Search for: All records

In the laboratory-based disciplines, selection of a principal investigator (PI) and research laboratory (lab) indelibly shapes doctoral students’ experiences and educational outcomes. Framed by the theoretical concept of person–environment fit from within a socialization model, we use an inductive, qualitative approach to explore how a sample of 42 early-stage doctoral students enrolled in biological sciences programs made decisions about fitting with a PI and within a lab. Results illuminated a complex array of factors that students considered in selecting a PI, including PI relationship, mentoring style, and professional stability. Further, with regard to students’ lab selection, peers and research projects played an important role. Students actively conceptualized trade-offs among various dimensions of fit. Our findings also revealed cases in which students did not secure a position in their first (or second) choice labs and had to consider their potential fit with suboptimal placements (in terms of their initial assessments). Thus, these students weighted different factors of fit against the reality of needing to secure financial support to continue in their doctoral programs. We conclude by presenting and framing implications for students, PIs, and doctoral programs, and recommend providing transparency and candor around the PI and lab selection processes. 

How undergraduates are introduced to the discipline of engineering at the college level can have long-term educational and professional implications, including influencing decisions to pursue or leave engineering majors and validating beliefs about the purpose of engineering in society. Classroom lectures have been traditionally used within introductory engineering courses as they can transmit large amounts of content. However, they are generally less effective in helping undergraduates engage with and apply content. In recognition of this, learner-centered approaches are increasingly being used in introductory engineering classes. Our overarching purpose in this paper was to describe the use of the design process in an introductory engineering course that enrolled close to two hundred students, most of whom were in their first year in college. As we argued, these are the students who might most benefit from design process participation. We found that in general, the design process was transferable to this educational context. Most students seemed far more engaged than students in previous course offerings that had been delivered in a traditional format. Notably, students reported that in addition to learning course content, they learned creativity, persistence, problem-solving skills, leadership skills, and teamwork skills. However, perhaps the main contribution of engaging freshmen and other early-stage students in the design process was in fostering in them a greater understanding of the impact that engineers can have on society. 

High attrition rates have been a defining characteristic of doctoral education for decades, representing a loss of time, talent, and effort for departing students and their faculty. This qualitative study uses a biomedical science doctoral student sample to collect “real time” data on attrition within the first 2 years of doctoral training. Eighteen students, who represented 16 distinct universities, were interviewed as they engaged in the withdrawal process. Using the conceptual frames of socialization and social cognitive career theory, we explored experiences that preceded these students’ doctoral program withdrawals. Furthermore, we examined how expressed roles of students’ self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and professional goals contributed to the withdrawal process. Findings indicate that faculty advising (both positive and negative), laboratory rotation experiences, self-efficacy components, and changing professional goals all play a role in the early doctoral program attrition process.