate among the 1994 student participants (44%), we will not present those results.
Twenty-one of the thirty-eight total mentors responded to the survey. Of the thirteen mentors who participated in 1994 only, four responded. Of the eleven mentors who participated in 1994 and 1994, seven responded. Of the fourteen mentors who participated in 1995 only, ten responded.
We will present in the survey results the number of 1994 students who are currently in graduate school or have plans to pursue graduate study.
The verbal quantifiers used in this report are:
Ellipses (...) in quoted material indicate deleted dialogue occurring within the reproduced material. Deletions are made so that the readers can appreciate speakers' views on a particular topic without having to sort through the divergent twists and turns of the raw dialogue. Explanatory words added to quotes appear inside brackets [ ]. The quoted material is presented as faithfully as possible to the speakers' intent. Interview dialogue is marked "I:" to indicate an interviewer's speech and is marked "R:" to indicate the speech of the respondent. In interview passages in which more than one respondent is quoted, "R1:," "R2:," etc. is used.
1Established in August of 1994, the LEAD Center supports individuals engaged in educational reform activities at both the baccalaureate and graduate levels. The LEAD Center focuses on student learning experiences and faculty adaptation and dissemination processes. It provides clients with both summative and "formative" evaluation (defined above).
Research Questions
The following are a set of research questions developed with Professor Anne Condon, Principal Investigator of the CRA-DMP, that inform the evaluation research design:
Guide to the Reader
Intended Audience
A guide to "The Students' Point of View: Issues Involved in Participating in the DMP"
Section I presents students' motivations for participating in the DMP. In section II we discuss the impact of the immersion of students in an academic environment on defining their interests in graduate school and a career in academia. In section III we focus on the importance of students collaborating with and being included as a part of the research team of the mentor. In section IV, we list and discuss the students' perceptions of the roles of their mentor in the DMP. In section V, we present some logistical difficulties that arose for the students. A guide to "The Mentors' Point of View: Issues Involved in Mentoring in the DMP:
Section I presents the mentors' view of the goal of the DMP and how the structure achieves this goal. In section II we focus on the mentors' view of the student participants and how student background and motivation affect the success of the program. Section III presents the two mentor perspectives on the importance of receiving assistance in their research program from the student. In section IV we present three main roles that the mentors assumed during their participation in the DMP. Section V presents strategies that the mentors viewed as essential to creating a successful DMP experience for both the student and mentor. In section VI we present the mentors' suggestions of the ways in which they would like to receive recognition for their participation in the program.Methods
We have thus far pursued these research questions through the use of structured, open-ended interviews and through conducting a survey. In addition, we used a diversely trained research team consisting of an anthropologist and two math graduate students. This enhanced the quality of the research because individuals trained in different disciplines bring together different perspectives in both the areas of data collection as well as in analysis.Open-ended Interviews
We interviewed both mentor and student participants from the 1994 and 1995 program years. The structured open-ended interviews were conducted individually and lasted approximately one hour. The interview protocols for the students and mentors appear in Appendix A. All interviews were recorded and transcribed; an average transcription was twenty single-spaced pages.Survey
A survey was distributed via email to the 1994 and 1995 student and mentor participants in the fall of 1995. Using the survey we were able to collect baseline demographic data on the student participants. The survey was also utilized to determine if the findings from the
qualitative interviews were representative of the experience of the mentor and student participants as a whole. The surveys appear in Appendix B.Notes on the Use of Verbal Quantifiers
Specific verbal quantifiers are used to denote the relative size of a group of participants who presented particular perspectives or described particular experiences in interviews. It is important to note that due to the nature of qualitative interviews, the size of a group who discussed a particular type of experience does not indicate the size of the group who had this type of experience. Although the same interview protocol was used in each interview, respondents' answers often prompted discussion in a particular area that may not have emerged in other interviews.
Notes on Quoted Material
A row of asterisks separating two or more quotes indicates that different interviewees are represented in the quotes.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In this section, we will discuss various issues involved in being a mentor in the DMP. Many of these are themes that the mentors themselves initiated and discussed in our interviews; other themes arose more directly from our interview questions. Our discussion will focus on the mentors' views surrounding the significant components of the program.
In this section we will discuss the mentors' views of the overarching goal of the DMP and how the structure of the program achieves this goal.
In our interviews with the mentors, we discussed the purpose of the DMP. Virtually all mentors responded that the focus of the DMP was to introduce undergraduate females to research and a graduate school environment in CS&E with the intention of encouraging these students to consider going to graduate school.
Many mentors expressed that although they encouraged students to pursue graduate studies in CS&E, they did not pressure these students into going to graduate school. Rather, they attempted to provide an introduction to graduate school and research as well as reinforcing confidence about their capabilities of succeeding in graduate school in CS&E. With this information and encouragement, the mentors stated that the DMP students would be able to make a more informed choice about attending graduate school.
All of the mentors that we interviewed commented that the DMP provided an excellent opportunity to both encourage women to consider graduate school in CS&E and prepare them for a career in CS&E. These mentors stated that the structure of the DMP, which immersed students in a research environment and matched them with a female faculty member, was an extremely effective way to get students interested in pursuing graduate studies in CS&E. In this section we will discuss the mentors' views on how the immersion in a graduate academic environment and contact with a female faculty member influenced the students.
Virtually all of the mentors stated that a critical factor in the success of the DMP was that it immersed students in research and in a graduate school environment. These mentors expressed that the immersive nature of the DMP provided an excellent opportunity for students to be introduced to academic CS&E in a manner that could not be achieved through more traditional venues of acquiring information about the field. The mentors expressed that by "living the life" of a graduate student, these students would be able to understand the nature of academic life and make decisions about future career paths based on that understanding. In this section, we will discuss why the mentors' felt the immersive nature was important for all undergraduates, particularly female undergraduates.
Almost all mentors stated that the immersive nature of the DMP would benefit undergraduates from both Ph.D.-granting universities and liberal arts colleges. These mentors commented that most undergraduates have little or no understanding of graduate school and therefore often make decisions about whether to pursue graduate studies based on vague notions. As a result, some students may decide not to attend graduate school because it is unfamiliar to them and others may choose to attend without a clear conception of what they want out of it.
Many mentors commented that by immersing students in an academic environment, they developed a more complete understanding of graduate school life. In the following quote, a mentor discussed the effect of the immersive nature of the program on her DMP student.
I: Oh really? Because of the confidence issues that she was dealing with?
R: The confidence issues, and I don't think she had any idea of what graduate school was. She wouldn't have entered into going to graduate school unless she knew exactly what she wanted to do and exactly where she wanted to be. This way she saw, "Well gee, I can do a lot of things, and there are a lot of places I can go."
Most mentors expressed that they liked that students had the opportunity to experience graduate school life in a new setting. By being at another university, students were able to get a different perspective of graduate school.
I: Why is that?
R: Because it's a different experience, it's a new environment, and it would give them more breadth of experience.
Many mentors stated that the DMP is particularly important for students from small, liberal arts colleges in order to give them an introduction to graduate school life.
In our interviews, many mentors noted that a significant component of the DMP was that it introduced students to academic research in CS&E. Many felt that most undergraduates had little or no experience with research, and a program that focused specifically on research was an important part of influencing students to consider graduate studies in CS&E. These mentors expressed that when students are involved in a "hands-on" research project, they develop an understanding of the nature of research that they could not acquire in the traditional classroom setting or through discussions with advisors and thus can make more informed decisions about whether to attend graduate school.
Most mentors emphasized that by doing research, students developed a sense of confidence about their abilities to succeed in a graduate research environment.
Virtually all mentors stated that involving students in research also better prepared them for graduate school. These mentors expressed that their student had an advantage over most incoming graduate students because she had experience with research and in some cases had chosen an area of specialization.
Most mentors that we interviewed commented that a positive outcome of the DMP was that it matched students and mentors from different universities. Given the low numbers of women in many areas of CS&E, many mentors viewed the matching as a good way to create connections between female CS&E professionals and to provide role models for undergraduates that they may not have access to at their own institution.
Because being "plugged in" to a network gives students access to more information and opportunities, the mentors stated that it was important for these female undergraduates to be a part of a network of CS&E professionals. In this section we will discuss why the mentors felt it is important, particularly for women, to interact with other female CS&E professionals.
Because of the lack of females in CS&E, many mentors commented that female undergraduates generally did not have a network of other females in the discipline to interact with and learn from. The following mentor commented that the lack of role models for women in CS&E was a factor in her participation in the DMP.
R: Well, I like working with students. I think that was part of it. I never really consciously thought about being a mentor purposefully. If I did any mentoring, it was just in the course of things I felt like I should do for students. I never thought really too much about my experiences as a female when I was in graduate school. There were like 1 or 2 of us in the full graduate program, and there were 60 guys. I started slowly thinking that it would have been nice to have other people to talk to. Experiences that I had to learn -- the right way or the wrong way to approach someone to ask for something, or where would I find out how to get this information. So I started thinking [that] I'm in a position where I can help students do this now.
Many mentors commented that female CS&E professionals do not have the same network in place that is available for men and saw the DMP as a way to increase the number of women in the network as well as making connections between female CS&E professionals.
I can remember way back that a lot of men went to IBM over the summer, and none of the women that I knew went, so I just think that there are already opportunities that exist for them, and there are already men out there who will mentor them without thinking of the word "mentor." They won't think of it as mentoring, they'll just think of it as, "Oh, we're bringing in an undergraduate that I knew from a friend of mine at another university." So there's already kind of an establishment there, that men will pick out the brightest men and will try to get them into the best summer programs or the best jobs or whatever. I'm not so sure that we women are as good at that as the men are, or that we even have a network. [My DMP student], when she was here, I did a lot of research for some opportunities. I actively helped her get a summer position somewhere, but it was difficult for me. I couldn't just call up Nancy Levinson on the phone. I mean, I've met the woman, but I don't know her. I couldn't say, "I have this really great woman here, do you have a position open in the summer?" I think that men already have that kind of network established that we don't have, so I think it's very important to give at least one more opportunity to undergraduate women.
This mentor continued by commenting why she applied to be in the DMP:
R: I think the opportunity that it affords to these women. I mean, even if they don't get anything out of it, at least they got to hopefully go somewhere different, meet another woman to set up a network with, maybe meet some other students.
Some mentors commented that their student was able to use the connection they developed in the DMP to participate in other programs and jobs.
I: Did you see that happening with [your DMP students]?
R: Yeah, I think so. Certainly in [student A]'s case. [Student A] actually working with another faculty member here on another research project this fall. And has a temporary position and then she's applying to graduate school. And I don't think she probably would have gotten that second position had she not worked with me over the summer. Just because I could then give her a recommendation that she would be a good person, that she was productive and things like that.
Virtually all mentors commented on the current situation in academia in which there are a lack of female CS&E faculty members. As a result, these mentors expressed that many of the DMP students may not have access to a female professor in the discipline. These mentors emphasized that this lack of role models may hinder women from considering a research career in CS&E and commented that the pairing of a female undergraduate and female mentor would give the student a role model and guide. They commented that a female role model provides motivation and encouragement for female undergraduates by demonstrating that women can have successful careers in which they contribute valuable results to the field.
R: I think the idea of mentoring a female student at this stage is just wonderful. I think that it should be encouraged. It's not an easy profession for a female, so it's more important for females to see that there are actually other female professionals who succeed. And going through it themselves and encouraging them at this stage, rather than too late. I think that's what really attracted me, and I think that's also the reason I would wholly support the continuation of the project.
Evaluator Point of View While the goal of the DMP is to increase the number of women entering into graduate school and research careers in CS&E, the program may also function to increase students' success in graduate school. As a result of their experience in the DMP, students became more sophisticated about the field through: developing their networking skills, making connections with professionals in CS&E, realizing possible areas of specialization, and increasing confidence about their abilities. |
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In this section we will discuss the mentors' views of the DMP students following their participation in the program.
