AC 2012-3418: GRADUATE STUDENTS MENTORING UNDERGRADU- ATES IN RESEARCH: ATTITUDES AND REFLECTIONS ABOUT THESE EXPERIENCES

Ms. Janet Y. Tsai, University of Colorado, Boulder

Janet Y. Tsai is a doctoral student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, whose work examines and develops initiatives and curricular innovations to encourage more students, especially women, into the field of engineering. In addition to assessing peer mentoring programs, Tsai also explores teaching engi- neering statics through tangible sensations in the body, to feel and understand forces, moments, couples, equilibrium, and more via internal constructs instead of the conventional external examples.

Dr. Daria A. Kotys-Schwartz, University of Colorado, Boulder

Daria Kotys-Schwartz is the Faculty Director for the Mesa State College-University of Colorado Mechan- ical Engineering Partnership program and an instructor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder. She received B.S. and M..S degrees in mechanical engineering from the Ohio State University and a Ph.D. in mechanical rngineering from the University of Colorado, Boul- der. Kotys-Schwartz has focused her research in engineering epistemology, engineering student learning, retention, and diversity. She is currently investigating the use of oral discourse method for conceptual development in engineering, the impact of a four-year hands-on design curriculum in engineering, the effects of service learning in engineering education, and informal learning in engineering.

Dr. Beverly Louie, University of Colorado, Boulder

Beverly Louie is the Director for teaching and learning initiatives in the Broadening Opportunities through Leadership and Diversity (BOLD) Center in CU’s College of Engineering and Applied Science. She holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in chemical engineering from CU and a D.Phil. in mechanical engineering from the University of Oxford, England. Louie’s research interests are in the areas of engineering student retention and performance, teaching effectiveness, and collaborative learning.

Prof. Virginia Lea Ferguson, University of Colorado

Mechanical Engineering

Miss Alyssa Nicole Berg, University of Colorado, Boulder

Alyssa Nicole Berg is currently an undergraduate in mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado, Boulder. She is interested in the energy field and plans on attending graduate school.

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 Graduate Students Mentoring Undergraduates in Research: Attitudes and Reflections about These Experiences

One-on-one mentoring relationships between 1st or 2nd year engineering undergraduate students and graduate student mentors were established and monitored during a semester-long formal research mentoring program at a large state university. Each undergraduate student was expected to attend a weekly one hour seminar to learn more about the process of engineering research and work three to five hours per week in a research lab, supervised by a graduate student mentor, in order to earn one course credit. Pilot implementation of the program targeted underrepresented minorities and female undergraduate students in the hopes that hands-on research experience guided by a graduate student would improve undergraduate retention of these populations, a priority of the engineering college. The mentoring program also strived to increase interest in engineering careers and research for all students while providing graduate students with experience mentoring younger engineers. Progress towards these goals was assessed through an explanatory mixed-methods approach beginning with initial quantitative surveys, followed by qualitative weekly responses to online reflective questions, and concluded by a final round of quantitative surveys including open ended qualitative questions. Both undergraduate students and graduate mentors were assessed though qualitative and quantitative means. Following program participation, undergraduate mentees showed modest increases in overall motivation and confidence, though there was no demonstrable change in feelings of belonging in engineering. Of the eight undergraduate participants that completed the program, three had greater satisfaction with their individual graduate mentors than with results of program participation, three were equally satisfied with the program and its outcomes, and two were more satisfied with the program results than with their graduate mentors. Future program implementation will incorporate finer scales on quantitative surveys to increase the resolution of the data collected. Additional survey items will be added to further aid understanding of the program’s best practices and areas for continued improvement.

Introduction Mentoring programs have become widespread within institutions of higher learning as a potential means of improving institutional climate and culture to be more supportive of underrepresented minorities and women in engineering. The variety of existing mentoring programs is immense, varying from formal to informal, curricular and extra-curricular, with ages from undergraduate through graduate students and faculty. While many mentoring programs have good track records in assisting students and faculty to persist in engineering, there is a distinct lack of non-anecdotal evidence that supports these claims. The differences in structure and implementation across engineering mentoring programs also makes it difficult to understand which characteristics of mentoring relationships are vital for success, as there is no unified model for mentoring in an engineering context. Previous studies examining efficacy of mentoring programs have stopped short of developing data driven models and best practices.

The initiation of a new research-based mentoring program at the University of Colorado at Boulder provides an opportunity to conduct engineering education research to understand and quantify the effect of mentoring on student interests and retention in engineering. Targeted at the diverse population of underrepresented minorities and women engineers at the university, this program aims to improve retention rates since the college’s graduation trends lag well behind the national average for these nontraditional groups [1] [2]. This study examines the efficacy of the Your Own Undergraduate Research Experience at CU-Boulder (YOU’RE@CU) mentoring program during its pilot implementation and notes trends and aspects of mentoring relationships that are useful for a broader audience of engineering educators.

Background The connection between mentoring relationships and increased retention and persistence in engineering has been explored in several studies, encouraged by Seymour and Hewitt’s seminal work Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences published in 1997 [3]. Seymour and Hewitt described “the unsupportive culture” of math, science, and engineering as one of the primary reasons students chose to leave or switch out of STEM disciplines [3]. Their findings indicate that “Students identified a number of needs which they seek to meet by approaching faculty and other advisors: advice on academic and career alternatives and how best to pursue them... someone to take a personal interest in their progress, problems, and overall career direction” [3]. Many mentoring programs in engineering were created to address these specific student needs, believing that providing advisors and mentors invested and interested in the development of young engineers would help students remain in engineering majors through the duration of their undergraduate education and beyond into the workforce.

Existing Mentoring Programs One such program, initiated at the University of Notre Dame in 2006, hired a group of upper- class engineering students to plan events for first-year students in engineering [4]. These upper- class informal mentors were also responsible for contacting the first-year students initially by phone and throughout the year via e-mail correspondence, in the hopes of creating a supportive learning environment for the first-year students. Assessed via attitudinal surveys on the first-year experience, the authors were not yet able to conclusively link participation in the mentoring program with increased comfort in the choice of engineering, though they did find several promising results that motivate further study. Namely, they found that students more readily approach upper-class engineering students rather than faculty to discuss a variety of educational topics, and that student-student relationships have larger influence on student satisfaction than student-faculty interaction. Overall, this suggests that upper-class engineering students can be a useful resource to the first year students [4].

