More Like this

1. Beyond attrition: advisor relationships, progress clarity, and laboratory switching in engineering doctoral programs

   https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1770054  

   Bahnson, Matthew; Abane, Tabe Ako (January 2026, Frontiers in Education)

   IntroductionSeveral factors shape doctoral students’ decisions to leave their programs before completion. Among these, the quality of the advising plays a critical role. Yet, there remains limited understanding of how advisor relationships influence consequential decisions, such as early departure and lab change considerations in doctoral engineering students. This paper investigates the influence of advisor relationships on early departures and lab change considerations in doctoral engineering students. MethodsEngineering doctoral students from 26 top-ranked universities in the United States and 17 doctoral engineering disciplines responded to an online survey on departure considerations, advisor relationships, and lab change actions. In our sample (n = 269), fewer women (n = 108) participated compared to men (n = 121), with gender non-conforming individuals comprising a smaller proportion (n = 12), and 28 participants not self-identifying a gender. Linear regression was used to measure the association between advisor relationships and departure considerations, both with and without a master’s degree. Mediation tests were performed to assess the mediating effect of student’s ability to assess their progress to degree (progress assessment) on this relationship. ResultsOur results indicate that advisor relationships explained 12% of the variance in departure without a degree (R² = 0.12,F(1, 267) = 36.85,p < 0.001) and with a master’s degree (R² = 0.12,F(1, 267) = 35.66,p < 0.001). Progress assessment was statistically associated as a partial mediator of this relationship, with significant indirect effects (β = −0.05,p < 0.05) for departure with or without a master. DiscussionLow advisor relationship was associated with self-reported engagement in preparatory steps for early departure and research lab change considerations among doctoral engineering students. Conversely, negative advisor relationships are associated with increased self-reported engagement in steps leading to lab changes or departure considerations. 

   more » « less
2. System Factors Affecting Underrepresented Minorities in Doctoral Programs in Engineering: A Literature Review

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637208  

   Bouhrira, Neirouz; Cruz, Juan M. (October 2021, 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE))

   Several studies have shown that underrepresented minorities (URM) (African Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Latinos) are more likely to drop out of engineering doctorate programs before graduation compared to international and majority students. In addition, transitioning into the doctoral programs without having a good understanding of what it entails can make the PhD experience difficult. To address this issue, a team of researchers from four US universities developed a project called “the Rising Doctoral Institute (RDI)’’. One of the research goals of this project is to better understand how factors in the academic system interact dynamically to influence (i.e., support or hinder) incoming URM students’ access, success, persistence, and retention in engineering doctoral programs. To accomplish this goal, we will use a comprehensive analysis approach known as System Dynamic Model (SDM). This work-In-Progress article represents the starting point to develop this model and its overall goal is to conduct a systematic literature review to identify the factors in the academic system that impact URM students’ experience in doctoral engineering programs. We followed a process suggested by Okoli and Schabram [1] which consists of four major steps. The first step is presenting the purpose of the literature review, protocol, and training. The second step consists of selecting the literature and practical screen. The next step is the quality appraisal and data extraction. Finally, the analysis of findings and writing the review. By identifying the factors and the relation between them, we could help ensure a more diverse and equitable STEM education. Although some external factors can affect students’ access, success, persistence and retention in engineering PhD programs, this study is limited to exploring the factors and interactions within the academic system that can potentially impact the successful experience of underrepresented minorities in PhD programs in engineering such as Advisor-Advisee Relationship, Student’s Experience, Academic Support and Faculty-Students Interaction 

   more » « less
3. System Factors Affecting Underrepresented Minorities in Doctoral Programs in Engineering: A Literature Review

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE49875.2021.9637208  

   Bouhrira, N. (January 2021, Frontiers in Education Proceedings (FIE))