Most mentors commented that they expected to spend time introducing their DMP student to the research topic due to the fact that undergraduates have limited background and experience in CS&E. When mentors were asked to give advice to faculty considering participating in the program, many commented that the faculty member should be prepared to invest time in the program.
Virtually all mentors stated that their DMP students were accustomed to a more passive mode of learning in which she absorbed information from instructors and textbooks, rather than actively creating information through research. As a result, the mentors emphasized that the students needed more direction and guidance throughout their projects.
I: Why?
R: I don't think they have the preparation. And they're not kind of thinking in the right way you know, they're thinking in terms of doing assignments kind of thing rather than sort of thinking open ended about problems.
I: Just because they haven't been exposed to that type of area?
R: Yeah, I think it takes some time to kind of learn how to do research. And I think most undergraduates haven't learned that.
Evaluator Point of View
Many mentors we interviewed had little or no experience working with undergraduates in a research-oriented setting such as that of the DMP. In many cases, the mentor needed to provide their DMP students with more guidance and teaching than a graduate student. Therefore, although it is important to treat the DMP student "like a graduate student," there are times when this is not appropriate. Most undergraduates are unable to perform graduate level research in a ten week program and thus it is necessary for the mentors to balance the needs of the student as an undergraduate and her capabilities to do research like a graduate student. |
In spite of the students' low level of background as undergraduates in CS&E, many mentors described their student as extremely motivated and capable of completing a project in the ten weeks of the program.
R: It was very good. We were very happy with the things that they did. They showed a lot of initiative and a lot of independence. Some of the results that they came up with will hopefully - there was a lot of rush at the end before everybody left to get a whole bunch of simulations done, and that data will probably be incorporated into a paper. We had some theory results and we needed some quantitative studies, so they were doing that.
R: Good! It went really well. ... We had good people. ... They came in, they just dove into the problem. They learned an awful lot, they actually accomplished some things that were beneficial to us. They came up with ideas we never thought of, so I think all in all it was fun to be with them. All in all it worked well.
Some mentors stated that their student lacked the background necessary to do a research project that would be interesting and productive to either the student or the mentor. Some mentors felt that their student's lack of basic skills prevented her from doing research in the time frame of the program.
In fact, some mentors commented that sophomore-level students may not have the necessary background and sophistication to do research in the ten-week time frame of the program. These mentors expressed that only junior level students should be admitted into the program, because they would have taken upper-division classes that would give them the background and sophistication to do projects that could interest both the mentor and the student.
R: I think it helps to have them at least at the junior level, that they finish their junior year, that they've had more Computer Science classes. I think last year was after their sophomore year and they just didn't have enough Computer Science classes yet. I think it's a lot more beneficial to them and to the mentor if they have had more background.
I: Is this something you'd like to see changed about the program?
R: Yeah I think, well I think it is more beneficial if they do it between their junior and senior year. I think you can give them better projects, more interesting projects and they get a better experience, they're doing a lot more of it on their own. I think that's better, for their sake. I mean they're learning to do more of independent work, which they probably don't get much of in their regular class work, they're told exactly what to do step by step probably...Well I think I mean the difference between research and course work is that you're kind of given more freedom to do things, you're supposed to be a lot more independent in your thinking and your work. And you can only do that if you have adequate background to do it. And I think between the junior and senior year you have a lot, you've done a lot your junior year in terms of your major requirements to be able to do that.
Evaluator Point of View
This section indicates that a successful DMP experience for the student may depend upon her background level. If a student lacks the basic skills in CS&E, she may be unable to conduct research. As stated in the student section, students felt more positively about their experience when they could contribute to their mentor's research program. If, because of a lack of background, a student is only able to participate in small peripheral projects that have no impact on the mentor's research, it may negatively affect her view of academic research and may impede the goals of the program. Evaluator Question Should there be a minimal background requirement for the students? |
A few mentors stated that their student was unmotivated and applied minimal effort toward her research project. When mentors perceived their student to be unmotivated, they viewed their experience in the DMP as a "waste of time" and as not being beneficial to either the student or the mentor.
I: In terms of research for you and for the students?
R: In terms of I didn't feel at the end of the summer that I had spent this time productively. I didn't feel like they had gotten anything out of the program and so it wasn't clear to me that that was the useful thing to do with my time. The first year I felt that both of the students had gotten a lot out of the program and so I could justify having spent all that time on it.
Virtually all mentors who characterized their students as unmotivated commented that a positive experience in the DMP depended upon both the mentor and the student contributing fully to the research process. The following mentor stated that when she perceived that the student was not motivated to work, the mentor "stepped back" because she did not see any value in investing time in a student who was not applying herself.
These mentors felt that they lacked the resources to motivate their student to work during the ten week period of the DMP because the students were paid directly by the CRA.
One mentor suggested that the CRA have the student payment commensurate with the work they accomplished during the program.
Evaluator Point of View?
Inevitably there are students who experience difficulties in any program. In some cases these problems result from personal issues and little can be done to alter the student's experience in the program. However, in some situations the problems may result from circumstances involving program implementation. As discussed in this section of the report, a few mentors described their students as unmotivated. Our interviews indicated that there was a disjuncture between the student and mentor perceptions of the student's intentions. While mentors characterized their student as unmotivated, the students expressed that they wanted to contribute, but felt lost and without direction. These students lacked the confidence to assert themselves and felt shy about asking "basic" or "obvious" questions of the mentor. The students thus retreated from interaction with the mentor and this was misinterpreted as a lack of motivation and interest in working on the research project. We came to realize that initially these students may need more structure and guidance from the mentors in order to proceed in the research and develop confidence. Through gaining knowledge and experience in programs such as the DMP these students can develop independence and goal orientation. Evaluator Suggestion One possible way to solve such a problem is to directly address this issue with the student and/or suggest that the student fill out a mid-program evaluation. |
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
There were two differing opinions among the mentors when discussing the importance of receiving some research benefit from the student while participating in the DMP. Many mentors participated in the DMP with the intention of volunteering their time to help an undergraduate and viewed any contribution to their research as a bonus. Some mentors viewed the experience in the DMP as an investment of time and felt that some assistance from the student on their research program was a critical part of their participation in the program. In this section, we will discuss these two mentor views.
While most mentors participated in the DMP with the intention of volunteering their time to help a female undergraduate, many did expect to derive some benefit from their experience in the DMP. However, it was not a necessary condition of their participation in the program. Most mentors described the DMP as the "best of both worlds," because they could encourage and help an undergraduate while also receiving assistance on their own research.
R: What did I expect to get out of it? Well, I guess some satisfaction that I was able to help a student in some way or another. Also, I guess on the side it was very nice that they both did work that was very useful for our research project. I'd take a guess it was more kind of a sort of a combination of the two of them.
R: I was expecting to have the opportunity to help an undergraduate complete a research project which would facilitate in some ways my own research program and would assist her in her career progression and that might or might not end up as a published paper or presentation.
R: To be honest, it was sort of half and half. Getting a student involved, showing a student what it would be like to do research, giving them an opportunity to do that, and also needing some help on our project as well. This is a way to get some more help involved.
R: I think if you design your projects correctly you can get something out of it in terms of some kind of a contribution that you can use in your research. I don't think you should go into it thinking that is you main goal though. I think you have to go into it thinking you're doing this for the student.
I: Why is that important?
R: Because I think you'll have, you might be disappointed in terms of what comes out of it. If you're used to working with graduate students there's a big difference and I think if that's the only reason you're doing it is for the research project I think you're doing it for the wrong reason.
Thus, while most mentors expected to receive some research benefit from their experience in the DMP, many of these mentors viewed the research benefit as a bonus, rather than a necessary component of the program. For these mentors, the critical aspect of the program was assisting the student.
Some mentors viewed their participation in the DMP as an investment of time that should return some research benefit. These mentors expressed that the summer is an important time to spend on research and felt that being responsible for an undergraduate for ten weeks required a significant amount of time. When they did not receive any research benefit from their student, they described their investment of time as "lost."
In fact, some mentors initially hesitated to participate in the DMP because they felt that it could not guarantee a research benefit for the time they invested.
I: And why is that?
R: To me it's a terrific time and energy commitment and I know that if I worked by myself all summer that I'd be productive. If I spend, you know five hours a week with a student, I have no guarantee that they're gonna be worth my time.
I: Right, and it sounds like what you're thinking is that in these two cases it was, in some ways very productive but it might not happen again.
R: That's right. I don't know that I'd be willing to take the chance.
Some mentors expressed that their student lacked the basic skills to do her research project, and their research suffered because they needed to spend extra time teaching and orienting her. These mentors stated that they would only participate in the DMP if they personally knew the student's skills and background were sufficient to do the project.
R: I probably will. ... The reason I have to think twice is: one, I have to look at the timing, availability for myself. I find that because of a lot of time that I have to spend with the student, teaching her the stuff, it ended up that my research project has to suffer a little. So, I mean, there are certainly advantages in there, but there are certainly things that I have to give up, and that's something that I have to weigh again. Put it this way: if I can pick my own student, or if I have a student in mind that I would like to have, then I will apply. But I would not apply and expect to have a student assigned to me.
I: And is the only reason [to guarantee a certain] level of preparation for the student in terms of research, or are there other-?
R: Yeah, I think it's more for research, because I think that the program should be carried on so that it's beneficial to both sides. And from what I see, from my experience, the last summer that I [participated], I think it's more beneficial to the students than to myself.
R: If I could pick a student from [my institution] that I already knew and was already familiar with the course work, I would because it would be such a good experience for them. But there almost has to be something in it for me before I would do it. And because the losses can potentially be so great, I probably wouldn't unless there was something - I don't know...It's really hard to pull somebody in for 12 weeks and have them just work at that level because I've got graduate student that work for free too. If they don't have assistantship, that's just what they're expected to do, and they're just a whole lot more productive because I can keep them around and interact with them later. So I would probably have to have a graduate student, maybe who's getting some money out of it, and then I would. I'd be happy to be involved that way, but I don't think I would at this cause it was just really nothing in it for me and a whole lot that I lost, and a lot of frustration.
Many of these mentors stated that they would like to be able to participate in the process of matching the students and the mentors. By participating in the matching process, these mentors felt that they would better be able to guarantee that they would work with the students with the appropriate background that was necessary to complete their project.
R: The student applicants, some of them have strong mathematical backgrounds, some of them may not, some of them have good programming skills. If the mentor can actually take a look at the student applicants, and say, "Well, these are the students that will fit my program better." That may help a lot more than just having the program director send, you know, try to match the mentor with the student.
Evaluator Point of View
These mentors expressed that they wanted more input in selecting their mentees to ensure a proper match. Through trying to ensure that the students have the proper background needed to conduct research in the mentor's area of expertise, the mentors are attempting to create an experience that may be beneficial for both mentor and student. However, this could be problematic. As noted in the student section of this document, students entered into the DMP with the intention of making decisions about future career paths. Thus, many viewed the DMP as more than a research experience; they viewed it as a way to learn about graduate school and academic life. In fact, through their experience in the DMP, many students were able to decide if a career in academic CS&E was "right" for them. If the selection process is defined solely by student background, this may prevent the program from reaching students who are at a critical juncture in a career decision and would benefit from a valuable experience such as the DMP. Evaluator Suggestion Mentors are encouraged to take advantage of the space on the application form where they can indicated requirements for the student. Evaluator Questions: 1. How important is the student academic background to the success of the DMP for the student? for the mentor? 2. Would allowing mentors to participate in the selection process fit with the goal of the program? |
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In this section we will discuss the roles that the mentors indicated they performed while participating in the DMP. In our interviews, we asked the mentors about their own definitions of "mentoring." Many responded by describing "mentoring" as a process of assessing the individual needs of the mentee and then attempting to provide for those needs. As a result, we came to understand that the role of the mentor was multifaceted and dependent upon the individual student. The following quote demonstrates the multifaceted nature of the mentoring role.
