IV. Additional Implementation Issues: Evaluator's and Mentor's Viewpoints.
A. Types of students the program should target.
1. Mentor's perspectives.
In interviews and surveys of the 1996 mentors, we explored the issue of what types of women the mentors felt should be targeted for participation in the DMP. Based on data from the first year of the evaluation, we identified four overlapping groups of female CS majors that had participated in the program. We gathered information regarding the mentors' views about including each of these groups in the program: 1) those who had attended smaller schools such as four-year liberal arts institutions, 2) those whose credentials (GPA, type of institution, etc.) would probably ensure their acceptance into graduate school, 3) those who might not be accepted into graduate school without the benefit and extra credentials of the program, and 4) those who had already been accepted into graduate school in CS&E. On the 1996 mentor survey, most of the mentors indicated that it was important to target all four groups. However, the degree of importance assigned to each of these groups varied. For example, all 14 of the mentor respondents indicated that it was "very important" to include students from small schools, whereas only 7 of the mentor respondents felt it was "very important" or "important" to include students who had already been accepted into graduate school. Interview data confirmed these survey-based findings.
Providing those who had attended smaller schools a completely new window on graduate school and connections to research professors
Mentors indicated that it was important to target women from small liberal arts colleges for participation in the DMP, because these students had not been exposed to a research institution, and therefore had even less exposure to graduate school life than their counterparts from research institutions. In addition, mentors pointed out that participation in the program would give these women an advantage in the graduate school application process when they were compared to other students who had done their undergraduate degrees at prestigious research institutions. The following quote from a mentor interview illustrates this point.
One thing I will say though is that...[women] from small schools...are the people that we really need to be targeting. I mean...[a student of one of my colleagues] was rejected and apparently she got displaced by women from schools like MIT. I mean the grade points were the same and they said that they'd go for the women from the bigger, better-known school. Well my argument is that those women are already there. I mean, what else do you need when you're going, when you're in Computer Science at MIT? You may not be working with women, but you've got everything else you need in life to be successful. It's the one from [small departments] that you want to pick up...[ones from] the smaller schools where you don't have the graduate program and it doesn't matter if you have women professors or not. If you don't have a graduate program, you probably don't have anybody that's telling them the things that we're telling them. So anyway, I'd just like to try to catch the people that are the cream of the cream but for financial reasons, for family reasons, [such as being] the first ones to go to college, that don't look as sexy on the applications.
Problems associated with including women from smaller schools were that they sometimes lacked the background necessary to get started quickly on a research project, and the difficulty of coordinating schedules with schools that were on the quarter system. However, none of the mentors suggested that the solution to these problems was to not include these types of students in the program.
Allowing the "best and brightest" women students to experience graduate school so that they see if is right for them-hopefully get them excited about research
Virtually all of the mentors indicated on the survey that it was "very important" (9 of 14 survey respondents) or "important" (2 of 14) to target women whose credentials would probably ensure them admission into graduate school. As in the following mentor interview excerpt, they indicated that often the "best and brightest" women undergraduates lacked confidence in their abilities or enough knowledge about graduate school life to make them interested in pursuing higher degrees in CS. They felt that the DMP was a way to provide these students with more exposure to research so that more of them might be retained in the field.
I: Why did you get involved in the program?
R: Well particularly in the case of [my mentee]...I knew she was definitely capable of graduate work and I wasn't sure...how seriously she was thinking of graduate work. And I was thinking that this would be a really good opportunity to show her that she could do it...[I saw the program as] sort of a way of drawing her in. She's a very good student and is very interested in what she's exposed to. So I thought, "Let's pull her into the research."...[This program can help these students] realize that they can do it and get a taste of how exciting it can be. Because I think for a lot of students it's...an unknown.
This mentor went on to say that her mentee had in fact decided to pursue graduate school in CS&E with the goal of becoming a researcher.