   Several studies have shown that underrepresented minorities (URM) (African Americans, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Latinos) are more likely to drop out of engineering doctorate programs before graduation compared to international and majority students. In addition, transitioning into the doctoral programs without having a good understanding of what it entails can make the PhD experience difficult. To address this issue, a team of researchers from four US universities developed a project called “the Rising Doctoral Institute (RDI)’’. One of the research goals of this project is to better understand how factors in the academic system interact dynamically to influence (i.e., support or hinder) incoming URM students’ access, success, persistence, and retention in engineering doctoral programs. To accomplish this goal, we will use a comprehensive analysis approach known as System Dynamic Model (SDM). This work-In-Progress article represents the starting point to develop this model and its overall goal is to conduct a systematic literature review to identify the factors in the academic system that impact URM students’ experience in doctoral engineering programs. We followed a process suggested by Okoli and Schabram [1] which consists of four major steps. The first step is presenting the purpose of the literature review, protocol, and training. The second step consists of selecting the literature and practical screen. The next step is the quality appraisal and data extraction. Finally, the analysis of findings and writing the review. By identifying the factors and the relation between them, we could help ensure a more diverse and equitable STEM education. Although some external factors can affect students’ access, success, persistence and retention in engineering PhD programs, this study is limited to exploring the factors and interactions within the academic system that can potentially impact the successful experience of underrepresented minorities in PhD programs in engineering such as Advisor-Advisee Relationship, Student’s Experience, Academic Support and Faculty-Students Interaction. 

   more » « less
4. Postdocs’ lab engagement predicts trajectories of PhD students’ skill development

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912488116  

   Feldon, David F.; Litson, Kaylee; Jeong, Soojeong; Blaney, Jennifer M.; Kang, Jina; Miller, Candace; Griffin, Kimberly; Roksa, Josipa (October 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   The doctoral advisor—typically the principal investigator (PI)—is often characterized as a singular or primary mentor who guides students using a cognitive apprenticeship model. Alternatively, the “cascading mentorship” model describes the members of laboratories or research groups receiving mentorship from more senior laboratory members and providing it to more junior members (i.e., PIs mentor postdocs, postdocs mentor senior graduate students, senior students mentor junior students, etc.). Here we show that PIs’ laboratory and mentoring activities do not significantly predict students’ skill development trajectories, but the engagement of postdocs and senior graduate students in laboratory interactions do. We found that the cascading mentorship model accounts best for doctoral student skill development in a longitudinal study of 336 PhD students in the United States. Specifically, when postdocs and senior doctoral students actively participate in laboratory discussions, junior PhD students are over 4 times as likely to have positive skill development trajectories. Thus, postdocs disproportionately enhance the doctoral training enterprise, despite typically having no formal mentorship role. These findings also illustrate both the importance and the feasibility of identifying evidence-based practices in graduate education. 

   more » « less
5. A research program-linked, course-based undergraduate research experience that allows undergraduates to participate in current research on mycobacterial gene regulation

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.1025250  

   Roberts, Louis Anthony; Shell, Scarlet S. (January 2023, Frontiers in Microbiology)

   Undergraduate instructional biology laboratories are typically taught within two paradigms. Some labs focus on protocols and techniques delivered in “cookbook” format with defined experimental outcomes. There is increasing momentum to alternatively employ student-driven, open-ended, and discovery-based strategies, oftenviacourse-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) using crowd-sourcing initiatives. A fraction of students also participate in funded research in faculty research labs, where they have opportunities to work on projects designed to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. These experiences are widely recognized as valuable but are not scalable, as most institutions have many more undergraduates than research lab positions. We sought to address this gap through our department’s curriculum by creating an opportunity for students to participate in the real-world research process within a laboratory course. We conceived, developed, and delivered an authentic, guided research experience to students in an upper-level molecular biology laboratory course. We refer to this model as a “research program-linked CURE.” The research questions come directly from a faculty member’s research lab and evolve along with that research program. Students study post-transcriptional regulation in mycobacteria. We use current molecular biology methodologies to test hypotheses like “UTRs affect RNA and protein expression levels,” “there is functional redundancy among RNA helicases,” and “carbon starvation alters mRNA 5′ end chemistries.” We conducted standard assessments and developed a customized “Skills and Concepts Inventory” survey to gauge how well the course met our student learning outcomes. We report the results of our assessments and describe challenges addressed during development and execution of the course, including organizing activities to fit within an instructional lab, balancing breadth with depth, and maintaining authenticity while giving students the experience of obtaining interpretable and novel results. Our data suggest student learning was enhanced through this truly authentic research approach. Further, students were able to perceive they were participants and contributors within an active research paradigm. Students reported increases in their self-identification as scientists, and a positive impact on their career trajectories. An additional benefit was reciprocation back to the funded research laboratory, by funneling course alumni, results, materials, and protocols. 

   more » « less