R: Gee, that's a hard question. I guess it's a combination to me of being sort of like a mom and a friend and trying to share with the students the sort of good and bad experiences I've had and to guide them to try not to repeat some of the mistakes I've made. An equal part of it is really, I think, opening up to them areas that they haven't studied in computer science, how to work on their own, how to work with groups, really trying to give them a sense of confidence in many cases, and also to let them know that there are a lot of people out there that can help them when they decide they need some help, whether it be for a job or getting more information about a subject.
As discussed in the student section, the undergraduates entered into the DMP with little understanding of graduate school, the nature of research or how to conduct it, the academic community in CS&E and the life of a female faculty in CS&E. Our interviews with the mentors indicated that the main roles they discussed paralleled the students' needs: being a role model, providing professional guidance, and guiding students in their research project.
Most mentors expressed that part of their role in the DMP was to provide a model of a "real life" example of a CS&E female faculty member. Many commented that this modelling took two different forms: students could observe the mentor in her daily activities, and the mentor could explicitly discuss and provide guidance about the types of experiences she encountered as a female in CS&E. Many mentors mentioned that, although a discussion of their experiences was beneficial to the student, the largest impact on the student occurred by observing the mentor on a day-to-day basis.
R: Not really. Not so much about females. But she did observe, because I also talked to her and my family also interacted with her. Not on a daily basis, but we went out to dinner and so forth. But she also met my family, so she was opened up to see that there are other aspects of a female professional -- there's the family life too. And there's constant juggling between the two. So she can observe this through me, but we didn't really sit down and talk at great depth.
Virtually all mentors stated that an important aspect of their role was to guide their student in her professional development. This included providing guidance for the student in her career decisions and also introducing the student to the culture of an academic environment in CS&E.
Most mentors commented that guiding their student in her career choices was a central part of their role. For many mentors, guidance involved introducing the student to new opportunities and encouraging her to take advantage of them. Many mentors commented that students were not always aware of their options or, if they were aware of them, did not have the confidence to take advantage of them.
The following mentor commented that one of her DMP students was struggling with deciding between graduate school and teaching high school. The mentor then gave the student examples from both careers so that she could make an informed decision.
R: Okay. I would say quite variable. It depends on the individual person. People are interested in different things, they need different things. For example, for the Distributive Mentoring Program, [my student] was at a period where she was very uncertain as to what she wanted to do when she graduated from college, whether she wanted to go to graduate school or whether she wanted to go into the teaching profession, all high school. What she was interested in was seeing what this research thing is all about and just having an opportunity to think about which way she wanted to go. So I introduced here to a former colleague of mine who had taught in high school as well as taught in college and had done a small amount of research. 'Cause she has a background different from mine it would be useful for [this student] to talk to her as well as to me. (pause) She also wanted a fair amount of direction. She wanted to work on one of my projects, so we sort of pinned down a topic and she then was able to sort of carry the ball from there. A lot of what she did was based on her own initiative, her own ideas, and she did an excellent job on that. I think she had the opportunity to see, "This is what someone doing research does," and had an opportunity to do it herself.
Thus, most mentors considered it part of their role to identify the student's interests and provide career guidance based upon those interests. Many mentors provided guidance by discussing with students their options and providing encouragement, as well as providing examples of successful people in their career.
Almost all mentors considered an important component of their role to be introducing students to the various aspects of an academic career in CS&E. This included teaching the students about the entire research process as well as introducing the student to the professional culture of the academic field of CS&E.
Many mentors realized that their students had little or no conception of what research was about and, as part of their role, discussed with their student the nature of the research process. In the following two interview excerpts, the mentors discussed their role in teaching their students about the research process.
R: Well, I guess it's sort of a guiding in not just the technical area but the culture surrounding it. So you want to show them how to do research, the technical details involved. You want to show them the context for that research. You want to teach them the etiquette of that field like about giving credit to other people for their work. In certain areas when you write a paper names are alphabetical, other areas it's like who's the most senior. And you sort of make them aware of these things and what it is in different areas. What conferences cover the area that you're working in. What kind of job would you get in this area. So just the whole context for research and the research area.
As these mentors explained, this immersion involved introducing students to the day-to-day process of "doing" research, providing them with the context of how their area of interest fits into the larger body of current research, introducing students to other people who can assist them, and giving them names of journals to which they can submit their research. In other words, the mentors felt it was an important part of their role to introduce the student to the entire spectrum of issues and processes involved in academic research. The following quotes addressed each of these aspects.
In addition to giving students an idea of the research process, almost all mentors we interviewed said that they spent time orienting students to the professional culture of academic CS&E. Some mentors took their students to conferences and remarked that this was a way for the students to interact on a professional and social level with other CS&E professionals.
I: They were engaging in dialogue with these people?
R: Yeah, they were engaging in dialogue, and even just socializing. Everybody was just assuming that they were a grad student.
One mentor commented that taking her DMP student to a conference had a significant influence on the student. She felt that since most of her DMP student's friends planned to work at industry jobs after graduation, this experience at a conference would provide her with insight about another type of option she may not have been considering.
In this section we will discuss the role of the mentor in working with the student on her research project. This role included preparing for her student's arrival, arranging meetings with the student to discuss her project, and guiding her student in her research.
Many mentors prepared for their student's arrival by setting up accounts for her on the local system, getting an office for her, and helping her to find housing. The following is one mentor's experience.
R: Well, it kind of felt like I had to do that the first year. I guess I felt like I had to do everything. I took them around campus and got them their ID's and everything. I mean I spent probably two days just getting everything set up for them 'cause I felt like I should do that. When I look back on it I probably could have left them and they would of done fine.
I: Why did you feel that you had to do everything?
R: I guess I felt like I was their host here and I was the only person they knew and that I should at least get them set up. ... I kind of learned a lot from last summer in terms of what to expect and what I would get and what they would get and what to you know, how to set things up and all.
A few mentors suggested that the DMP provide a list of instructions of what should be done to prepare for a student's arrival.
Our interviews and survey results indicated that most of the mentors met with their student at least once a week and many mentors met with their student more than once a week. In this section we will discuss the frequency and format of the meetings.
All of the mentors we interviewed placed their student in an office in their building so the mentors could easily stop by the student's office. Many mentors commented that they did not have a set meeting time with their student, but made sure that they were in contact with their student at least a few times a week.
R: Sort of as needed. I did not set up formal meetings with any of the students. In other words, "Let's meet once a week or once a day." They all had sort of offices in the same building, fairly close, so they could come by my office if they wanted to see me. I would go by their office to sort of see how they were doing, and then we would sometimes set up more formal meetings, say, "Let's sit down for a couple of hours and discuss this." So a lot of the interaction was unscheduled and informal, and that was facilitated because they had offices in the building. In fact, it was sort of in graduate student offices.
These mentors felt that the almost day-to-day interaction precluded the need for weekly meetings because they could provide guidance as it was needed.
Either in addition to casual meetings or by itself, many mentors set up weekly meetings for their student. Many of these mentors commented that the structure of weekly meetings provided a framework and guidance for the student learning and motivated the students to work on the project.
R: That would not work, no. They needed a deadline, I think. And then they also needed somebody to say - If they say, "Well, I've pushed this as far as I can." Then I could say, "Well, push a little bit in this direction. Or, well, let's forget about this and concentrate on this stuff." I think it was necessary for them to meet with me so I could help them see where to focus their efforts.
Some mentors commented that weekly meetings helped to ensure that their student was enjoying her project and was also working hard on it.
I: How is that?
R: That they're just not going to take $5000 and sit back and relax for the summer. Not for any good reason, but just it would irk me to be a party to that. I guess on my part, having very clear goals, and making sure that I keep them working hard but on something they're interested in. I guess for me the structure was very important, to sort of check in weekly, to make sure that we're both working really hard, that we're getting somewhere, and we know where we're going.
Evaluator Point of View
This section indicates that both students and mentors can have a positive experience with casual or formal meetings. Regardless of the configuration, it is important to note that the mentor needs to clearly define at the beginning of the program the frequency and nature of their interactions. |
All the mentors guided the student in her research project by providing direction throughout the ten weeks. In this section we will discuss the ways in which the mentors guided their student in her research project.
Almost all mentors stated that undergraduates did not have enough experience with research to be able to independently choose a research topic and direct their own research. Thus, all mentors provided the direction for their student's research in the form of defining a problem for them to solve, or giving them ideas for a future topic to explore. The following interview excerpt typifies the attitude the mentors had toward undergraduates and research.
While defining the structure of the project and providing overall guidance, most mentors expressed that they encouraged their students "work out the details" of the project. These mentors expressed that it was important for the students to have freedom to explore solutions within the framework of the project in order to get some experience with research.
Many mentors struggled to find the balance between guiding the student and letting the student struggle on her own. Many emphasized that they wanted the student to be challenged by the project, but not get so frustrated that she would give up.
The mentors who had graduate students working with the DMP students mentioned that their roles differed from the graduate student. While the graduate student answered the day-to-day technical details of the project, the mentor provided the global picture of where the project was headed and the context of how the project fit with other research either in the department or in the research community at large. The following two excerpts relate to this issue.
I: Oh, designing the graphs?
R: Yeah, designing what the tools should be doing and some of the, what kind of buttons should it have on it and that kind of thing and she'd come to me with those kinds of questions. She met with me about once a week or more, yeah. She probably saw me more like three or four times a week. I think she probably saw him every day.
R: Well, she was there all the time, so she was in the lab with [the DMP student]. She had a twenty hour a week appointment. And she was with [the DMP student] the whole time. She really is the mothering type. She really loved teaching and tutoring and she taught [the DMP student] a lot and I was off doing other things. We always saw them, most likely once a day, if not more, and had several meetings a week, but we weren't there eight hours, four hours a day.
I: Right. So her discussions with [the DMP student] would be more technical?
R: Yeah, more like, I can't get this loop to work. I can't get this program to work, can you find the bug? And they'd work through the bug.
I: Right, and then your role was more over-arching.
R: Yeah, more "This is what we want to do on the global, even more the global approach, trying to work on some of the algorithms with them, but not the nitty-gritty details of the algorithms. It's sort of sketching out the proof, but not filling in the details of the proof.
The degree of collaboration between the mentors and the students in the meetings varied among mentors. Many mentors did not consider their relationship with their student as collaborative. These mentors said that their meetings with the student were a way to discuss the student' results and provide guidance on her project, but they viewed the student's work as an independent project.
R: Oh, yeah. We would review what she had accomplished and talked about what the next steps were. Occasionally she wouldn't have gotten accomplished what we thought she could and some times she would do more. It varied.
I: So your role in the research was mainly to guide her? Did you work together on certain things?
R: She had some programming problems at one point and I helped her out with those. I think I also wrote some code for her because she didn't know the language she was using to go into it. But there wasn't any side-by-side, "Let's work on this program together," the way one might do as a class project. It was mostly set up as an independent project.
Other mentors described their relationship as fairly collaborative. The following two mentors stated that in their meetings they treated their students as graduate students.
R: Very much, very much. So every time she had a new idea I could usually figure out how to manipulate it or transform it to push even a little bit further. Or else I would just maybe have to go back and think about it and see what the implications were and what we should do next or to look up maybe a book somewhere or to contact somebody to see if this was known or something like that. But frequently it was, there were technical things that I had to do.
R: A little bit of both. I would give them projects and ask them to see what they would come up with. Then I would work through them with those projects, you know, do the board or whatever, and then send them off again. That's how I conduct all my research with all my graduate students, so I pretty much treated them like a graduate student.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In section II, we discussed the roles that the mentor. In this section, we will discuss the strategies that the mentors employed in order to create an atmosphere conducive to their student having a positive experience in the program. It is interesting to note that in this section, each of the strategies helped to create a positive experience for both the student and the mentor.