Providing the "second tier" students with experiences that boost their confidence
Virtually all of the mentors felt it was important to include students who were reasonably competitive, but who might not be accepted into graduate school without the benefits and extra credentials of the program. As the mentor quoted in the following excerpt stated, these women often had the same credentials as many male students who were accepted to graduate school, and it was important to boost the confidence level of these women so that they could be competitive despite their lower grade point average.
...I'm thinking of one of our students that didn't get accepted. She's definitely graduate school material there's no doubt on my mind...[So if you]...compare it to men..., there's a lot of men who go on to graduate school. And they're not all 3.9-4.0 [students]. And they might not all get into the very top grad schools, but they do go to good grad schools. And they do well and they go on to faculty positions or whatever. I think there's a lot of women who are in that [category]. So, it's important to get the 3.9 and the 4.0 [women in the DMP], but there's a lot of women who are just as capable as the vast majority of men that are going on to graduate school who I think aren't being encouraged...[So,] there are lot of women out there that should be encouraged and that could benefit [from a program like the DMP]...[and we need to do this] if we're going to get more women [to stay in the field]...
Mentors also pointed out that many of these students lacked research experience prior to the DMP, and that this added credential could be the deciding factor in gaining admission to strong CS graduate programs.
Providing some women who had already been accepted to graduate school in CS&E more preparation to increase the likelihood of their success
Although mentor respondents to the survey were divided on the importance of including women who had already been accepted to graduate school into the DMP, interview data from mentors who worked with students who had already been accepted, as well as data from the mentees themselves, suggests that the DMP experience was quite valuable for these students. The mentors and the mentees felt that it provided the students with more preparation for graduate school and that this would increase the likelihood that these women would be successful in graduate school. The mentors who worked with these types of students indicated that their students were in need of this additional preparation. They did not feel that the DMP would be necessary for all graduating seniors who were planning on attending graduate school immediately, but that for some women who lacked experience and/or confidence the DMP was very beneficial. The following mentor interview excerpt illustrates this point.
I: What are your thoughts about who should be participating in the program? Should students who are already accepted into graduate school be included?
R: I think they should be ... included for the following reason. Many women will apply to graduate school -- I mean, I've seen this happen -- they come in, and then they drop out after two years. Ok. The attrition rate for women...[based on my experience is high]...I've seen very bright women coming in and dropping out. And I think it's because they're inadequately prepared. They don't have either some experience in doing research, and that frightens them. And when you're a graduate student, very rarely do you get mentored. If you're lucky you get an advisor who's also a mentor. But more often than not, it's like, you're thrown into a big pond and you're expected to swim. If you give someone the experience to work, sort of, with training wheels on, before they go into graduate school, I think that experience really helps them through the whole graduate school process. I think, while it's important to make sure that we get more of our sophomores and juniors excited about graduate school, make sure they apply to graduate school, and get into graduate school, it's equally important that we make sure we equip them with the tools to succeed there. So I think seniors, even ones with an accept from [prestigious departments] or wherever, should go through this. But maybe for the seniors, you could do it on a case-by-case basis -- you know, by saying, for seniors you need a special nomination, that says I need someone to certify that this person would actually benefit from this program. I was willing to write such a letter for [my mentee] case, because I felt that in [her] instance it would really make a difference in how she would handle graduate school.
2. Evaluator's perspective.
Data from students and mentors about the types of students which should be included in the DMP suggest that this is a program from which all of the above types of students can benefit greatly. During the third year of the evaluation, we will conduct a systematic analysis of the survey data to explore patterns in outcomes for students of different groups.
B. Mentor outcomes.
1. Personal satisfaction.
Many of the 1996 mentors who were interviewed expressed that they had experienced great personal satisfaction through their participation as a mentor in the DMP. These mentors tended to express that they had enjoyed working with their students and had felt rewarded by the experience. As in the following mentor quote, these mentors valued being a part of the developmental process of their mentees and seeing their mentees gain skills and confidence through the program.
R: My experiences from last summer [as a DMP mentor] are probably among the most positive of my [experiences at my institution]. So I think [the program] is great. And I look forward to being able to see these people, you know, going to grad school, or doing well in their careers, whatever they choose.
