bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.12.06.471498

An effective workshop on How to be an Effective Mentor for Underrepresented STEM Trainees

Marshall, A.·Vue, Z.·Palavicino-Maggio, C.·Spencer, E. C.·Beasley, H. K.·Garza Lopez, E.·Conley, Z.·Neikirk, K.·Murray, S. A.·Martinez, D.·Davis, J.·Brady, L.·Shuler, H. D.·Morton, D.·Hinton, A.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Despite an increase in programming to promote persons excluded by their ethnicity or race (PEER) scholars, minorities remain underrepresented in many STEM programs. The academic pipeline is largely leaky for underrepresented minority (URM) scholars due to a lack of effective mentorship. Many URM students experience microaggressions and discrimination from their mentors due to a lack of quality mentorship training. In this workshop, we provide a framework for how to be an effective mentor to URM trainees. Mentees, especially URM trainees, can flourish in effective mentoring environments where they feel welcomed and can comfortably develop new ideas without feeling threatened by external factors. Effective mentoring environments provide motivational support, empathy, cultural competency, and training.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Marshall, A., Vue, Z., Palavicino-Maggio, C., Spencer, E. C., Beasley, H. K., Garza Lopez, E., Conley, Z., Neikirk, K., Murray, S. A., Martinez, D., Davis, J., Brady, L., Shuler, H. D., Morton, D., Hinton, A.. 2021-12-08. An effective workshop on How to be an Effective Mentor for Underrepresented STEM Trainees. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.06.471498

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

C.R.E.A.T.E'ing shifts in first year students' science efficacy that are independent of instructor rank and experience in a large, multi-section online introductory course

With a primary objective to engage students in the process of science online, we transformed a long-standing laboratory course for first-year science students into a more accessible, immersive experience of current biological research using a narrow and focused set of primary literature and the CREATE pedagogy. The efficacy of the CREATE approach has been demonstrated in a diversity of higher education settings and courses. It is, however, not yet known if CREATE can be successfully implemented online with a large, diverse team of faculty untrained in the CREATE pedagogy. Here, we present the transformation of a large-enrollment, multi-section, multi-instructor course for first-year students in which instructors follow different biological research questions but work together to reach shared goals and outcomes. We assessed students: (1) science self-efficacy and (2) epistemological beliefs about science throughout an academic year of instruction fully administered online as a result of ongoing threats posed by COVID-19. Our findings demonstrate that novice CREATE instructors with varying levels of teaching experience and ranks can achieve comparable outcomes and improvements in students science efficacy in the virtual classroom as a teaching team. This study extends the use of the CREATE strategy to large, team-taught, multi-section courses and shows its utility in the online teaching and learning environment.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2022

Standards needed? An Exploration of Qualifying Exams from a Literature Review and Website Analysis of University-Wide Polices

PurposeWhile known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD Candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study was to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literation and exploration of university policies. Design/methodology/approachWe conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of common practices of qualifying exams in doctoral training at a research-intensive institutions. FindingsOur research identified the need for more evidence-based research on qualifying exams, which are nearly universal as a major doctoral training milestone across US institutions of higher education. Our findings indicate a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, often lacking the establishment of explicit expectations and evidence for specific formats. This lack of understanding of best practices coupled with insufficient clarity has a real potential to disadvantage doctoral students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international, and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams. OriginalityThere are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to our knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.

scientific communication and education↗