Most of the mentors we interviewed commented that having a well-defined and doable project that challenged the student and was part of the mentor's research program was essential to having a successful DMP experience for both the student and mentor. In fact, some mentors commented having a well-defined project was so important to the success of the program, that if they didn't have such a project, they would not feel comfortable participating as a mentor in the program.
Many mentors framed the project around their students' background and abilities and attempted to create a project that was challenging enough for the student to be interested, yet not too difficult that she would get overly frustrated.
Many mentors commented that it was important to have a clear goal and outline for the project since their student did not have experience with an open-ended research process and were likely to get frustrated with too little direction.
Many mentors stated that, given the short time frame of the program, it was important to be able to assess their student's background accurately so that the student can work on a project without a large degree of initial preparation time. Some mentors commented that their student was unable to finish her project because they had overestimated her background knowledge and needed to spend time at the beginning of the program providing information. These mentors expressed that they should have contacted their student before she arrived to determine her background in order to frame a project more suited to her needs.
I: Because you could have saved time?
R: Because we could have saved time. Because then I would have known exactly where to start off from. I assumed that she didn't have any problems with C, but it was only later on in the project that we realized that she needed to brush up on C a little bit more. And maybe it was a while back since she took the course. And I think I would have encouraged her right from the beginning, or at least sat down with her and discussed it a little more if I would have known about it.
Most mentors stated that by successfully completing a difficult research project, students felt a sense of accomplishment, developed more confidence about their ability to do research, and also came to realize that they could contribute something of interest to the research community.
I: Why did you think that was an important thing for them?
R: Well I guess I feel like research is a lot more fun if you solve your problem or if something comes of it, you know if you feel like you've made a contribution somehow.
In the student section we discussed that students derived satisfaction from contributing to the mentor's research. In fact, many mentors themselves discussed that the students wanted to feel their project was useful to others in the research community.
I: What did you do? Did they bring that up with you?
R: ... I'd give them some training materials and met with them, and then after like four weeks she didn't like what I had given her. She did the work, and then she decided, "If I had something else it would be better." So I switched her project over, and she wanted something in a little bit different area and more solid. So they really did want to contribute. They didn't want to just kind of sit around and play on the machines all summer.
In addition, many mentors suggested having multiple projects prepared at the beginning of the program. These mentors expressed that the student would be more motivated when she was able to choose a project that interested her.
R: I always have kind of a mental list of problems that I want to work on and for both summers I kind of looked at it and came up with a list of five or six problems that I thought they might be able to make some progress on it for a summers worth of work. So my plan was to start them with say one problem per week until they found one that they made some progress on or that they liked a lot. ... Some of the problems they look at and they write a program maybe to find out something about it but they don't see anything, they don't see any direction to go from there. And maybe I don't either from their preliminary work and maybe they didn't get very excited about it either. So one of the things when you're trying to solve a problem it helps if you really care about what the answers gonna be. So maybe in some of the ones that didn't catch they either felt like they couldn't get anywhere or they weren't very interested or wasn't very much fun to manipulate these particular mathematical objects or something like that.
These mentors emphasized that having multiple projects would prevent the student from getting too frustrated or bored by one project and allow her to learn different material.
I: What if the [DMP students] e-mailed you and said, "HELP!" How did you deal with that?
R: They never did. I always gave them several things you know to think about from one week to the next. So if they weren't making progress on one they could focus on a different one.
I: Why did you structure it that way?
R: Well, I think we didn't want to have an experience where someone would come and just hit a brick wall and feel frustrated that they couldn't do the particular thing or this was the task they had to do for the summer and they couldn't do it. I think they wanted to give them flexibility. Everyone is different. There are certain things you like doing or feel more confident doing than other things. We just felt it was good to give people options. In particular, not let them feel like they were having a negative experience and that they hated the whole situation.
In addition to creating a successful experience for the student, most mentors stated that a well-defined and doable project would also benefit the mentor in that it would contribute to their research program. When we asked mentors to give advice to other mentors who were considering participating in the DMP, many commented that having a well-thought out project benefits both the student and mentor.
R: Okay. Two things: first, the mentor should really realize that her project -- that an undergraduate student who does not have much background in it should be able to pick it up easily, so that the mentor can get something out of the work that she put in. That's the major thing.
Another strategy for a creating a successful DMP experience was to immerse students in a research community that can include the mentor, graduate students, undergraduate students, and other faculty. Many mentors stated that involving a student in a research community would benefit the student by providing multiple resources and social interaction while also benefiting the mentor by decreasing the time demands of mentoring an undergraduate.
Given that all of the mentors felt that the purpose of the DMP was to encourage female undergraduates to consider graduate school, many commented that it was important to have a community of graduate students with whom the students could interact. These mentors stated that through observing and interacting with graduate students, their DMP student would develop an understanding of graduate school that she may not receive through her interactions with her mentor alone. Some mentors purposefully chose projects that ensured that students would interact with graduate students in order to give the DMP students more experience with graduate school life.
I: Why is it important?
R: Because I think that is really what gives the students more of a feeling for what graduate school would be like. And I think that's one of the goals of the program is to give them a feeling for what it would be like if they went to graduate school. And if they go in and just work with an individual faculty member, it's not an accurate reflection of what graduate school is like. The graduate students learn a lot from each other you know, probably more than they learn from us because the other students are all very smart and are learning things at the same time, in the same areas. And so I think that interaction is a really important part of graduate school. And if they don't see that I think they will get an inaccurate idea of what it would be like to do research.
I: Why is it important for her to work with graduate students?
R: Well I thought part of the purpose of the program was for them to get a feel of graduate school so I purposely wanted them to work with a graduate student on a personal basis so they learn a lot just from having that student tell them about graduate school.
I: Why would that be? R: Because they're closer in age and they're closer to the kind of experience they're doing. They kind of were the next step, I mean I did that too when I did what the graduate students do when I was a grad student.
Many mentors stated that through their interaction with other graduate students and faculty, students not only learned about graduate school life, but also about the nature of a collaborative research process. By participating in meetings and working with other researchers, students were able to observe the ways in which graduate students and faculty interact professionally when discussing their research.
Many mentors commented that their DMP student initially did not feel comfortable providing input at research meetings, preferring to defer her opinion to graduate students and faculty. These mentors stressed to their student that they did not know all of the answers in research and the student was capable of contributing valuable information to research discussions. In the following quote, one mentor explained the benefits of her student participating in their research meetings.
I: Right, kind of an interaction of ideas as opposed to a one-sided --
R: Yeah, right. They were saying things like, "Oh, well, we're stuck here, what do we do?" And it was okay to say, "We were stuck."-- for faculty or for the advanced grad students to admit that. Or sometimes the grad students were looking for things, or they needed some piece of code or something that the undergraduates had done, so I think they felt good that their stuff was being used, that there were questions coming from other students, not at their own level, but even higher up. The reverse was also true, so it worked out pretty well.
Many mentors commented that when students participated in a research community, they experienced research as an open-ended process in which faculty and graduate students work collaboratively to solve problems. Many faculty stated that they perceived a change in their student's confidence level about her ability to contribute valuable information through these meetings.
Most mentors stated that a community of graduate students, undergraduates and/or faculty members afforded multiple resources for the student that the mentor may be unable to provide by herself. In addition to being a resource for research-related questions, a community could also provide an element of social interaction for these students who often knew no one at their mentor's university.
In the following quote, a mentor discussed the multiple resources that a community can provide for the DMP student new to the city and university.
Many mentors noted that by having the students work with or be in close proximity to other graduate students, they were alleviating some of the pressure the student may feel in interacting with a faculty member. These mentors felt that it may be less stressful for the student to be able to ask more technical questions of a graduate student than a faculty member.
R: Yeah, they had grad students that they were working with. There was one that sort of had finished last year, but she was still around. She, actually last summer, was here full time and helped [my 1994 DMP student] get started. In some ways I think that was a comfortable transition for [this DMP student] because she felt less intimidated talking to [the graduate student] first. ... Plus they were physically located together. They were in the same room, so it was easier for them to talk than to make a trip around and look for [my co-mentor and me] in our offices.
Many mentors who provided a research community that included graduate students for their DMP student reported that it decreased their time commitment with the student. As stated throughout this document, the students had little experience with research and thus needed a high degree of guidance. This meant that a mentor working without a research community of graduate students may need to spend a considerable amount of time assisting the student. Since many of the mentors had multiple responsibilities which at times made them inaccessible for the student, they felt that a community of graduate students would be more available to answer students' questions. In fact, many mentors stated that since the graduate students were around more often, they would provide a more consistent resource for the students' day-to-day technical questions.
R: I think it's really important to have a graduate student who is also acting as an advisor or [the students] just won't get enough advice. Sort of supervision, whatever. I: Because they can't get it all from you?
I: And why would that be ideal to have them working closely with a graduate student?
R: Well I think because they would have a lot more, I mean the graduate students are closer to them in terms of experience and you know, you can quickly forget what it's like to you know to be thinking about research and just starting out with it. And I think that having a graduate student around that a student, an undergrad can work closely with would just provide sort of probably more opportunity for interaction and more frequent interaction than a faculty member can usually provide. Just because of time constraints and you know I think I was fairly accessible but I was probably not as accessible as, you know a grad student working at a nearby desk would have been.
Almost all of the mentors who had a graduate student work with the DMP student did not view the graduate student as replacing them in their role as mentor. Rather, these mentors stated that the graduate student provided a different function: the graduate student answered the day-to-day questions, while the mentor provided assistance on the "big picture." Many mentors felt that the two roles complemented one another and ensured that the student had access to the help she needed.
Evaluator Question
Should the CRA-DMP require that the mentor have a community of graduate students with which the students can work over the summer? |
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In the 1994 and 1995 program years, the mentors received neither monetary nor professional recognition for the participation. However, many mentors commented that they would have preferred to receive some sort of recognition for their participation in the DMP. In this section, we will discuss the various methods the mentors stated that the CRA could use to give the mentors some recognition.
Many mentors commented that the CRA should send their department chair or an academic Dean a letter about their participation in the DMP. These mentors felt that such a letter would serve a dual purpose: it would inform their department of their participation in the DMP and also may assist the student in her interactions with the university.
I: Right, so what kind of recognition?
R: I don't know. For example, it would have been nice if my Dean received a letter about my participation. When you get a grant, like, the NSF will notify that research office, my research office, provost. They'll notify me, and they'll notify the dean, or the research office will notify the Dean the provost that this grant was received. That kind of sort of formal recognition that this person is participating in this program would be nice.
A few mentors mentioned that it would have been nice to have been honored for their participation in the DMP by having their name listed in some publication, like the Computing Research News. These mentors felt that this publicity would benefit the mentor, her institution, and the DMP.
R: [Pause] Oh I don't know, Possibly some more publicity in Computing Research News or you know some publications of the trade if they sort of highlighted the program and some of the experiences of the mentor pairing. And then you know maybe one university would see one of their faculty members highlighted and they didn't even realize they were doing that and they would look at it as good publicity for their university. Then they could use that as a more tangible tool for recruiting or whatever they wanted to use it for. Maybe even something like writing a letter to the department head describing the program and describing the faculty members contribution to the program.
Many mentors commented that if the DMP provided some sort of funding, more faculty may be inclined to participate. Many of these mentors stated that the funding would not have to be directed toward the mentor. The funding could be applied to cover expenses of having the student, to the department, or to be a stipend for both the student and mentor to attend a conference.
I: They receive no remuneration, do they? R: No they don't get anything at all. And I think if they did it would at least look better probably for their record or something they'd want to show, they got some kind of funding out of it or a trip or some kind of a reward out of it other than the fact that you hope you've helped a student.