Another instance of introductory mentoring programs in engineering exists at the University of Pittsburgh, where a zero-credit course titled ENGR0081 is required for all 1st year engineers and is intended to help smooth the transition from high school to college with the help of upper-class peer mentors [5]. Each mentor chooses a non-academic theme based on their personal interest and in turn, undergraduate mentees choose a mentor based on the prescribed theme to form small discussion sections comprised of 10-15 1st year students and one upper-class mentor. The themes allow the interaction between mentors and mentees to remain friendly and informal, despite formal discussion matter including study skills, stress management, study abroad opportunities, and time management. As seen through both academic results (GPA, % honors, % probation, % transfers) and quantitative survey results, the program has been demonstrated to have a positive effect and has been lauded as a major success [6].

Similarly, the Graduate, Undergraduate Initiative for Development and Enhancement (GUIDE) program at Michigan Technological University groups entering 1st year engineering students with a sophomore, junior, or senior student as well as a graduate student mentor. Together, these groups of 3 are required to attend weekly scheduled meetings to discuss topics determined by the overall program coordinator. In addition, frequent informal meetings over coffee or meals are encouraged to engender a factor of trust between group members. Monthly social activities are held to further increase cross group socialization. The effectiveness of the program is assessed quantitatively through tracking GPA, number of interviews and internships received, and % retained in engineering and science. Each participant is further assessed through a simple survey of 19 questions to gather qualitative data regarding students' satisfaction with GUIDE and the overall college experience. Data from the 2004-2005 implementation year indicates that the program participants are highly satisfied with the program overall, reporting an average of 3.8 out of 5 in the post-intervention survey. Additionally, the data suggests that the largest benefit of the program was helping the 1st year students become adjusted to college life [7].

One more example of mentoring programs developed to improve retention exists at the University of Arkansas with the Women In Engineering Program (WIN) initiated in 1995 as a hopeful response to counteract increasing attrition of women leaving the College of Engineering between their sophomore and junior years. The WIN program matches female 1st and 2nd year students with upper-class female students in the same department to create a larger support network for female undergraduates. The program, described as forming “a sense of cohesiveness" among the women across engineering departments, has improved the environment and culture of engineering at the University of Arkansas as seen through qualitative comments from participant surveys. Additionally, as the named intent of the program is to “mainstream" women instead of segregating them further, the WIN program aims to encourage women to actively participate in departmental activities, becoming increasingly visible as engineers and members of engineering culture [8].

These mentoring programs share as characteristics the use of upper-class mentors to assist 1st or 2nd year undergraduates with the transition to engineering collegiate life. Another class of mentoring programs uses research as the primary activity in which mentees and mentors interact and develop their working relationship. For instance, at the University of Texas at Austin the Graduates Linked with Undergraduates in Engineering or GLUE program links 24 undergraduates in their 2nd and 3rd years with graduate student research mentors each spring semester. GLUE is well known locally and is cited as the reason many GLUE alumni have found successful careers in engineering industry as well as academia, and is renowned for providing women and underrepresented minorities with valuable community-enriching experience [9].

Despite the existence of GLUE and other undergraduate mentoring programs discussed here, there still remains a lack of peer-reviewed studies that describe the best practices and necessary attributes for successful mentoring relationships. Many of the assessment strategies used to determine the efficacy of these mentoring programs are basic and rely on self-reported data, with no external verification or use of standardized survey instruments. While these programs are good sources to contextualize mentoring programs and understand the spectrum of different mentoring structures, the validity and power of the conclusions is somewhat suspect. In addition the reliance on self-reported data, these programs lack control groups when reporting results. Additionally, many research oriented mentoring programs are targeted at high-achieving students that are not representative of the overall population and as a result, their results may not be realistically generalizable [10] [11].

YOU’RE@CU Program Characteristics In the YOU’RE@CU research-based mentoring program, participating undergraduates are matched with graduate student mentors to oversee their research experiences and provide guidance during the critical phase of the 1st and 2nd years of engineering school. Undergraduate participants are enrolled in a 1-credit hour course to allow recognition for the work and time expected as part of the program; they are required to attend weekly seminars that include introductory explanations about the process of conducting research, presentations by engineers in both academia and industry as well as discussions with current graduate students and faculty members. Undergraduate mentees are required to spend 3-5 hours per week in the lab doing work in line with a project defined by the graduate student mentors. As part of the work for the course, undergraduates must complete weekly reflective questions regarding their ongoing research experiences and their opinions on the seminars. Additionally, the undergraduates are required to present the results of their research at the close of the semester to the rest of the program community as a celebratory culmination of their efforts.

This mentoring program is partially modeled after the GLUE program at UT Austin in its focus on relationships between undergraduates and graduate students and in the emphasis on experiential learning and community building. This program aims to provide 1st and 2nd year undergraduates with an authentic engineering research experience so that from an early stage in their engineering careers they can already experience and begin participating in high-level and real-world engineering work. Though only a single semester intervention, the program’s one-on- one pairing of undergraduate and graduate students delivers personalized attention for each undergraduate mentee [9].

Program Goals and Research Questions The primary goals of this research-based mentoring program are threefold: (1) increase retention of undergraduate students in engineering, particularly women and underrepresented minorities (URMs); (2) excite undergraduate student interest in research projects and future careers in academia or industry; (3) provide graduate students with training and hands-on mentoring experience.

The following research questions were chosen to focus on the overall goals of the program, specifically, goals (1) and (2), while examining the data set from the initial pilot year of implementation before longitudinal retention data is available. i) Does participation in a single semester mentoring program change student motivation and confidence? ii) Does participation in a single-semester mentoring program intervention change students’ sense of belonging in engineering? iii) What do undergraduates perceive as best practices for an effective mentoring program and effective grad student mentor?

We hypothesize that individual mentoring coupled with a hands-on research component will increase student motivation and confidence. These elements have been shown to contribute to increased retention of underrepresented groups in engineering [12] [13] [14] [15]. The authors also anticipated that the YOU’RE@CU program experience will increase student feelings of membership in engineering. Enhanced feelings of belonging in the engineering field are an early indicator of persistence in engineering through matriculation and choosing a career [3] [16] [17]. Additionally, examining how the program aspects and structure influence motivation, confidence, and feelings of belonging in engineering in the first two research questions will also serve to identify best practices of this mentoring program. The last research question regarding undergraduate perception of best practices will help program administrators understand if and how student perception of best practices matches other indicators of program success.

