Work in Progress: Student Learning Experiences in the Research Lab:  Qualitative Analysis of Two Types of Leadership-Mentorship  Style

Magdalena G. Grohman; Matthew J. Brown; Nicholas Raphael Gans; Jeff Glenn Edwards

Download Paper | Permalink

Conference: 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition
Location: Baltimore , Maryland
Publication Date: June 25, 2023
Start Date: June 25, 2023
End Date: June 28, 2023
Conference Session: Graduate Studies Division (GSD) Technical Session 3: Mentorship and Communication in Engineering Graduate Programs
Tagged Division: Graduate Studies Division (GSD)
Page Count: 28
DOI: 10.18260/1-2--42300
Permanent URL: https://peer.asee.org/42300
Download Count: 362

Paper Authors

biography

Magdalena G. Grohman University of North Texas

visit author page

Magdalena Grohman, Ph.D. is Clinical Associate Professor in Design at New College, University of North Texas at Frisco. Her research, publications, and educational interests focus on design, creative thinking and creative problem solving, pedagogy of creativity, and engineering ethics education. Dr. Grohman has significant experience in mixed methods and in studies employing cognitive ethnography as main methodology. She was Co-PI on the NSF funded study, “Engineering Ethics as an Expert Guided and Socially Situated Activity,” for which she contributed to quantitative and qualitative research design and data analysis. She currently serves as Co-PI on the NSF funded study, “The Formation of Engineers in the Research Lab: A Cognitive Ethnographic Study.” She is an active member of APA Division 10: Society for the Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Dr. Grohman received her Ph.D. in psychology from Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland.

visit author page

biography

Matthew J. Brown Ph.D. Southern Illinois University orcid.org/0000-0002-5361-5143

visit author page

Matthew J Brown is the Jo Ann and Donald N Boydston Chair of American Philosophy and Director of the Center for Dewey Studies at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. His work includes the history, philosophy, and social studies of science, engineering, and medicine; the history of philosophy in the 19th and 20th centuries, especially the work of American pragmatist philosopher and progressive pedagogue John Dewey; and theory and method in cognitive science. Prior to taking up a position at SIUC, Dr. Brown was Professor of Philosophy and History of Ideas and Director of the Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology at The University of Texas at Dallas.

visit author page

biography

Nicholas Raphael Gans The University of Texas at Arlington

visit author page

Nicholas Gans is Division Head of Autonomy and Intelligent Systems at the University of Texas at Arlington Research Institute. Prior to this position, he was a professor at in the department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at The University of Texas at Dallas. His research interests include robotics, nonlinear control, machine vision, and engineering education. Dr. Gans earned his BS in electrical engineering from Case Western Reserve University in 1999, his M.S. in electrical and computer engineering in 2002 and his Ph.D. in systems and entrepreneurial engineering from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign in 2005.

visit author page

biography

Jeff Glenn Edwards University of Texas at Dallas

visit author page

Jeff Glenn Edwards is a doctoral candidate in the History of Ideas program at the University of Texas at Dallas. He has taught philosophy in higher education for about ten years.