I: And why was it so gratifying for you, compared to your other experiences?
R: Well, because it's sort of a clear win! {laugh} I think it's because it's a very one on one kind of thing, where it's easy to isolate the effect that you had, whereas with other students here at [my school] that I've advised, I've given them advice and other professors have given them advice. So, when they go off and do great things, it's hard to separate your effect from other people's effects.
Mentor survey data provides confirmation that many mentors felt satisfaction through their participation in the program. For example, 85% of the mentors surveyed from all three program years indicated that they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the program, eighty-one percent of mentors felt "effective" or "very effective" as mentors, and virtually all of the mentor respondents indicated that the DMP was an effective way to increase the number of women choosing to pursue higher degrees in CS&CE.
Relationship Between Mentors' Expectations and Satisfaction Level
The mentor interviewees who expressed a high degree of personal satisfaction also tended to report that, by their definition, their DMP students had "contributed" to their research efforts. However, these mentors also stressed that it was important for mentors in the DMP to have relatively low expectations of undergraduates participating in a ten week program. When the students performed above their level of expectations, the mentors' satisfaction level rose. On a related point, most mentor survey respondents (75%) indicated that they did not expect the mentee to contribute greatly to their research efforts. As it turned out, most mentors had appropriate expectations and felt that they got as much as (36%) or more than (45%) they had expected from their mentees.
2. Effect on mentors' research program varied.
Based on survey and interview data, the mentors were divided as to whether their participation in the DMP had resulted in time lost in terms of their research programs. Many of the mentors (56%) indicated that the student had taken little or nothing away from their own research efforts, while 34% felt that their research program had been "somewhat" negatively impacted, and 10% felt that their program had been significantly, negatively affected. In the 1996 report we discussed the issue of the contributions of the students' research to the overall mentors' research.
3. Recognition: varying levels of satisfaction.
Mentors differed in their views on whether or not they felt satisfied with the level of recognition they had received for their participation in the DMP. Approximately one third expressed that they were "somewhat satisfied" (13%) or "satisfied" (19%) with the amount of recognition. About 43% expressed dissatisfaction. Nineteen percent indicated that they did not expect any recognition. Interview data suggests that there are two issues relating to the level of satisfaction with recognition: whether or not participants were aware of the letter sent by the PI of the DMP grant to the an official at the mentor's institution, and the degree to which the mentor's department chair was supportive of service efforts aimed at increasing diversity in the student population.
Effect of the letter from the PI to an official at the mentor' institution
Some of the mentors who were interviewed were aware that the PI of the program had sent a letter to an official at the mentor's institution recognizing the mentor for their participation in the DMP; a few were not. Two of the mentors who were made aware of the letters related that they received recognition because their chairpersons had received the letters. This was important for them, simply because they wanted their department heads to be aware of, and appreciate their service efforts.
Evaluator's Viewpoint: Because there is variation regarding the value of "outreach" or "service," the program may need to provide broader recognition
Some mentors expressed that service was very important to their department chairs and that their efforts as a mentor in the DMP would be lauded by their department; others expressed that this was not the case. Most mentors expressed that their participation would be considered either neutral or somewhat positive in a tenure decision-making process. This may mean that a letter of recognition to the departments may have little or no effect for some mentors. Therefore, the program may wish to consider providing broader recognition for the mentors by making the CS research community aware of their efforts.
C. Value of mentor/student training materials.
Although we asked all 1996 student and mentor interviewees about the value of the training materials provided by the PI to participants regarding best possible implementation strategies, most did not remember them well enough to provide much feedback. Those who did remember using these materials tended to state that they provided some guidelines and may have assisted them in starting the program in a positive way, because they knew more about what to do and what to expect.
[The materials were] helpful, although I didn't follow it exactly...If nothing else it gave me a sense of what the expectations were of what other people had done. Whether or not I followed the structure it gave me a sense of what the program was about. I want to see something, I may or may not follow it, but it I do the same thing with recipes...It gives me a sense of security [that]... "I'm in the right ballpark!"
|
|