Evaluating the Importance of Mentoring in Undergraduate Research Education Programs

Abstract

The National Institute of Health R25 Research Education Program was evaluated in the second year of implementation. Twelve mentors and 20 underrepresented minority students (URMs) scholars from partnerships and collaborations among five colleges and universities were added to the program to provide a more diverse research experience. Findings reveal that 100% of research mentors agree that the approachableness and accessibility of the program coordinator were beneficial in achieving mentorship goals and objectives. In addition, 85% of the students strongly agreed that the presentation of their research findings and the weekly reflection on goals, identification of accomplishments, and obstacles through the individual development plan were very effective. Of the 23 successfully tracked students for 2 years, six URMs (26.09%) obtained a bachelor's degree and were admitted into a graduate program; two were directly admitted to a PhD program in biomedical sciences.

Keywords

NIH R25 ADAR diversity academic enrichment research education underrepresented minority mentoring

Introduction

Society benefits when well-trained underrepresented minority students (URMs) pursue a biomedical career (Figueroa, 2014). However, a significant challenge is the underrepresentation of minority individuals in academic and professional biomedical careers (Chatterjee et al., 2023). Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and first generations are reported to be underrepresented in biomedical programs at universities (Tate et al., 2015). In addition, Hispanics, American Indian/Alaska Natives, and African Americans/Alaska Natives recorded low rates of obtaining master's and doctoral degrees awarded in biomedical science (Liebler et al., 2018). The URMs need academic support because the high or secondary schools they attend often lack the resources to ensure high-level learning, and the STEM disciplines are very demanding (Gafney, 2010). Therefore, the low underrepresented groups in biomedical research are a national concern, as is evidenced by the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) support for research education programs for URM students (Ilonze et al., 2022).

Research Education Programs (REP) is part of an initiative by the NIH aimed at training, mentoring, and developing more diverse researchers (Sopher et al., 2015). Each program is expected to develop inventive and maintainable ways to keep students engaged, develop faculty, and transform the training infrastructure (Branchaw et al., 2020). The current National Institute on Aging R25 REP program aims to promote Diversity in Research Training and Mentoring for URMs. We focused on using transformative recruitment strategies, implementing strategies to assess and facilitate goal development, encouraging confidence in the abilities and skills of students, and building more meaningful relationships during its second year of operation. This resulted in students’ positive perception of the program in the first year of its implementation (Edwards et al., 2023). In the first year of NIH R25 REP, we adopted measures to increase the pipeline of URMs entering graduate programs and pursuing biomedical research and healthcare careers. In addition, students indicated exceptional satisfaction with the academic enrichment, research, poster presentation, aging sessions, and educational enrichment activities offered by the REP. Given the success of the first year (Edwards et al., 2023), the program continued to implement academic seminars, academic enrichment activities, hands-on research experiences, and exposure to aging research. We assessed the effect of the different activities on URMs, including their perceptions of the training program, and identified ways to improve it. In addition, we added interinstitutional recruitment and collaboration as a means of outreach to more students and faculty in STEM programs in other institutions in the state. This provided the opportunity to expand undergraduate research activities with a team of motivated and skilled research mentors who can facilitate the academic and professional development of URMs entering graduate programs and pursuing biomedical research careers. A significant program strength in the second year is partnering with the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville (USCSOMG) REP with other 4-year colleges and universities. This increased underrepresented faculty professionals by 50% to further strengthen the summer internship program for URMs. Moreover, underrepresented professionals offer unique skills and motivations to serve diverse and underserved communities and address health disparities through research (Beadle & Graham, 2011; Jackson & Gracia, 2014; Newman et al., 2003). Such professionals can help expand the pipeline of researchers by serving as important role models and mentors for URMs in STEM programs (Allen-Ramdial & Campbell, 2014; Edwards et al., 2022; Estrada et al., 2016). The REP has multiple components, including mentored research, workshops of professional development, academic enrichment activities, social activities, and a final poster session in an annual conference hosted by the USCSOMG. This study aims to report on the URMs participants to ascertain the impact of this program on increasing the number of URMs who pursue graduate education. We report information on the second year of implementing the program following the partnership with colleges and Universities to enhance the impact of the REP on URMs. The findings of this report will add to the existing literature on REP for URM students.