Methodology An explanatory mixed-methods approach was adopted for the assessment of the undergraduate mentoring program, meaning that quantitative surveys and qualitative prompts were administered to program participants before, during, and after the mentoring intervention [18]. The details of this approach are made clear in Table 1. All participants completed a quantitative pre-intervention survey via online survey software [19] to assess their attitudes and experiences before the semester of research mentoring. The undergraduate version of the pre-intervention survey was also administered online to a population of comparable 1st and 2nd year undergraduates at the university not participating in the mentoring program for purposes of future comparison. Following the initial quantitative assessment, qualitative reflective question prompts were given to the program participants on a regular basis during the course of the semester using secure online forms [20]. Undergraduate mentees were given eight distinct prompts during the semester, while the graduate mentors had only three reflective questions requiring their online response. The qualitative results obtained during the semester were then used to inform the development of the post-intervention quantitative surveys as well as explain the results of the initial quantitative surveys. This integration of these phases as well as the progression from quantitative to qualitative back to quantitative is considered an explanatory mixed-methods approach as the quantitative and qualitative results affect the final quantitative surveys and overall data analysis. Table 1: Explanatory Mixed-Method Assessment Approach

Quantitative Qualitative Undergraduate Bi-Weekly Reflective Questions Pre-Survey, Post-Survey Mentees (8 total) Undergraduate Baseline Pre-Survey (none) Population Graduate Reflective Questions (3 Graduate Mentors Pre-Survey, Post-Survey total)

Subjects Program participants are current undergraduate engineering students and graduate students within the college. Undergraduate participants were recruited from the broader population of 1st and 2nd year women and underrepresented minorities (n=390) through the Broadening Opportunity Through Leadership and Diversity (BOLD) Center at the engineering college through email and posted fliers, while graduate participants were solicited directly via email as well as by encouraging sponsor faculty members to get involved. In the first year of the program there were ten undergraduate participants paired with nine graduate mentors, as one mentor had two mentees while the rest were one-on-one relationships. The projects spanned four departments within the engineering college including mechanical, chemical, computer science, and aerospace. In advance of their participation, each program participant was given notice that all data collected for program assessment would remain confidential and used for research purposes only. At all points of the assessment, participants were given the opportunity to opt-out of surveys or other activities without any penalty to their course grade.

Quantitative survey tools The quantitative surveys administered to the undergraduates were based primarily on two existing survey tools: the Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Survey (APPLES) as well as the Mentee Pre and Post Survey from the Assessing Women and Men in Engineering (AWE) Project [21] [22]. The APPLES survey instrument developed by the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE) has been validated through administration at 21 U.S. engineering colleges in 2008 as well as a smaller pilot population in 2007. The data obtained from APPLES focuses on four main areas of importance when examining engineering students: skills and knowledge, identity, education, and workplace. Skills and knowledge includes how students perceive and feel confident about math, science, problem- solving, and interpersonal skills, while identity includes questions targeted at understanding student motivation through financial, parental, social, mentoring, extracurricular, psychological and behavioral factors. The education category measures academic disengagement, satisfaction with instructors and the collegiate experience, exposure to different types of learning, as well as academic persistence. The final category, workplace, assesses the likelihood that a student will remain in the engineering workforce after matriculation (professional persistence) as well as student knowledge of the engineering profession.

While APPLES includes many measures to understand the breadth of the undergraduate engineering experience, the AWE Mentee Pre and Post Survey instruments include specific items aimed at understanding aspects of mentoring relationships and mentoring programs. The AWE project is a NSF-funded joint venture among the Society of Women Engineers (SWE) and the National Academy of Engineering Center for Advancement of Scholarship in Engineering Education (NAE-CASEE). The Mentee Pre and Post Surveys are comprehensive and externally validated surveys that examine common objectives of mentoring programs, including the impact of role models, changes to feelings of isolation and belonging, influence on both academic and social behaviors, and overall participant satisfaction with the mentoring program. The AWE Mentee Pre and Post survey was combined with the APPLES survey items to create the full Pre and Post surveys administered to undergraduates before and after participation in the mentoring program.

AWE has also developed Mentor Pre and Post surveys that assess mentor perception of their own ability to lead other students, communicate effectively, solve problems that may arise during mentoring activity, and provide productive and useful suggestions for mentees. These surveys developed and validated by AWE were used as the basis for the quantitative Pre and Post surveys administered to the graduate student mentors. The final Post survey for mentors also included items regarding the amount of support received, training, satisfaction, and suggestions for future improvement.

Qualitative reflective questions While the quantitative surveys were based primarily on existing survey instruments and tools, the qualitative reflective questions for undergraduates and graduates were designed by the research team to evoke student responses and opinions relevant to the overall program goals. The purpose of including qualitative data was to add flavor to the data and engender greater understanding of the experience of both mentees and mentors during participation in the program. All reflective questions were administered electronically via online submission. Undergraduate mentees had roughly bi-weekly reflective question prompts and responses for a total of eight during the semester intervention, while graduate student mentors had only three reflective questions concentrated during the latter half of the mentoring experience. The undergraduate reflective questions focus on engineering and workplace persistence as well as knowledge of the engineering profession and research process, in line with the program goals. The graduate reflective questions involve feelings on mentoring and opinions regarding mentoring relationships in academia.

Methods of data analysis Each data set was cleaned of personal identifiers and stored by pseudonym for analysis. Nvivo 9 qualitative data analysis software was used to analyze the reflective question responses from both undergraduates and graduate students [23]. Simple word-frequency analyses were performed using Nvivo and a working code book was developed over multiple coding passes with external review. IBM SPSS Statistics 20 was used for quantitative analysis [24]. Descriptive statistics for each APPLES category were calculated and within-samples paired t-tests were performed for specific groups of survey items between the Pre and Post surveys. Mentoring categories were constructed from AWE Mentee Post Survey items analogously to the APPLES categories in the areas of mentor satisfaction, satisfaction with the overall mentoring program, and the effects of program participation on student attitudes and goals. Similar statistical analyses were performed on these mentoring categories to generate preliminary results.