visit author page

Download Paper | Permalink

Abstract

Multiple studies report the benefits of authentic research experiences in STEM education. While most of them focus either on course-based research projects or on undergraduate students’ experiences, few document authentic learning experiences unfolding in real time among and between graduate students in research laboratories. Therefore, we situate our study in the context of authentic research experiences in research laboratories and focus on documenting learning processes as they unfold during daily practices in the laboratories. Specifically, the goal of our study is to observe and document how graduate students, and other lab members, learn from one another within the cultural space of the laboratory, and what aspects of laboratory culture facilitate and what impede learning. To that end, we use cognitive ethnography, an ethnographic approach combined with cognitive science to study cognitive processes through participant-observation. Two participant observers were embedded and observed the workings of a mechanical and a material sciences engineering laboratory. The mechanical research lab studies human-robot interactions in medical environments, and during the period of observation had six regular members including a postdoc and five graduate students. The research projects in the material sciences lab include research on polymers and fabrication of microelectronic implantable devices. At the onset of the participant-observation, the material sciences lab had eleven lab members, including a lab director and 10 graduate students. During the course of our study, the number of active lab members decreased to eight. Data collection included participant observation, online observation, photo and video documentation, detailed field notes, and recorded interviews. Across both laboratories, we identified the following themes pertaining to learning experiences: scaffolding (structured activities or apprenticeship), peer-to-peer learning, self-directed and self-regulated learning, and independence in research activities. While in many respects the two laboratories are similar, the presence and role of a leader-mentor in daily activities is what set them apart. In this report, we analyze the impact of leadership-mentorship on learning and professional formation. Based on this analysis, we argue that the degree to which a leader-mentor is consistently active in the laboratory’s life presents advantages and disadvantages with respect to different aspects of learning and professional formation. On one hand, professional development of students may be hindered by the absence of direct oversight from an in-laboratory professional mentor, resulting in delayed graduation for example. On another, absence of direct oversight can compel students to independently seek out mentors who have important expertise to help complete projects in a timely manner, an important professional skill. In the first case, students benefit from the expertise of mentors, so having mentors consistently present in the laboratory helps students efficiently conduct their projects. In the second case, students learn that they cannot always rely on only one person to provide direction and will need to seek help from other quarters.

Citation
Format

Grohman, M. G., & Brown, M. J., & Gans, N. R., & Edwards, J. G. (2023, June), Work in Progress: Student Learning Experiences in the Research Lab: Qualitative Analysis of Two Types of Leadership-Mentorship Style Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--42300

TY - CPAPER
AB - Multiple studies report the benefits of authentic research experiences in STEM education. While most of them focus either on course-based research projects or on undergraduate students’ experiences, few document authentic learning experiences unfolding in real time among and between graduate students in research laboratories. Therefore, we situate our study in the context of authentic research experiences in research laboratories and focus on documenting learning processes as they unfold during daily practices in the laboratories. Specifically, the goal of our study is to observe and document how graduate students, and other lab members, learn from one another within the cultural space of the laboratory, and what aspects of laboratory culture facilitate and what impede learning. To that end, we use cognitive ethnography, an ethnographic approach combined with cognitive science to study cognitive processes through participant-observation. Two participant observers were embedded and observed the workings of a mechanical and a material sciences engineering laboratory. The mechanical research lab studies human-robot interactions in medical environments, and during the period of observation had six regular members including a postdoc and five graduate students. The research projects in the material sciences lab include research on polymers and fabrication of microelectronic implantable devices. At the onset of the participant-observation, the material sciences lab had eleven lab members, including a lab director and 10 graduate students. During the course of our study, the number of active lab members decreased to eight. Data collection included participant observation, online observation, photo and video documentation, detailed field notes, and recorded interviews. Across both laboratories, we identified the following themes pertaining to learning experiences: scaffolding (structured activities or apprenticeship), peer-to-peer learning, self-directed and self-regulated learning, and independence in research activities. While in many respects the two laboratories are similar, the presence and role of a leader-mentor in daily activities is what set them apart. In this report, we analyze the impact of leadership-mentorship on learning and professional formation.
Based on this analysis, we argue that the degree to which a leader-mentor is consistently active in the laboratory’s life presents advantages and disadvantages with respect to different aspects of learning and professional formation. On one hand, professional development of students may be hindered by the absence of direct oversight from an in-laboratory professional mentor, resulting in delayed graduation for example. On another, absence of direct oversight can compel students to independently seek out mentors who have important expertise to help complete projects in a timely manner, an important professional skill. In the first case, students benefit from the expertise of mentors, so having mentors consistently present in the laboratory helps students efficiently conduct their projects. In the second case, students learn that they cannot always rely on only one person to provide direction and will need to seek help from other quarters.
AU - Magdalena G. Grohman
AU - Matthew J. Brown Ph.D.
AU - Nicholas Raphael Gans
AU - Jeff Glenn Edwards
CY - Baltimore , Maryland
DA - 2023/06/25
PB - ASEE Conferences
TI - Work in Progress: Student Learning Experiences in the Research Lab: Qualitative Analysis of Two Types of Leadership-Mentorship Style
UR - https://peer.asee.org/42300
DO - 10.18260/1-2--42300
ER -