I: So would that be of incentive or as a reward or both, I suppose?
R: Probably both, yeah. I think it would give more respect to the program in terms of I've seen some of the notes on the net about, "Oh why would anybody want to do that? It's just charity work."
I: OK, so you really have to look at it that way -- that this, you have to look at the time put in and where else it could have been better directed.
R: That's right. And as near as I can tell you don't get any points for doing this at your own university. I don't think that it would really count favorably for anything like a promotion or a raise or course reduction or anything. Whereas if there was some money attached to it, even if it didn't go to the faculty member, if it went to the university somehow you would get points for it with the university.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
This section is broken down into two categories. In the first, we will present the results which do not deal specifically with the students. These are tallied by the number (21) of mentors that responded. In the second section we will present the results of the questions in the survey which specifically ask about the student. Since there were 34 total students associated with the number of mentors who responded, the tally in this section is 34.
(N=21) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Extremely Important | 8 | 38% |
Important | 6 | 29% |
Important to the extent that the undergraduate has definite interests | 5 | 24% |
Not Important | 0 | 0% |
If students motivated enough, it doesn't matter | 2 | 10% |
(N=21) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
None at all | 2 | 10% |
Very little | 3 | 14% |
Somewhat | 10 | 48% |
A fair amount | 3 | 14% |
A lot | 3 | 14% |
(N=21) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 1 | 5% |
Not very satisfied | 1 | 5% |
Somewhat satisfied | 3 | 14% |
Satisfied | 13 | 62% |
Very satisfied | 3 | 14% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Selecting a graduate school | 27 | 79% |
Research opportunities | 27 | 79% |
Succeeding in graduate school | 28 | 82% |
Selecting thesis/research topic | 16 | 47% |
Study skills | 21 | 62% |
Application to graduate school | 21 | 62% |
Career opportunities and options | 32 | 94% |
Fellowship opportunities | 11 | 32% |
Interviewing advice | 4 | 12% |
Job applications | 3 | 9% |
Letter of reference | 26 | 76% |
Resume development | 8 | 24% |
Balancing family and work | 13 | 38% |
Crisis intervention | 1 | 3% |
Departmental politics | 6 | 18% |
Networking/professional contacts | 9 | 26% |
Advice re: publishing, etc. | 18 | 53% |
Advice re: minority status | 2 | 6% |
Sexual harassment | 7 | 21% |
Self-image and self-confidence | 21 | 62% |
Time management | 15 | 44% |
Other | 7 | 21% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Yes | 21 | 62% |
No | 8 | 24% |
Undergraduates lack the knowledge to have definite area of interest | 5 | 15% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 9% | |
Not very satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Somewhat satisfied | 5 | 15% |
Satisfied | 7 | 21% |
Very satisfied | 17 | 50% |
Not applicable, picked students herself 3 | 12 | 6% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 3 | 9% |
Not very satisfied | 4 | 12% |
Somewhat satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Satisfied | 13 | 38% |
Very satisfied | 14 | 41% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Much less than expected | 4 | 12% |
Less than expected | 3 | 9% |
What expected | 10 | 29% |
More than expected | 12 | 35% |
Much more than expected | 5 | 15% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 3 | 9% |
Not very satisfied | 1 | 3% |
Somewhat satisfied | 2 | 6% |
Satisfied | 8 | 24% |
Very satisfied | 20 | 59% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
None at all | 7 | 21% |
Very little | 12 | 35% |
Somewhat | 11 | 32% |
A fair amount | 2 | 6% |
Too much | 2 | 6% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Much less than expected | 1 | 3% |
Less than expected | 5 | 15% |
What expected | 21 | 62% |
More than expected | 4 | 12% |
Much more than expected | 3 | 9% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Didn't feel like spent any time | 0 | 0% |
Didn't feel like spent enough time | 15 | 44% |
Spent the right amount of time | 15 | 44% |
Spent too much time | 2 | 6% |
Spent way too much time | 2 | 6% |
(N=34) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all effective | 3 | 9% |
Somewhat effective | 4 | 12% |
Effective | 20 | 59% |
Very effective | 7 | 21% |
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
(N=22) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
A teacher encouraged me | 15 | 68% |
I am good at math and science | 3 | 14% |
A relative is in CS&E | 2 | 9% |
A friend is in CS&E | 15 | 68% |
CS&E is enjoyable and interesting | 15 | 68% |
CS&E affords many career opportunities | 15 | 68% |
I like the idea of being a computer scientist | 5 | 23% |
CS&E is challenging | 15 | 68% |
CS & E jobs pay well | 4 | 18% |
Other | 3 | 14% |
(N=22) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Graduate school | 14 | 64% |
Job, then graduate school | 3 | 14% |
Job | 3 | 14% |
Undecided | 2 | 9% |
(N = 17) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Masters | 4 | 24% |
Ph.D. | 9 | 53% |
Undecided | 4 | 24% |
(N =19) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Influence of family member | 8 | 42% |
Experience/mentor during high school years or earlier | 2 | 11% |
Work experience | 5 | 26% |
Career goals | 16 | 84% |
Technical interests | 8 | 42% |
Advisor/mentor at undergraduate institution | 8 | 42% |
Extra-curricular activity at undergraduate institution | 5 | 26% |
Distributed Mentor Project experience | 15 | 79% |
Other factors | 4 | 21% |
(N = 4) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Influence of family member | 1 | 25% |
Career goals incompatible with graduate school | 0 | 0% |
Distributed Mentor Project experience | 2 | 50% |
Undergraduate experience | 1 | 25% |
Other personal/family priorities | 1 | 25% |
Lack of interest in field | 2 | 50% |
Lack of interest in research | 1 | 25% |
Don't expect to be admitted in school of interest to me | 0 | 0% |
Financial concerns | 2 | 50% |
Other factors | 1 | 25% |
(N = 21) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not considering | 1 | 5% |
Considering the possibility | 6 | 29% |
Tentatively committed | 8 | 38% |
Committed | 5 | 24% |
Certain that CS & E is right | 1 | 5% |
(N = 21) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
No Answer2 | 2 | 10% |
(N = 21) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Worked with graduate students on project | 11 | 52% |
Interacted with graduate students outside of project | 13 | 62% |
(N = 11) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Answered questions | 3 | 27% |
Directly supervised | 4 | 36% |
Worked as a team | 4 | 36% |
(N = 10) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Not very satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Somewhat satisfied | 1 | 10% |
Satisfied | 5 | 50% |
Very satisfied | 4 | 40% |
(N = 21) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Not very satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Somewhat satisfied | 4 | 19% |
Satisfied | 8 | 38% |
Very satisfied | 7 | 33% |
Not Applicable | 2 | 10% |
(N = 22) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Not very satisfied | 1 | 1% |
Somewhat satisfied | 4 | 18% |
Satisfied | 7 | 32% |
Very satisfied | 9 | 41% |
Not Applicable | 1 | 5% |
(N = 22) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 1 | 5% |
Not very satisfied | 3 | 14% |
Somewhat satisfied | 5 | 23% |
Satisfied | 8 | 36% |
Very satisfied | 4 | 18% |
Not Applicable | 1 | 5% |
(N = 22) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Not very satisfied | 2 | 9% |
Somewhat satisfied | 4 | 18% |
Satisfied | 5 | 23% |
Very satisfied | 10 | 45% |
Not Applicable | 1 | 5% |
(N = 22) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 4 | 18% |
Not very satisfied | 4 | 18% |
Somewhat satisfied | 5 | 23% |
Satisfied | 7 | 32% |
Very satisfied | 0 | 0% |
Not Applicable | 2 | 9% |
(N = 22) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 1 | 5% |
Not very satisfied | 2 | 9% |
Somewhat satisfied | 7 | 32% |
Satisfied | 6 | 27% |
Very satisfied | 4 | 18% |
Not Applicable | 2 | 9% |
(N = 22) | Number of Responses | Percent |
---|---|---|
Not at all satisfied | 1 | 5% |
Not very satisfied | 1 | 5% |
Somewhat satisfied | 6 | 27% |
Satisfied | 9 | 41% |
Very satisfied | 4 | 18% |
Not Applicable | 1 | 5% |
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In this section we will discuss characteristics of the DMP as experienced by the 1994 and 1995 student participants. Many of these are themes that the students themselves initiated and discussed in our interviews; other themes arose specifically out of questions asked in the interviews. Our discussion will focus on the following aspects of the DMP: students' expectations of the program, their transition into a more sophisticated understanding of academic life through the immersive nature of the DMP, and their view of the role of the mentor. This report will focus on the experience of both the 1994 and 1995 student participants in the DMP and their perceptions of the program's influence prior to making career decisions.
Almost all of the student participants entered the mentor program with the expectation that their experience would give them the knowledge with which to make decisions about their future career paths. Many mentioned that they were particularly interested in finding out if computer science and engineering (CS&E) was "right" for them by working in the field. In addition, many hoped to learn about graduate school, research and academic positions through the DMP and planned to make decisions about whether these were paths they wanted to pursue in the future. In the following interview excerpts students discussed these expectations:
R: I was initially hoping that I would decide whether or not I wanted to go to grad school, and that perhaps I'd find what I wanted to specialize in.
R: Well, it looked like an ideal summer job. Like I would learn a lot. I would learn about research, and I would learn more about grad school.
The DMP was an opportunity to decide between an academic and non-academic career
In our interviews, some students discussed that they were attempting to decide between an academic and non-academic career. Many of these students hoped that their experience in the DMP would provide them with knowledge about academic life, which they could to use as a basis for comparison with other career options.
Students who were already planning on attending graduate school viewed the DMP as an opportunity for professional development
Some students entered into the DMP seriously committed to pursuing graduate studies. Many of these students hoped to, through their experience with the DMP, narrow their interests down to a specific topic in CS&E.
R: I expected to get out of my experience connections to go to grad school and experience and research and just general experience that I could put on my resume and it would look good.
I: What do you mean connections to go to grad school?
R: Well, everyone has always said that in order to get into one of the best grad schools, you should know a professor there, a professor that during the application process would say, "Oh yes. We'd like to have this person come to our school."
Evaluator Point of View
The fact that many of these students are viewing their experience in the DMP as a way to "try academic CS&E on for size" in order to make future career decisions demonstrates that the students selected to participate in the DMP are utilizing the program in accordance with its goal of encouraging undergraduate women to consider and pursue graduate studies in CS&E. |
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In this section we will first discuss the students' transition into a more sophisticated understanding of the academic world of CS&E through interacting and observing faculty and graduate students and through doing research in the DMP. We will then discuss how the students' experience helped to define their interests and shape their career decisions.
As discussed in Section I, many students entered into the program expecting to learn more about graduate school, research, and academic life in order to make decisions about their future career plans. Our interviews indicated that many students felt that they knew little about these academic pursuits prior to their participation in the DMP. We came to understand that through their immersion into the culture of the academic world of CS&E, students made the transition to a more sophisticated understanding of the field. This transition occurred through the following processes: observing their mentor and her interactions with other faculty and graduate students, observing and interacting with other graduate students on a daily basis, and actively participating in a research project.
Most students interacted with faculty and/or graduate students on a daily basis while participating in the DMP. Through these interactions, almost all students stated that they were able to develop a more complete view of graduate school that they would not have had access to through more traditional venues of acquiring information about graduate school. In fact, most students felt that the opportunity to "live the life of a graduate student" was the most positive aspect of the program.
R: Just having the program - being able to go and be sort of an honorary grad student for the summer and see what it was like. And see by watching, instead of just by asking questions. But by being there and sort of watching people do their thing. Figuring out what grad students do. What professors do, when they're not "professoring." That was really helpful because it gave me a much clearer idea of what academia was like.