Results This section summarizes and explains the major findings from initial analysis of the undergraduate mentee data set, both quantitative and qualitative. Findings are focused around three main quantitative areas that are closely connected to the original research questions: motivation and confidence APPLES items, feelings of identity and belonging from AWE survey items, and satisfaction with the mentoring relationship and overall program satisfaction from AWE survey items. Qualitative data is provided to further inform and support the quantitative findings as fitting for this explanatory mixed-methods approach.

During the pilot year ten mentees started the program (n=10) but due to individual complications during the semester two of the mentees withdrew and did not finish. Consequently quantitative data is reported based on the eight mentees that completed the Post intervention survey (n=8). Where appropriate, qualitative data from all participants is included.

APPLES Motivation The APPLES survey divides the concept of motivation into six distinct categories that are assessed separately: financial, parental influence, social good, mentor influence, intrinsic/psychological and intrinsic/behavioral. For the purposes of this study the two intrinsic divisions were combined into a single intrinsic motivation group, leaving five total categories in which data was collected and analyzed (See Table 6 and Table 7 for the actual survey items in each category). Undergraduate mentee responses as recorded in the Pre intervention survey were compared against responses in the Post intervention survey across each respondent to determine if any changes could be seen and demonstrated statistically. Results of Paired Two-Sample for Means Student T-Test can be seen in Table 2, a test of statistical difference between the Pre and Post intervention populations. Table 2: Paired Two-Sample for Means T-Test, APPLES Motivation

Intrinsic, Psychological Parental Social Mentor and Motivation Financial Influence Good Influence Behavioral (Overall) Pre μ 3.00 1.75 3.46 2.44 3.35 2.90 Pre σ2 0.52 0.73 1.04 1.29 1.11 1.29 Post μ 3.29 1.94 3.71 2.81 3.53 3.16 Post σ2 0.39 0.86 0.22 1.32 0.31 0.89 # Observations 24 16 24 32 40 136 T-test: paired 2 sample for means P(T<=t)two-tail 0.016 0.270 0.185 0.063 0.268 0.001

As seen in Table 2, the financial and overall motivation categories increased significantly from Pre to Post APPLES administration. Financial motivation increased from an initial mean of 3 to a final mean of 3.29 on a 4-point scale (p=0.016). The reported overall motivation increased from a mean of 2.90 to 3.16 (p=0.001). Student rated motivation from mentor influence increased from a mean of 2.44 to 2.81, a statistically interesting increase (p=0.063). There was a modest increase in reported means for parental influence, social good and intrinsic categories; however, these increases were not statistical.

The increase in overall motivation is also reflected in the qualitative data, as many undergraduate students expressed changes in their views or attitudes on engineering research. For instance Cassidy, a 1st year mechanical engineering undergraduate student stated: “I can envision myself as a grad student directing my own research project because I enjoy the innovative aspects of engineering, which is exactly what research is.” Toby, a 2nd year mechanical engineering undergraduate, added: “I feel as though I'm being proactive about developing my resume and getting some real experience which I can relate to future job opportunities.” Finally Abby, a 1st year environmental engineering undergraduate says: “Honestly, the time commitment is worth it. I’ve loved every single minute that I’ve shared with the people in my lab.”

The above quotes give the qualitative flavor of the increase in motivation from before to after the mentoring program intervention. While the quotes are primarily about intrinsic motivation and increased feelings of enjoyment and interest while doing engineering research, the quantitative survey values for the intrinsic motivation category did not show statistically significant change from pre to post intervention.

APPLES Confidence Confidence was split in the APPLES survey into three separate categories: confidence in math and science skills, confidence in professional and interpersonal skills, and confidence in solving open-ended problems (see detailed survey items in Table 7 and Table 8). Similar to the above motivation analysis, Paired Two-Sample for Means T-tests were performed to compare the quantitative confidence values reported before the intervention to those after. Results from these statistical tests can be seen in Table 3.

Statistically significant differences were seen in confidence solving open-ended problems, confidence in personal/interpersonal skills, and overall confidence (p=0.032, p=0.001, p=0.000, respectively). Interestingly, there was not a statistically significant change from before to after in math and science confidence, despite the technical nature of the student research experiences (p=0.314). All changes were in the positive direction indicating increased confidence from Pre to Post intervention, as overall confidence levels increased from a mean of 3.85 to 4.25 on a 5-point scale. Table 3: Paired Two-Sample for Means T-Test, APPLES Confidence

Confidence in Confidence in Confidence in Solving Open- Personal/Interpersonal Math and Overall Ended Problems Skills Science Confidence Pre μ 3.67 3.85 4.04 3.85 Pre σ2 0.49 0.85 0.56 0.69 Post μ 3.96 4.38 4.29 4.25 Post σ2 0.74 0.84 0.82 0.82 # Observations 24 48 24 96 T-test: paired 2 sample for means P(T<=t)two-tail 0.032 0.001 0.314 0.000

Many of the qualitative undergraduate responses express increased confidence in solving open- ended problems in the context of working with their graduate mentors on real research projects. Phoebe, a 1st year mechanical undergraduate, explains: "I am proud of the fact that I've learned to understand the majority of what my graduate mentor is doing. It is pretty complicated stuff, so I'm glad I've been exposed to that knowledge. By this summer, I will have knowledge in a field that wasn't even touched on in any of my classes. It puts me a step ahead of my peers." Charlotte, an undeclared 1st year engineering undergraduate student, articulates her research experience as follows: “Research is the epitome of problem solving in a way because persistence is so necessary in order to prove anything.” Finally, Sharon, a 1st year environmental engineering undergraduate student explains: “While I have learned so much already I know there is so much more I can learn. I can't wait to continue in the lab and work more on my own because I will know what I am doing.” As shown through their words, these program participants are becoming increasingly comfortable with uncertainty and open-ended problems as encountered in their research projects and experiences. The ability to recognize personal limitations while simultaneously being excited about future capacity to learn more is a promising indication.