R: I think the most positive was just being in a research environment just to see what graduate school is like and hearing about what they did in class, what a typical graduate student does I guess.
R: We were essentially graduate students for a summer -- being put in that environment so I knew what I was getting into. So now, since I am going on to graduate school, I know what to expect. I'm not like a scared little freshman as I was when I went into undergrad. I know what to expect. And making the contacts was also very helpful, getting other opinions on what graduate schools are good to go to, getting extra recommendations from other people that are in another school I'm sure really helped me a lot.
Interacting with and observing graduate students and faculty was particularly useful for students from non-Ph.D. granting institutions. Many students from these types of institutions expressed that since they had no contact with graduate students, their experience in the DMP was extremely useful in their formation of a more complete picture of graduate school life.
Many students who did not have the opportunity to interact with graduate students commented that they didn't have a clear idea of what graduate school was about after they completed the program. Since most students entered into the program with the intention of learning about graduate school, these students tended to be disappointed by the lack of interaction with graduate students.
Some student participants commented that their experience in the DMP gave them a unique insight to the admissions process and the selection of a graduate school that fit their needs and interests.
Some students realized that they had misconceptions about graduate school and through this immersion into academic life they were able to acquire a more accurate understanding of graduate school life.
R: You work a lot, but I knew that already. It's not as solitary as I thought that it might be, which is something that I have been worried about.
I: Meaning you work by yourself, in isolation?
R: Exactly.
I: How did you come to that conclusion?
R: Well, working with the other two students in the office and I did see some other grad students around and they didn't seem like they were isolated.
Prior to the DMP, a few students weren't considering going to graduate school because they felt that it would be too expensive. The following student envisioned graduate school in CS&E to be similar to her undergraduate experience, where there was little financial support.
R: Yeah.
I: How did that go? Was she helpful?
R: Yeah, a little bit. One of the reasons I'm a little apprehensive about going to graduate school is that I'm planning to get married when I got out of school and I don't see how you can pay for graduate school if you're both going to graduate school because my boyfriend wants to go to graduate school, definitely. But she told me that she and her husband were both going to graduate school when they first got married. She was telling me that in Computer Science, at least at this school, you get paid to go to graduate school. It's not like undergraduate where you're in debt.
After learning that graduate students could be supported throughout their study, this student began to consider graduate school as an option, whereas she had previously not considered it at all.
Some student participants commented that their interactions with and observations of graduate students gave them an opportunity to see graduate students' motivations for attending graduate school.
R: I guess it's really made me sure that I want to get my Master's because I was still kind of unsure.
I: How did it affect that?
R: I guess I was just kind of scared, like I didn't know what to expect. But just meeting some of the Master's students, that they weren't like, I don't know, they seemed like people I could see myself being in a couple of years or next year.
I: Right. How did they act? Did you like things about their experiences, or dislike things?
R: I liked it. I could definitely see myself doing it.
Evaluator Questions
Because students who were able to interact with other graduate students on a daily basis developed a more sophisticated understanding of graduate school, should the DMP require the mentor to have some graduate students to be available as a resource for the student? |
Through their experience in the DMP, many students came to a more complete understanding of the research process. Upon entering the DMP, most students had little experience with research and were accustomed to learning information from their instructors' lectures and structured classroom assignments. Through "doing" research students expressed that they experienced a completely different mode of learning in which they were actively utilizing and applying their knowledge to solve new problems. In this section we will discuss the factors involved in the students making this shift from a structured classroom-style learning to a more self-directed and open-ended research process.
In addition to having no experience with a self-directed research process, most of the student participants entered into the DMP with little exposure to their mentor's area of research. As a result, many students initially felt overwhelmed by the amount of information they needed to learn to prepare for their project and by having to learn how to "do" research.
R: Yeah, because we were just thrown into this lab, and they were all doing all this work, and I hardly knew anything about it. I had to learn all this weird stuff about [my mentor's area of research] and this new language, and things... There was a lot to learn when we got in there. But you kind of begin to think, and you start figuring things out.
Many students came to recognize the process of research as a self-directed inquiry process and commented that in the DMP they could no longer rely on an instructor to teach them or to provide the detailed structure for their learning; rather, they expressed that they were "teaching" themselves.
I: And how is that different?
R: You don't have a set assignment. You have work that you're doing, and you're kind of on your own, and you're trying to figure things out. And your homework is just kind of like, "You have to read this." Or, "Finish this assignment." So it's a lot different way of studying, I think.
I: Did you like that?
R: Yeah, that was fun. (laugh)
I: What about it did you like? Being able to do different things?
R: I think freedom to do your own thing. I mean, you were on your own to do research, in general. Whatever you wanted to do was what you were able to do. You're like your own teacher, kind of. Everything you learned you did on your own.
Through their experience in the DMP, many students learned how to work within the open-ended framework of research. The following student commented that she was learning how to structure her own time in order to achieve a goal, rather than depending upon an external source to provide structure.
Other students came to realize the research benefits of working collaboratively.
R: Yeah, we worked together the entire time.
I: OK. How was that?
R: It was good. It was really fun. We got along really well, so we were lucky. And it was nice -- originally [I] thought we would split off and we would work on different things, but it turned out that we really needed to work at it together. And I think we made a lot fewer errors because we worked on it together, because if one person didn't see it the other person did. So it was good.
I: You said you really needed to work together. Why?
R: ... I think it was helpful just because it was two people looking at the code at the same time. I mean we both had weaknesses and we could reinforce those with the other person's strengths and make better code.
R: Oh, definitely! A lot! Not only just from doing research myself. And seeing the roadblocks and the different ways people do research. Like I know that I need a supportive group, that I be forced to check in with somebody at a certain point in time and go, "Okay, let's take a look at where we're going from here." Not only in terms of how I personally react to this whole big project idea, and doing research.
Some students realized that they needed to collaborate in order to gain support in coping with the frustrations of adapting to the research process.
By adapting to and being able to work within the open-ended and self-directed research process, many students gained a new sense of confidence. In the following interview excerpt a student described this process.
For many students, this shift from "being taught" to teaching themselves resulted in increased confidence about their understanding of and abilities to succeed in CS&E.
R: Yeah. I feel more confident now than I did when I started this project. So yeah. I feel confident that I can do it.
I: Did you have doubts before that you would be able to do it?
R: Although I have been doing well [in school], there was all this stuff, you know in the back of my mind all the time. "Well, I was just being lucky. I made this, because I just got lucky. I had an easy professor. Or, whatever." And those things. But, somehow, maybe it's more than just luck. And this summer, my mentor had said that I did a superb job and everything. So it cannot be luck.
I: So you were able to do this project and realize that some of the work you've been doing has been skill?
R: Yeah, I worked on my own, so whatever I came up with, was with my own doing. I had advice of course. But it was not like another team member rescuing me and not like my project is working out because somebody else had a great idea or whatever. I mean it was all mine really. And I don't think it was just luck.
I: You're talking about being an undergraduate where you do what you have to do in class, is that what you're thinking?
R: Yeah, so I knew that grad students sort of were more self-directed. But just to see people sort of playing with a problem because they really like it and then going after a thesis with it. It's sort of scary to think that if I did that I would need to be that dedicated to a problem and do it. But then I was [as dedicated] to the problem that I worked on last summer, and I had a really good time and also got something out of it. So that made me feel like I could get through grad school and a PhD if I could find another problem that I liked as much.
Prior to the DMP, many students' interactions with faculty were limited to the classroom and office hours, and thus many had little or no conception of the faculty role within the university. When students interacted with or even just observed the mentor and other faculty on a daily basis, they were better able to understand the faculty role in the academic setting as well as their lifestyle. The following student commented that the DMP allowed her to acquire a more multi-dimensional view of the role of the faculty in a university.
I: You were mainly exposed to this last summer?
R: Yeah.
I: How did that work? Were you invited to these meetings, or it was just through osmosis?
R: Well, I watched.
Previous to the DMP, many students imagined professors' lives to be completely centered around their academic life. Through their daily interactions with their mentor and other faculty, many students were surprised to find out that faculty had interests and activities outside of the academic setting.
Some students broadened their understanding of the role of a professor through being at a different institution. The following student did not aspire to emulate the professors at her home institution, but upon working closely with her mentor, was able to see a different side of the faculty role.
I: Different meaning they're younger and they might have different ideas?
R: Well, just different in general. I had my one impression and I guess you need another just to confirm whatever opinions you have. Because you only get one impression at one school, and you need to go to another place to see something different.
Many students reacted positively to their new understanding of what faculty do at a university. The following student commented that this new understanding allowed her to recognize professors as real people and gave her the confidence to talk to professors after class.
I: And that was partially because of your experience with the mentoring program?
R: Yeah.
I: Because it gave you more confidence to discuss with professors these kind of things?
R: Yeah, sort of, the "faculty are people too" attitude. ... They're not necessarily awe inspiring, but they're people. You can talk to them. It's not like, they're up there, and you can't talk to them even though - I don't know. When you go to classes of 200 people, or whatever, it's like they're sort of moving video tapes or something up there. No, you can go up and talk to them. They actually will respond, and stuff, instead of this weird thing.
In addition to developing the confidence to interact more frequently with faculty about CS&E, many students used their new understanding of the faculty role to define their interests in choosing whether to attend graduate school or to pursue a career in academia.
The experience and knowledge that students developed through their immersion in an academic environment allowed them to define the nature of their career interests. Many came closer to deciding whether they were interested in pursuing graduate studies in CS&E and also whether they were interested in a career in academia. In this section, we will present first student realizations about their interest in pursuing graduate studies and then move to a discussion of student career interests in light of their newly acquired understanding about academic computer science.
Through their experience in the DMP, most students were able to discern whether they were interested in attending graduate school. By being immersed in an academic environment, students were able to identify features of graduate life that appealed or did not appeal to them. The following quote reflects student realizations about their new understanding.
In this section we will discuss student reactions to their immersive experience in an academic environment and their realization about their interest in graduate school.
Through doing research and interacting with graduate students and faculty on a daily basis, many students came to realize their interests in graduate school. Some students experienced a change in attitude about the importance of graduate studies
A few students had not considered pursuing graduate studies before being in the DMP and developed a new attitude toward learning and came to realize that they would enjoy continuing their education in CS&E.
Some students came to realize the importance of a graduate school education for specializing in an area of interest, as demonstrated by this 1994 student participant.
R: (pause) I'm more likely to go back to graduate school now. I'd definitely say that program emphasized the importance of going to grad school.
I: What is important about going to graduate school?
R: (pause) I think the one really is you need to have a little deeper knowledge. If you're interested in becoming focused on a particular aspect of something, you need to have more education.
With their new knowledge, students had confidence that graduate school "fit" them
Through doing research and interacting with graduate students and faculty, many students realized that they could successfully complete a research project and that graduate school "fit" them. This experience helped these students to define an interest in attending graduate school with the confidence that they could succeed in it.
R: I just finished my sophomore year when I did the program, so I hadn't had to deal with the realities of what I was going to do in two years. So it was more like graduate school is kind of this nebulous idea that I was kicking around. And it definitely showed me that I could really enjoy graduate school. I think I could succeed there. It was something that fit me. So in my case [the DMP] showed me that graduate school was a real possibility.
R: Well it wasn't really that I changed my mind. I wasn't really sure what graduate school was all about or what it involved and this showed me what it was about and it showed me that it was something for me.
R: Oh, gee, I don't know! It's a place for me. It's where I want to go. And, choosing the right graduate school is going to be important, but now I know better how to do that. And I know that I can go to grad school and make it through and enjoy the time, and get something very, very important out of it.
One 1994 student participant directly related her experience in the DMP to her decision to pursue her Master's degree. This student had not intended to attend graduate school, and worked in a private firm following graduation. However, she did not find her position as challenging as her experience with research in the DMP and after discussion with her DMP mentor, decided to join her mentor's research team as a Master's student.
R: The exposure to people in the computer science program. The work I did definitely gave me a lot of valuable knowledge, and the insight into how research works. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't had that. I wouldn't be in the Master's program if I hadn't had an idea how great research was.
Through their experience in the DMP, some students came to realize that they were either not interested in pursuing graduate studies or were not prepared to enter into a graduate program. Many of the students who were not interested in pursuing graduate studies in CS&E cited lack of interest in working on an extensive research program and that they needed more direction and structure than research affords. The following student came to this realization after observing a graduate student at her mentor's university.
I: Why is that?
R: Because it's just a really huge project, and [the graduate student I worked with] just works away on it, and ... like the third version, and it just seems like from my perspective of this, like of his doctoral project or whatever, it's just neverending. I feel like I would go nuts after four years of working on generally the same thing. I don't think I could deal with it.
Many of the students who expressed that they were not prepared for graduate school indicated that they had not developed an area of interest or specialization to direct their study. These students stated that it was important to have a "passion" for some area of CS&E in order to make graduate school worthwhile and did not see any benefit to pursuing graduate studies without any clear goal.
I: How did you feel about it?
R: I enjoyed it, I thought it was a real good experience.
I: Is that something you're looking for, that kind of an atmosphere?
R: Honestly -- right now strangely enough -- I know this probably wasn't the intent of this whole program but I think it showed me that I am not ready for that just yet. Maybe in a few years I will be, but not just yet. I think that for one thing, to do research and to go to graduate school you really sort of have [to have a] passion for something, maybe some aspect of computer science. And frankly, I haven't found what that is yet. And I think maybe being out there a few years working or reading on my own will help me to find my passion, if there is one.
Most students felt that their observations and interactions with faculty and their experience with research were accurate indicators of a career in academia. As a result, through their experience in the DMP, many students came to understand whether they would like to work in academia.
Many students perceived the role of the faculty in the university to be flexible, fairly autonomous and full of variety. Some students commented that these aspects of the role appealed to them and as a result, they were planning to attend graduate school in order to become a professor.
I: Did it give you any perspective on work and what you can do?
R: Yeah, it made me really excited about going to grad school and computer science and going into teaching.
R: Yeah, I like the idea of doing a variety of things and also the idea of academia that you teach, you help the students, you work on academic curricula, you're on committees and stuff, you have your office hours, you have your research, you're writing -- and research itself is you're programming or you're writing a paper or you're thinking up ideas or you're working on some proof, or whatever. It's like, you won't be doing the exact same thing. On any given day you spend a couple hours doing research, go to do a lecture, come back, have office hours, where people may or may not show up, do some more research, go to a committee meeting, go talk to somebody from industry about getting money for getting a grant to do something else.
I: What's the atmosphere [like]?
R: I was doing my work because I wanted to and it was my work and I worked in an engineering department my freshman summer and it was just, "Here's this task, do it." And it wasn't so much, "Do research and find out. Investigate a problem."
I: So it was more limited?
R: Yeah. I've loved being at [my mentor's university] the last couple of summers and I'd really like to continue my education. And I think I want to be a professor but I don't know if I've given myself the chance to see what the industry is like, and I'll have to figure that out along the way.
I: What do you mean by that?
R: Well, she's got two dogs, crazy kids who are- I mean, they're great! ... And, you know, she...had time for vacation, and she's like, "I can't meet at two o'clock today, I've got to take [my daughter] to ballet." All of the reinforcements of the other real reason I want to teach in the college atmosphere is to avoid the 8 to 5, 8 to 7, whatever a typical workday thing. More flexibility in my schedule is very important to me. And I just don't think I could do that sort of punch-in-punch-out kind of physical job stuff. And academic life...while [it may be] more rigorous in other aspects, and [it] has its downfalls, is the kind of thing that I want to do for that reason. It's more flexible when you need it to be.
Some students were able to further define the direction they wanted to take within the field through their experience with research. The following student discussed how her experience conducting research in the DMP inspired her and caused her to re-evaluate an aspect of her career decision.
Some students enjoyed their work in an academic environment during the DMP summer, but were still ambivalent about choosing academic CS&E as a career. Some students had not worked in industry and had no basis of comparison and so were hesitant to decided upon a career in academia without more information. Some students commented that although they enjoyed the freedom and flexibility of an academic schedule, they also had reservations about working in such an unstructured environment.
Some students came to realize that an academic career did not appeal to them. Many of these students expressed that they needed more external direction and structure than a career in research would offer them. These students expressed that they wanted more external structure to frame their work and, in some cases, to motivate them.
R: I don't know. I guess the only thing that I learned is that it's a lot less structured and a lot less methodical than I expected. And I don't know if it's always like that, maybe it's just like that at [my mentor's university] but that surprised me. I expected to sort of have a schedule of deliverables or whatever and sort of something that you had to stick by, that you had to be at this certain point, you had to progress like to a certain point by a certain date and then at the next date I expect you to be at this point, and it was just really nothing like that. There was no scheduling. There was no itinerary or whatever.
I: How did you feel about that?
R: I guess I work better in a structured environment. I have to admit I like a little bit of bureaucracy.
R: I guess I had a lot of problems seeing what I would do with that degree when I was done with it. I mean, if I wanted to teach at the college level I think I would have had a lot of opportunities, but I wasn't totally convinced I would be happy where I was doing research half my day and teaching the other half. I wasn't very convinced. I did another thesis besides the CRA project across junior and senior year at the University. It was a challenging decision for a lot of us who went through the thesis process. Do we want to do research and teach, or do we want to do something else? I'm still not totally positive, but I think right now I'm happy with what I'm doing [at my job].
I: Was that something you learned through the program or through your senior thesis?
R: I think to be in a research environment you have to have a lot of internal motivation, and I'm not sure I had that. I'm one that needs a lot of, I don't want to say approval outside, but I need some kind of measure of how I'm doing, and when you're doing research it's very difficult. Unless you're getting a lot of things published there's not a lot of immediate feedback. In a job you have a little more of that.
Evaluator Point of View
We came to realize that by immersing students in an academic environment, the DMP is preparing these students to make knowledgeable career decisions. By giving students an opportunity to experience aspects of graduate school life prior to making their actual career decisions, the DMP is enabling students to make informed decisions about a career and about graduate school. Those students who identify with and enjoy the people and experiences they encounter may realize that graduate school is "right" for them and also be more likely to succeed in graduate school because they are prepared for an academic environment. Others who did not enjoy their research experience may be less inclined to attend graduate school and, in fact, may have been prevented from making a potentially inappropriate career choice. Evaluator Question If students encounter serious problems in the DMP, do they allow this negative experience to be the defining factor in whether they attend graduate school? We are defining "serious problems" as students feeling that their mentor excluded them from professional and personal interactions with her and as a result, encountered problems with the program itself. |
Due to the small number of students that had negative experiences in the program, we cannot draw definitive conclusions about this question. Despite this small sample, their experiences raise important questions and issues about the implementation of the DMP and its effects on the students. In subsequent years of this evaluation as more data is gathered we will be able to more completely explore the relationship between the program implementation and its effects.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In section II of this report, we discussed the ways in which immersing students in a graduate school environment increased their understanding of the academic field of CS&E as a way of helping them to more clearly define their career interests. This section serves to present how involving students in a collaborative research process is critical to their having a successful experience in the program and also achieving the outcomes discussed in section II.
In our discussions with students, they emphasized the importance of doing a project that was related to, and had an impact on their mentor's research group. These students expressed that their project felt "real" to them precisely because it contributed to the research of someone professionally involved in CS&E. Virtually all students had previously worked only in the context of doing structured undergraduate assignments, and for many, this experience helped them to realize that they were capable of contributing valuable information to the field.
I: How did you feel about that?
R: That was pretty neat. I was pretty proud of myself.
R: Oh yeah. Important to me and important to them because it's their research.
I: And how is it important to you?
R: Because it, like I said before, reinforced my confidence. Also it will give me a sense of having done something real so to speak. I'm used to just doing projects for academics -- "Just turn this in, get a grade and then throw it away." And this is something that's going to be used for something real, real important.
One 1994 student commented that the research she did was applicable not just to her mentor's project, but was also valuable to her experiences in the business community.
R: Very interesting - very interesting, very applicable. Some of it was cutting edge. When I got out into the working world and they needed something done, it was very similar to what I had done, and I understood all the problems and the drawbacks , all the different options.
Students were more motivated and inspired to do research when their mentor treated them as valuable members of the research group, capable of providing input and direction about their research.
A few students discussed that they felt excluded from the collaborative research process as a result of being assigned to a project that was irrelevant to their mentor's research or not working with members of the research team. These students stated that they felt isolated from the research process and became less motivated to work on their project.
I: Insignificant to what you wanted to do?
R: No, to anybody. It seemed like it was just something to keep me busy, I'm not sure. I think they had high hopes, but I don't think they realized that what they wanted me to do couldn't really be done with the tools they gave me to do it with. So I ended up with a project that probably is not useable.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
In this section we will discuss the students' view of the role of the mentor in the program. The mentor played a critical role both in facilitating a positive experience for the students during their participation in the program as well as through acting as a role model and a professional resource.
When students first arrived at their mentor's university, they expected the mentor to clearly delineate her expectations for them. This included defining when and how often they would meet, what was expected of them in these meetings, as well as letting the students know the times at which the mentor would be available for questions (outside of the regular meetings). If the student worked with graduate students, they also wanted a clear delineation of their working relationship.
Most students expressed that they knew what their mentor expected of them and were able to function within that framework. However, a few students felt unclear about the protocol for interacting with their mentor or didn't feel that they had an understanding of their mentor's expectations. In the following interview excerpts the students discussed their concerns and frustrations about these issues.
R: Being ignored. I wasn't real happy with that. I don't do well with being ignored anyway. And I felt like there were false pretenses.
I: Set forth by whom?
R: Set forth more by the lack of communication or understanding.
I: What were the false pretenses? R: Mentoring. The fact that I truly believed that she would spend more time with me.
Other students commented that they were unsure what kind of behavior was acceptable when dealing with graduate students. The following student's comments reflect the fact that it was unclear to her as to what type of relationship she was to have with graduate students.
One incident I had was with the grad student who's helping me with the coding. The professor told me to go see him about his code and go ask him questions. Well, I went over and spent about 40 minutes with him and felt real guilty about that and then left. Then the professor asked me how it went and I told him, "Well, I went over and spent 40 minutes with him." And he said, "Well, I thought you were going to spend the whole afternoon with him." And it never ever dawned on me that I could take up that much of somebody's time. When he said go ask him some questions, I just thought, "Okay. Well, I'll spend maybe half an hour, or hour with him," 'cause I figured he's got work to do. I guess, I ran into little problems like that of just not really knowing how things worked and how to act.
Evaluator Point of View
Most students viewed their mentor as an authority figure and were uncomfortable, at least initially, with approaching her with questions and concerns. A number of these students lacked confidence about their skills and abilities, and were reluctant to initiate interactions and discussions with the mentor. As a result, the students placed the responsibility on the mentor for defining the nature and frequency of interactions during the program. Thus, the mentor can reduce her student's anxiety about their interactions, both professional and social, by clearly stating her expectations and setting up a protocol for interactions. |
Many of the students that we interviewed emphasized that an important part of the program was their interaction with their mentor. These students expected their mentor to be available to address their questions about their project and discuss details of a career in CS&E.
Most students stated that their mentor was available throughout the program to meet with them and address their questions. A few students expressed that their mentor either was not available or was not a good resource. When students felt that they didn't have much contact with their mentor, they were disappointed with the program and questioned the value of the mentoring aspect of the program.
I: Why is that?