AWE Sense of Belonging in Engineering Communities The AWE survey includes items to measure feelings of belonging, inclusion and exclusion in engineering communities (see Table 9). Like the previous analyses, Paired Two-Sample for Means T-tests were done to compare the pre and post intervention data. The results can be seen in Table 4. Table 4: Paired Two-Sample for Means T-tests, AWE Feelings of Belonging

Feelings of Belonging Pre μ 3.43 Pre σ2 0.58 Post μ 3.41 Post σ2 0.76 # Observations 56 T-test: paired 2 sample for means P(T<=t)two-tail 0.883

Since p>0.05 the Pre to Post values are not statistically different with regards to feelings of belonging. The mean actually decreased slightly as the average feelings of belonging moved from 3.43 to 3.41 on a 4-point scale. Given the limited number of participants and the lacking statistical power of the study, the results are broken down by participant in Figure 1, which shows that some participants (Nina, Cassidy, Keith) remained exactly the same with regards to feelings of belonging while some increased incrementally (Paul, Toby, Abby). However, some participants actually decreased in feelings of belonging from the beginning of the intervention to the end (Sharon, Phoebe). The values shown in Figure 1 were taken from the original survey 4- point Likert scale, normalized and converted to 0-100 for sake of reporting. Differences pre to post are shown to the right of the bars on the chart.

Paul +11.9

Toby +10.7

Abby +7.2

Nina 0

Cassidy 0 Pre Post Keith 0

Sharon -10.7

Phoebe -10.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Values indicate difference Normalized Belonging Values (0-100) Pre to Post

Figure 1: Comparison by Respondent of Feelings of Belonging, Pre to Post Looking to the qualitative data for explanation, two undergraduate participants expressed glowing feelings regarding their lab communities and belonging in engineering. Abby, 1st year environmental engineering stated: “Our lab is like a family. There are always resources for me, always someone who wants to help… as all of the grad students and the other undergrads have made me feel very comfortable and welcome in the lab family. I really do feel like the youngest member of the family, and I have a bunch of older brothers and sisters looking after me. This is one of the times that I have felt most welcome in the engineering community” Nina, a 1st year chemical engineering expressed: “A research experience is worth the trouble because you get to know the PI on a more personal level - something you miss out on if you try to get to know the professor who teaches a 300-student class. Also, getting to know the other graduate students and undergraduate students in the lab is beneficial because you can use them for advice and support.” These two students had overwhelmingly positive comments regarding the welcoming environments in which they did their research work. However, the remaining six respondents did not address feelings of belonging and inclusion in their responses to reflective questions during the course of the semester.

AWE Satisfaction with Mentor and with Mentoring Program The undergraduate mentee post survey included several items taken from the AWE surveys aimed at understanding the level of satisfaction mentees had with their mentors and the program following program completion. These survey items can be categorized into three main groups: the mentee’s satisfaction with their mentor and mentoring relationship, the results of participating in the mentoring program as perceived by the mentee, and finally the mentee’s satisfaction with program aspects including contact time with other mentees, program activities, and overall program satisfaction. See Table 10 for details on constituent survey items. Each survey item in these categories was rated on a 4-point scale, and then normalized to the interval from 0 to 100 for further data analysis. The normalized results across the 3 main categories are presented in Table 5, along with cumulative satisfaction (the summation of all data within all 3 categories) and a column illustrating the degree and direction of difference between the satisfaction with mentor and results of participation categories for each mentee. Table 5: Comparison of Mentee Satisfaction with Mentor and Program

Satisfaction Δ (Satisfaction with with Results of Program Cumulative Mentor - Results of Mentor Participation Aspects Satisfaction Participation) Keith 60 77.8 55.6 66.7 -17.8 Cassidy 86.7 94.4 88.9 90.5 -7.8 Abby 86.7 72.2 66.7 76.2 14.5 Nina 100 100 100 100 0.0 Toby 100 77.8 100 90.5 22.2 Phoebe 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 0.0 Paul 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 0.0 Sharon 93.3 77.8 55.6 78.6 15.6 Average μ 82.5 77.8 55.6 78.6 4.7 Variance σ2 253.1 147.7 343.8 166.7 176.0

As seen in Table 5, mentee satisfaction with mentor scores ranged from a low of 60 to a peak of 100. Results of participation had a tighter distribution with a low of 66 and again, a high of 100. Program aspects had the largest range with a low of 55 and a high of 100. When all items in all categories were summed and normalized together, the overall range of satisfaction scores was 33 (low of 66 and high of 100). Comparing mentor satisfaction with the mentee results of participating in the program was particularly interesting, as three of the participants (Nina, Phoebe, Paul) had equal satisfaction with their mentor and results of participating in the program, while two participants (Keith, Cassidy) had higher perceived results of participating in the program than satisfaction with their mentors. Meanwhile, three participants (Abby, Toby, Sharon) had greater satisfaction with their mentors than perceived results of participating in the program. These differences in mentor satisfaction and results of participation in the program can be seen graphically in the bar chart shown in Figure 2, and the values are indicated to the right of the bars. Also note that one participant, Nina, had full 100 scores for all survey items in these categories, expressing complete satisfaction with her mentor, satisfaction with the results of participating in the program, and satisfaction with all program aspects.

Average µ +4.7

Toby +22.2

Sharon +15.6

Abby +14.5

Paul 0 Results of Participation Satisfaction with Mentor Phoebe 0

Nina 0 Values represent Cassidy -17.8 difference of Satisfaction with Keith -7.8 Mentor and Results of Participation 0 25 50 75 100

Figure 2: Differential Comparison Across Mentee Results of Participation and Satisfaction with Mentor As seen in Figure 2 and mentioned above several of the participants had greater satisfaction with their mentors than satisfaction with the results of participation and vice versa. These different levels of satisfaction across each program participant can also be seen in the qualitative data. For instance, Keith, a 1st year mechanical engineering undergraduate student, says: “I think that my largest problem is communication…trying to find a time for all three of us to meet weekly became a real problem. I feel that my research suffered because of this, and I really would have liked to do more.” Keith’s dissatisfaction with communication and difficulty in scheduling meeting times manifested in his lower ratings of satisfaction with his mentor and mentoring relationship. However he still expressed relatively high satisfaction at the results of participation in the mentoring program.

In a similar vein, Cassidy, a 1st year mechanical engineering undergraduate student, explained: “If I had to do it over, I would have coordinated an individual project in the beginning of the semester…it would have been nice to have a constant piece to work on as well as the more sporadic lab work.” Her experience was unique in that she did not have an individual research project to focus her work during the course of the semester. While she explains that it was still enjoyable because her sporadic work enabled her to understand the research project well, she sounds slightly dissatisfied with her mentor’s lack of project definition and occasionally being left with not enough work to do in the lab.

On the other hand, Sharon, a 1st year environmental engineering undergraduate student stated: “There are some aspects about the lab that I find intriguing and then there are other aspects I rather just avoid…At the same time I could also see myself getting satisfaction discovering the way that works in an experiment. I can see how it could be a long rewarding process.” Sharon is explaining how the research process can be satisfying, though for her, personally, she also felt frustration and boredom at the need to repeat procedures to obtain results. She does not mention her mentor or her mentor’s influence in this process, as she was relatively satisfied with her mentor but found the results of her participation in the program to be less than fully satisfying.

Finally, Paul, a 1st year mechanical engineering undergraduate student, articulates: “If I had to re do this semester I would have never put 19 credit hours again…Other than that, the experience I gained from this program has been great and I felt honored.” His statement indicates general satisfaction and even more, a feeling of being honored through the program experience. His scores for mentor satisfaction as well as satisfaction with program aspects were equal, as he had an overall positive outlook on his experience.

Discussion and Conclusions This study presents some interesting findings with implications for future implementations of this mentoring program as well as mentoring programs in general. The three fundamental research questions identified in the Background section of this paper are addressed in the following paragraphs. Research Question 1 - Does participation in a single semester mentoring program change student motivation and confidence?

Student motivation, as defined by APPLES, was found to increase statistically in the categories of financial and overall motivation. The research team expected that a one-on-one mentoring intervention would increase overall student motivation. These results are supported by previous studies [6] [7] [25]. An unexpected result was the increase in financial motivation. The authors posit that this change could be connected to an open panel discussion with a group of five engineers working in industry—offered as part of the one-credit mentoring program seminar. It is possible that this exposure to real engineers with industry jobs caused the students to increase their understanding of the engineering job market and consequently, their levels of financial motivation. In future implementation cycles, a similar industry panel aimed not only at demonstrating the engineering job market but also explaining the social good that engineers are capable of could potentially have impact on students’ level of motivation due to social good. This specific program element has been selected for future program assessment. The authors also anticipated that student motivation due to mentor influence would increase statistically. However, the APPLES statements for mentor influence (see Table 6) focus on mentors inspiring study in engineering and mentors serving as resources for professional networking. It is possible that a single semester program does not provide adequate time for these outcomes to occur or that mentors were not provided sufficient training to be knowledgeable about how to add value in these areas.

The qualitative data, text responses from the undergraduate participants indicate that several of the participants found research to be fun, that the time spent in the lab working with their graduate student mentors was of itself enjoyable. These feelings align well with the APPLES definition of intrinsic motivation, as survey items assessed the degree to which students felt that engineering itself was fun and interesting, and that doing engineering made one feel good (see Table 6). Though the qualitative data supports that undergraduate participants had experiences that exhibited their intrinsic motivation, the quantitative survey data does not show statistically significant change Pre to Post intervention. It is noteworthy that the average level of intrinsic motivation coming into the program was already rather high (3.35 on a 4-point scale), so there was not much room to increase in the Post intervention survey (3.53 on a 4-point scale). Perhaps the research experiences allowed the undergraduate participants additional venues to enjoy and have fun with engineering, but did not actually affect their level of intrinsic motivation.

Student confidence, as defined by APPLES, was found to increase in the categories of open- ended problem solving and personal and interpersonal skills but not math and science to a statistically significant degree. While the increase in confidence in solving open-ended problems is well matched with the expectations accompanying undergraduate exposure to real research projects without definite answers, it is surprising that there was no demonstrable increase in student confidence in math and science skills after a semester of working on technical engineering research projects. Perhaps working on real research projects and tackling large-scale problems and unknowns causes students to recognize the gap between their math and science education and what is needed for high-level research work and, consequently, intimidates instead of increasing confidence in math and science skills.

The qualitative data supports that undergraduate participants had increased awareness of how much they did not know following exposure to real research projects. Understanding and operating with uncertainty is an important aspect of engineering research and science, however these feelings did not contribute to higher confidence levels in math and science for program participants.

A limitation of this study—and several investigations of underrepresented groups in engineering—is the sample size. Increasing the statistical power of this analysis by either increasing the number of student mentee participants or increasing the number of survey items would help add more relevance to the statistical findings in each motivation and confidence category. Currently, the overall motivation score shows statistically significant change from before to after the mentoring intervention. However, several of the individual categories show insignificant change (social good, parental influence, intrinsic motivation), partially because the sample size is small (see Table 2). Similarly, cumulative consideration across all confidence categories results in a statistically significant increase, though the math and science skills category does not itself appear statistically significant (see Table 3). Future program implementations with more participants or more survey items in areas of interest and confidence would help the statistical power and may help to explain why the qualitative data shows evidence for change in particular categories but the quantitative data does not.

Research Question 2 - Does participation in a single-semester mentoring program intervention change students’ sense of belonging in engineering?

Increased statistical power may also help future implementation cycles establish a quantitative increase in student feelings of belonging in engineering communities or better understand why some students do not demonstrate a change in feelings of belonging despite participating in a one-on-one mentoring experience. It is also possible that a one-semester intervention is not sufficiently long in duration to effect a change on student attitudes and identity, as feelings of belonging may require prolonged attention and efforts to cause actual measurable shift.

Since the average feeling of belonging in engineering actually decreased a slight amount from before to after the intervention (see Table 4), this is a ripe area for further exploration. As engineering identity and membership within the community are critical areas for retention and persistence, it is concerning that the one-on-one mentoring experience did not result in a net increase in feelings of belonging in engineering.

Of the two mentees that expressed overwhelmingly positive feelings of belonging in their lab communities with their graduate mentors in the qualitative data, one (Nina) also rated her satisfaction with her mentor and results of program participation at a maximum 100 level while the other (Abby) had less than total satisfaction with her mentor and results of program participation despite feeling more at home in the lab than she ever had previously felt in the engineering community (see Table 4 and Table 5). Preliminary evidence suggests that feelings of belonging are therefore not direct indicators of mentor or program satisfaction. Understanding the mentees’ definition of an engineering community could shed light on this area.

Research Question 3 – What do undergraduates perceive as best practices for an effective mentoring program and effective grad student mentor?