R: She's really busy, she doesn't have very much time for me at all. Like weeks go by without me seeing her during more than, like we have a weekly luncheon. I'm actually working much more directly with this graduate student. Like if I have a questions, problems with the program, I ask him because it's his program. He knows, [and] he can help me out much more quickly, than my mentor. So that's kind of a little disappointing, I don't really know how much of a mentor she is being to me- ... I mean she's kind of left it that if I have questions I can come to her, but it just seems pointless when I have a question about the project to go to her, because she's going to say, "Well, I don't really know the details. Why don't you go ask him?"
R: Yeah, be around more, make sure that I wasn't spending all of my nights at home wondering what I was supposed to be doing.
I: HmmMmm. And that didn't happen?
R: That didn't happen at all. As far as she was concerned the more that I stayed out of her life the better.
R: No, we worked with the grad students. She's real busy. I hardly ever saw [my mentor]. I had a problem with that, I did. I was real unhappy with that because, I mean she was supposed to be my mentor, and you know what I mean. I wanted to get to know her.
In fact, when students perceived their mentor as too busy to meet with them, many felt as if their presence, rather than being helpful, was more of a distraction.
I: How did you feel about that?
R: It was a little disappointing. And I understand she's busy, but I kind of felt like I was in the way, more than being a help to them all.
Evaluator Point of View
This section demonstrates the value that students placed on their interactions with the mentor. The students expected the mentor to provide guidance about their project and about their career decisions. If the mentor is only available to them through weekly group research meetings, the student is apt to become disappointed with their working relationship. Thus, it is important that the mentor set aside time to spend alone with the student so that these issues and questions can be addressed. |
For most students in the DMP, their project was their first experience with research. Through our interviews, we came to understand that while students wanted their project to allow for their intellectual creativity and interests, they also felt they needed some structure and guidance from the mentor.
Many students entered the DMP lacking a sense of their interests in CS&E and of how to conduct research in the field. As a result they needed the mentor to frame a project or series of projects for them which would provide an overall structure for their research. Yet within this framework students wanted to have some input in helping to define their project as well as a choice in how they would proceed in conducting their research project.
R: Actually, she gave me choices so I guess it's hard to say. I kind of said, "What do you think if I do this?" And she said, "Okay." It was like fifty-fifty. Sometimes I came up with the idea. Sometimes she would suggest the idea and I said, "Yes." So, in the last project she gave me a few things to choose from and I chose what I chose. So, I made a choice. So, I don't know. Kind of fifty-fifty. It worked out fine. I mean, she would never push anything on me or anything like that.
I: You liked that, having that freedom?
R: Yeah, yeah. Because then I wouldn't have to do the stuff that was like "Yuck, I don't want to do it." (laughs) I got to do more fun stuff.
Students expressed that they needed structure and guidance as they conducted research during the program. Many students expressed that they preferred that their mentor provide overall guidance and direction without being involved in the day-to-day details. In the following quotes, students described the nature of the guidance from the mentor that was helpful to them in their research.
I: How often do you talk to her -- several times throughout the day?
R: It depends on what I'm doing. If I'm really, really stuck, 'cause there've been a couple times where I haven't talked to her about the project for a couple days, and then I'll come in and show her, "This is what I did, what needs to be different." 'Cause the way I'm programming is basically trial and error, 'cause I've never used the language and neither has she. It makes it interesting - we're like the blind leading the blind.
R: She did a lot. She basically sort of steered us or not really steered, but helped us get started in a big way. I mean she said "Well, you guys can choose whatever you want. Or if you have no idea, here are four ideas, you know. And you can pick one of these if you want." [The other DMP student] and I were like "Hmm, OK." (laughs) And so she made sure that like we met with [another person on the research team] and she was like, "You know, it's a really good idea if you guys give talks." And so she didn't really sit down there and do the programming or anything, she just sort of directed us and sort of helped us do research. And definitely I mean, she gave us reading assignments and pointed us in that direction of reading, told us what papers she thought would be useful, and stuff like that.
When students worked without structure and guidance, they expressed that they felt lost and without direction. The following student expressed that because she had "too much" freedom on the project, she wasn't sure what was important for her to concentrate on.
I: They didn't give you a clear project at all?
R: Well, yes it was a clear project. But there were several things surrounding it and basically it was a very independent thing for me. Which I liked a lot and worked a lot and if I ever had questions they were more than willing to do anything and everything to help...But they didn't say, "Okay, it's gonna have to be this design, this whatever." I was pretty much set to design it how I wanted....I played with a lot of stuff and I did a lot of other stuff but I didn't know exactly how it related 'cause I didn't know exactly what I needed, you know.
One student expressed frustration and disappointment that she received almost no guidance and struggled for weeks attempting to understand how to approach her project. As a result this student stated that she was unable to complete her project.
I: So she never, she wrote it out but didn't discuss it with you?
R: Yeah, and I always got the idea that it would just become suddenly apparent to me and it never did, and every time I tried to talk to her about it she would either say, "Well, you're doing fine for now, and we'll talk about it when you start something new," but I didn't know what I was doing for now.
Evaluator Point of View
This section demonstrates the importance of the mentor achieving a balance between providing guidance and allowing the student independence in directing the work on her own project. Most students did not have the capacity to independently conduct research and therefore needed a structured project and overall guidance. |
Some students discussed the value of having someone prepared and available to answer their questions and orient them about a career in CS&E. They looked upon their mentor as a reliable resource to address their questions about graduate school, research and academic life.
R: It's the mentor thing, because I can go and ask her anything. And it's great to be able to do that because she's done it and she's been through grad school and she's done this and she's searched through all them and she's done the job hunt. I mean, she's been through all of it. So if I have a question about it I can ask her, and she'll be able to answer.
R: Having a mentor who was female and who was sort of -- by the very nature of the program it sort of made it okay to ask questions like, "Have you encountered sexism?" All that kind of stuff. And also, "What's the process for entering grad school, for going for a PhD." I mean, they don't explain to you as an undergrad, because most undergrads don't go to grad school I guess, but they don't say, "You've got to write a thesis. This class in this university is required." That kind of thing.
Many students commented that their mentor introduced them to the culture of academia by giving them professional advice and direction.
I: You asked her to explain that?
R: Yeah. We had quite a few talks on the whole, how the research world works, stuff.
I: Was that important to you?
R: It was very helpful. I mean, I know a heck of a lot more about it now than I did then.
Although students commented that they could look to their male professors as modeling the faculty role, most felt that women had a unique experience as CS&E faculty. Since most student participants had little or no prior direct contact with a female faculty member, many looked to their mentor as a role model of what they might accomplish and experience in a career in CS&E. By observing and interacting with their mentor over the ten week period, many students were able to develop a clearer picture of the experience of women in CS&E.
Almost all students emphasized that their interaction with a female faculty member in the DMP was important to them because they could discuss with her experiences particular to being female in the field of CS&E. Many described that they were able to identify with the mentor and relate to her experiences as a female in CS&E.
R: Not important, but I definitely think it was helpful just because guys and girls have different perspectives of things. It's just that she's already been through it all, you know? Like she went through undergrad, she went through grad, she went through not having a ton of girls in her class, you know? It's just nice that someone else could relate to what I was going through, type of thing.
In addition, almost all students felt that their mentor provided a more accurate picture of the kinds of issues that they, as females, will face in CS&E.
I: Meaning that you'll have similar experiences?
R: Right, and we had similar concerns. Like, especially if I want to have children, that's something most males don't consider as necessarily their responsibility, and it was something I knew if I wanted to have kids some day I had to approach and address. And I felt comfortable talking with her about that, and I don't think a male mentor I would have felt comfortable talking to that about.
By observing and working closely with female faculty member, students were able to view her as a role model for what they could accomplish in their professional life. Although the students were aware that women could succeed in CS&E, they had little or no contact with any female faculty prior to the DMP. For many students, this interaction with their female mentor provided an example of what type of woman can succeed in CS&E and, in many cases, encouragement that they too could succeed in the field.
R: Ahm, well I think ahm, if the purpose of the program is to encourage females to continue on it helps to see a female that actually has continued on and been very successful. Ahm, if you see another male you see them all over the place and I think seeing that, yeah there is a female that has made it and it can be done and I think that's just- I think that's just encouraging.
I: Did it have an effect on you?
R: Yeah it did. [My mentor] impressed me a lot and it was helpful to see her having been so successful. I think I would've come away with a lot of the same feelings with a male mentor but if I had to make a choice I would have chosen a female mentor.
Many students commented that prior to participating in the DMP, they were worried about being able to balance a career in CS&E with other interests, namely having a family. Many students feared that an academic career in CS&E would be too time intensive to be able to focus on other interests. Most students looked to their mentor as an accurate role model of whether it was possible to be successful in CS&E and have outside interests. In this section, we will discuss student reactions to their mentor's lifestyle.
Many students looked to their mentor as someone who could accurately model how to balance family and career. For some students, this was an important issue when considering an academic career in CS&E and they reacted positively to seeing their mentor strike this balance.
I: Was that something you might have been worried about?
R: I was definitely worried about it. (laughs) Having a family is very important to me. I mean even our faculty members [in CS&E] are here more than any other faculty in the entire college. So I wanted to see that it was possible that you could balance it.
I: Did this affect how you viewed graduate school then, or how you viewed going into Computer Science?
R: Well, yeah. It made it more attractive, definitely. To see a successful woman managing career and family.
R: Well, it seems that the goal of the program was to show women engineers that there were other women in the field that were enjoying what they were doing. And it was really refreshing to see that. And it was nice to see that a woman could make it and be very respected doing what she was doing. I think that was good. I think that's a good thing. I think it was a very good thing that it was a female because it gave me a chance to see that a female could get all the way to the top, sort of a tenure position, really well respected, very good researcher, and also still have a life, have a family and other things that she likes.
I: Was this something that you had worried about?
R: I was kind of worried that any job that I might get would ask so much of me that I wouldn't be able to have any other dedications to anything. Yeah, so that was something I did worry about, was that a job would ask too much of me. I saw that it could ask a lot of you, but you could still have a lot to give to other things as well.
I: How does that influence you? Does it influence you in what you can do?
R: Yeah I think it did. It just made me think that you really can do any kind of thing. I mean just put your mind to it. Which I think a whole part of getting your PhD is, I mean it's a long haul but if you want it bad enough I think you can do it. I might be a little bit too optimistic, I don't know.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
Many students expressed frustration about organizing various aspects of their living arrangements at the mentor's university. Because the participants were not "official" students at the host university, they were often denied housing and other aspects of university life unless their mentor intervened. The following quotes are representative of the experiences of many students.
I: Okay.
R: And we had problems getting ID cards for the exact same reason. They're like, "But you're not getting a paycheck from us!" We're like, "We know. We get paid from somebody else, just give us an ID card." So... just... the little things, like that.
Another issue that arose in our discussions with students was that some had difficulties receiving their checks from the CRA on time.
I: Why? They weren't paying you on time or?
R: No, I got my first check late. Well it's supposed to be there at the beginning of May and I had them send it to my apartment. And I moved out May 13 and hadn't gotten it yet and I had my mail forwarded. So I hadn't gotten it by like, two days before I was supposed to leave. And I thought I was going to have to pay for all my housing up front, so I needed it when I got here. And so they had to Fed Ex me a new check. And I didn't end up getting the first one until like two or three weeks after I had already been here...And then my second check was a month and a half late.
Table of Contents | Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |
The Students' Point of View: Issues Involved in Participating in the DMP
The Mentors' Point of View: Issues involved in Mentoring in the DMP
Survey Results
1995 Student Participant Survey Results
1994/1995 Mentor Survey Results
Breakdown of 1994 Students Attending/Considering Attending Graduate School
Appendix A: Interview Protocols for Student Participants and Mentors
Appendix B: Surveys for Student Participants and Mentors
Next Section | Previous Section | Back to the CRA-DMP Home Page |