Qualitative data from undergraduate participants identified three areas as critical for an effective mentoring research experience: clear communication, a well-defined project, and having adequate time to enjoy the work (not taking too many other class credits). However, even with all of these factors in place some undergraduate participants found the repetitive and continual nature of research to be frustrating and occasionally boring. Quantitatively, the average cumulative satisfaction with the mentoring program was generally high (78.6 when normalized to 0-100 scale), as participants were satisfied with their mentors (average 82.5), had positive results from program participation (average 77.8), but less positive feelings regarding the program aspects (average 55.6).

While the normalized scores for program and mentor satisfaction may appear low, with scores in the 60-70 range out of 100, it is important to note that these ratings were taken on a 4-point scale. Typically, an 80% criterion or four out of five (on a Likert-type scale) is employed in quantitative surveys as a measure for success. However, that criterion is inappropriate for this set of data as the questions asked students to choose among four options: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree to assess results of participation in the mentoring program or very dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, satisfied, or very satisfied to assess mentor and program satisfaction (see Table 10). Scores in the 60-70 range on a 4-point scale map to the “agree” or “satisfied” selection on a 4-point scale, which is higher than the normalized number value would suggest.

Furthermore, expanding the resolution of these survey items to at least a 5-point scale, including a neutral middle category, would help to add fidelity to future results and clarify the level of satisfaction on the part of the undergraduate mentees. Unfortunately, changing the surveys used for program assessment by expanding all 4-point scales to 5-point scales would cause a deviation from the validated AWE Mentee Post Survey instrument, resulting in the use of a non-externally validated survey tool. However, this trade-off is preferable to the misleading and inconclusive data presented here. Alternatively, AWE could incorporate 5-point scales in future versions of their survey instruments to assist researchers in understanding the nuances of student experiences in mentoring programs.

One surprising finding was that several of the mentees (2 out of 8) expressed dissatisfaction with the opportunities for contact with other mentees in the program on the Post Survey, indicating that more gatherings of only mentees may be beneficial in the future for undergraduate participants to share their experiences and build community.

Future Work Many aspects of these data remain to be analyzed in greater detail, including the entire graduate student mentor data set. The quantitative and qualitative data from the graduate students tells the other side of the mentoring story and will be interesting to compare against the data from undergraduate student mentees. Additionally, there are many details embedded in the undergraduate student mentee data that warrant further investigation. For instance, a statistically significant decrease in the level of academic engagement of undergraduate students was found when comparing values reported at the beginning to the end of the intervention (p = 0.007). This could be attributed to student acclimatization to college or to some other aspect of the mentoring experience; further analysis is needed to better understand.

Additional comparisons between the undergraduate participants and the baseline or control population of undergraduates still need to be made to more clearly understand how the program participants are like and unlike the larger population of diverse undergraduates at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Furthermore, detailed analyses of undergraduate responses compared to the national APPLES data will be undertaken to understand how the program participants and control group relates to undergraduate populations around the nation at other institutions.

The best practices of the YOU’RE@CU program remain to be identified in greater detail. While the assessment strategy for the pilot implementation relied on existing and externally validated survey instruments, these surveys were not designed with this mentoring program in mind and consequently do not address all outcomes. Additional survey items or assessment strategies (focus groups, interviews, etc.) may be required to fully understand the impacts of this mentoring program on the student participants and realize which aspects of the mentoring program are critical for success.

It is surprising in some ways that after participating in a semester-long, one-on-one mentoring experience some of the undergraduate mentees still express low marks for feelings of belonging and membership in engineering. When individualized mentoring and personalized attention fail, what else can be done? This may be an indication that mentoring relationships in laboratory environments and research settings are much different than informal or residential mentoring relationships in which students get coffee or “hang out” with their mentors. Mentoring has been considered an umbrella category but as investigations get more precise, differentiation of mentoring relationships and identification of constituent mentoring structures will become a necessity. Understanding how mentors can be most effective within a social vs. professional environment and understanding the distinction between these realms may be critical for optimizing mentoring relationships and mentoring programs.

In the mentoring program’s second year of implementation in 2012, several improvements as a result of this work will be instituted: increasing the number of undergraduate participants that will increase the power of each statistical category as well as include a larger portion of the underrepresented population in this program, increasing resolution on all quantitative survey items to at least 5-point scales, and adding additional survey items to better understand undergraduate feelings of belonging and membership in engineering.

References

[1] B. Louie, Personal Communication, Broadening Opportunity Through Leadership and Diversity (BOLD) Center, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2011. [2] National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2011. Special Report NSF 11-309," 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd. [3] E. Seymour and N. Hewitt, Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997. [4] K. Meyers, S. Silliman, N. Gedde and M. Ohland, “A Comparison of Engineering Students' Reflections on Their First-Year Experience,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 99, no. 2, pp. 169-178, 2010. [5] D. Budny and C. Paul, “Integrating Peer Mentoring into the freshman curriculum,” in Frontiers in Education, 2004. [6] D. Budny, C. Paul and L. Bon, “The Impact Peer Mentoring Can Have on Freshman Students,” in Frontiers in Education, 2006. [7] M. Marszalek, A. Snauffer, S. Good, G. Hein and A. Monte, “Mentors Improve the College Experience of Engineering Undergraduates,” in Frontiers in Education, 2005. [8] M. Tooley, “The WIN Program - A Mentoring Program for Women in Engineering at the University of Arkansas,” in American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 1997. [9] A. Dison, “Graduates Linked with Undergraduates in Engineering (GLUE),” 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.engr.utexas.edu/wep/career/glue. [Accessed 17 October 2010]. [10] G. Crisp and I. Cruz, “Mentoring College Students: A Critical Review of the Literature Between 1990 and 2007,” Research in Higher Education, vol. 50, pp. 525-545, 2009. [11] M. Jacobi, “Mentoring and Undergraduate Academic Success: A Literature Review,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 61, no. 4, p. 505, 1991. [12] M.-N. Delisle, F. Guay, C. Senecal and S. Larose, "Predicting stereotype endorsement and academic motivation in women in science programs: A longitudinal model," Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 468-475, 2009. [13] D. Chachra and D. Kilgore, "AC 2009-1876 : EXPLORING GENDER AND SELF-CONFIDENCE IN ENGINEERING STUDENTS : A MULTI-METHOD APPROACH," in American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2009. [14] S. Brainard and L. Carlin, "A six-year longitudinal study of undergraduate women in engineering and science," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 369-375, 1998. [15] K. O'Connor, D. Amos, T. Bailey, L. Garrison, G. Lichtenstein and D. Seward, "AC 2007-2110: SPONSORSHIP: ENGINEERING'S TACIT GATEKEEPER," in American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, 2007. [16] J. R. Duncan and Y. Zeng, "Women : Support Factors and Persistence in Engineering Engineering and Technology Education Women : Support Factors and Persistence," 2005. [17] R. Stevens, K. O'Connor, L. Garrison, A. Jocuns and D. M. Amos, "{Becoming an Engineer: Toward a Three Dimensional View of Engineering Learning}," Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 355-368, 2008. [18] M. Borrego, E. Douglas and C. Amelink, “Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods Research in Engineering Education,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 53-66, 2009. [19] “Zoomerang Online Survey Software,” MarketTools, Inc., 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.zoomerang.com/. [Accessed 10 January 2011]. [20] Google, “Google Documents: Create and Share Your Work Online,” 2011. [Online]. Available: www.docs.google.com. [Accessed 17 January 2011]. [21] S. Sheppard, S. Gilmartin, H. Chen, G. Lichtenstein, O. Eris and M. Lande, Exploring the Engineering Student Experience: Findings from the Academic Pathways of People Learning Engineering Survey (APPLES), Vols. TR-10-01, Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education, 2010. [22] Assessing Women and Men in Engineering (AWE) Project, “STEM Assessment Tools: AWE Undergraduate Mentee Pre-Survey, Post-Survey, AWE Mentor Pre-Survey, Post-Survey,” AWE Survey Instruments, [Online]. Available: http://www.engr.psu.edu/AWE/secured/director/diversity/mentor.aspx. [23] QSR International, “NVIVO 9”. [24] IBM, “IBM SPSS Statistics 20”. [25] B. Hansford and L. Tennent, "Educational Mentoring : Is it worth the effort?," Education, Research, and Perspectives, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 42-75, 2003.

Appendix – Quantitative Survey Questions Table 6: APPLES Motivation Survey Items

APPLES Motivation Survey Items We are interested in knowing why you are or were studying engineering. Please indicate below the extent to which the following reasons apply to you (4-point scale, 1-not a reason, 2-minimal reason, 3- moderate reason, 4-major reason, N/A-I prefer not to answer): Category Prompt Social Good Technology plays an important role in solving society's problems Financial Engineers make more money than most professionals

Parental My parent(s) would disapprove if I chose a major other than engineering

Social Good Engineers have contributed greatly to fixing problems in the world Financial Engineers are well paid Parental My parents(s) want me to be an engineer Financial An engineering degree will guarantee me a job when I graduate A faculty member, academic advisor, teaching assistant, or other university affiliated Mentoring person has encouraged me and/or inspired me to study engineering. A non-university affiliated mentor has encouraged and/or inspired me to study Mentoring engineering Mentoring A mentor has introduced me to people and opportunities in engineering Intrinsic I feel good when I am doing engineering Intrinsic I like to build stuff Intrinsic I think engineering is fun Social Good Engineering skills can be used for the good of society Intrinsic I think engineering is interesting Intrinsic I like to figure out how things work

Table 7: APPLES Motivation and Confidence Survey Items

APPLES Motivation and Confidence Survey Items Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with each of the statements (4-point scale, 1- disagee strongly, 2-disagree, 3-agree, 4-agree strongly, N/A-I prefer not to answer): Category Prompt Confidence - Open Ended Problem Solving Creative thinking is one of my strengths Confidence - Open Ended Problem Solving I am skilled at solving problems that can have multiple solutions Motivation - Mentoring A mentor has supported by decision to major in engineering

Table 8: APPLES Confidence Survey Items

APPLES Confidence Survey Items

Rate yourself on each of the following traits as compared to your classmates. We want the most accurate estimate of how you see yourself (5-point scale, 1-Lowest 10%, 2-Below Average, 3-Average, 4-Above Average, 5-Highest 10%, N/A-I prefer not to answer): Category Prompt

Personal/ Interpersonal Skills Self confidence (social)

Personal/ Interpersonal Skills Leadership ability Personal/ Interpersonal Skills Public Speaking ability Math and Science Skills Math ability Math and Science Skills Science ability

Personal/ Interpersonal Skills Communication skills Ability to apply math and science principles in solving real world Math and Science Skills problems Personal/ Interpersonal Skills Business ability Personal/ Interpersonal Skills Ability to perform in teams Open Ended Problem Solving Critical thinking skills

Table 9: AWE Belonging in Engineering Survey Items

AWE Belonging in Engineering Survey Items How much do you agree or disagree with each of the statements below (4-point scale, 1-disagree, 2-disagree somewhat, 3-agree somewhat, 4-agree, N/A-not applicable)? When I participate in engineering professional societies or other extracurricular activities, I feel welcome.

I enjoy working with other students on group work outside of classes.

I attend faculty office hours at least once a week. The engineering school/college offers me the support and help when I need it. I have many friends who are studying engineering. Some faculty members know me by name.

I have family members or close family friends who are engineers or scientists.

Table 10: AWE Satisfaction with Mentor and Mentoring Program Survey Items

AWE Satisfaction with Mentor Relationship and Mentoring Program Survey Items How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the items below (4-point scale, 1-very dissatisfied, 2-somewhat dissatisfied, 3-satisfied, 4-very satisfied)? Category Prompt

Your mentor's ability to answer your questions about the Satisfaction with Mentor engineering curriculum Your mentor's ability to help you understand which Satisfaction with Mentor engineering major you may want to pursue

Satisfaction with Mentor Your mentor's ability to create an ongoing relationship

Satisfaction with Mentor The frequency of contact with your mentor The opportunities for contact with other mentees in the Mentoring Program program Mentoring Program The quality of the mentoring program activities Satisfaction with Mentor Your overall satisfaction with your assigned mentor Your overall satisfaction with all aspects of the mentoring Mentoring Program program My participation in the mentoring program (4-point scale, 1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3- agree, 4-strongly agree): Category Prompt Results of Mentoring Program Met my goals for participating Helped me understand professional opportunities in Results of Mentoring Program engineering better Results of Mentoring Program Helped me develop my own career goals Results of Mentoring Program Helped me choose, or start to choose, a major Made me more confident in my ability to succeed in Results of Mentoring Program engineering Results of Mentoring Program Made me more interested in a career in research