Method

Study Population

Six research mentors from interinstitutional collaborations at five 4-year colleges and universities in South Carolina have been recruited to increase the number of research mentors to 12 (a percentage of the existing ones). In the first year, we had seven research mentors, lost one research mentor, and added six. In the second year, the number increased to 12. We increased the research mentorship team by 50%. Seventy-five percent of our research mentors are underrepresented professionals. There are 50% males and 50% females among the research mentors. Twenty URM students were recruited from the following populations: African American (60%), Asian (15%), socioeconomically disadvantaged (20%), and Hispanic (5%), 80% of whom were female and 20% male.

Program Description and Recruitment of Students for the Second-Year Program

The research mentors at each institution and the program coordinator recruited URM students from South Carolina colleges and universities to further the pandemic's programmatic changes and expand its outreach. A cross-institutional recruitment program was designed to provide undergraduate sophomores, juniors, and seniors with training and mentoring in science, behavioral, biomedical, and public health. Students were recruited by personal recommendations and invitations from research mentors, the coordinator, the website for the USCSOMG's NIH R25 program, and flyers. Applicants who were U.S. citizens or international students with permanent residency and valid green cards; maintained a GPA of 3.0 or higher; completed an application packet that included a personal statement and letters of recommendation; completed an interview and returned their signed acceptance letters were accepted into the program.

The 2022 REP program was conducted using a hybrid approach over 7 weeks. By implementing a hybrid approach, students could participate in the program at their home or local institution, remaining close to their research mentors. Within a month of the start of the summer program, students took part in an Individual Development Plan (IDP) orientation and assessment with the program coordinator. Each week comprised morning academic enrichment seminars, afternoon scientific research (at least 30 hours per week), and weekly social outings with biweekly IDP sessions. Morning academic enrichment seminars and IDP sessions were held virtually, and scientific research was held in person. USCSOMG research mentors conducted an orientation to introduce and orient research mentors and students from all institutions to the program. The first week also comprised a presentation on graduate admissions, an introduction to aging from a geriatric clinician, a scientific journal club facilitated by medical students at USCSOMG, and assessments on learning and study strategies, motivational levels, and self-efficacy. Research mentors and their mentees began their preliminary research in their perspective disciplines.

During the second week, students participated in their first IDP biweekly session, reviewing the results of their biomedical and scientific assessments and identifying their short-term and long-term academic and professional goals with the program coordinator. They were required to reflect on their weekly progress as they worked on their short-term academic and professional goals. The academic seminar series included sessions on academic integrity and data analysis presented by research mentors, the biology of aging presented by a geriatric clinician, and the development of a statement of interest and a scientific journal club presented by medical students. During this time, students worked closely with their mentors to conduct research, conduct literature reviews, and begin compiling their data analysis.

Students continued to develop their academic skills in Week 3 as they became better acquainted with their mentors and fellow students. They dug deeper into their scientific analysis and interpretation of the data presented in their research. They took part in informative seminars from the research mentors on tips and strategies for writing an abstract, a scientific article, and data analysis. The peer mentors presented an interactive session on how to prepare and design a conference poster in preparation for the symposium. This session allowed the students to share their preliminary signs for feedback from the peer mentors and to gain guidance on appropriate fonts, colors, backgrounds, the layout of the poster, and concise content. The geriatric clinician facilitated a more specific analysis of aging and health. Research mentors worked more closely with their mentees to analyze and interpret the results of their individual and collective research projects.

A primary focus of Week 4 was academic intervention and the development of individualized goals. Students engaged in one-on-one sessions to identify and discuss their strengths in how they learn and study and present them with interventions to increase their abilities in areas of improvement. A second IDP biweekly one-on-one session was conducted with the coordinator, where they discussed goal progression and needs. They also took part in an interview to assess their level of engagement within the REP program. Additionally, they became more engaged in their academic enrichment seminars. A session on preparing a curriculum vitae and application package for graduate school admission was conducted that allowed students to convert their resumes into curriculum vitae using the provided template. The students also enhanced their writing skills by engaging in an interactive session on scientific writing, during which they had the opportunity to ask questions regarding their research projects. Mentors and their mentees continued their research, data analysis, and interpretation.

As the students prepared for the program's culmination, the symposium, weeks 5 and 6, were devoted to in-depth research, data analysis, and interpretation. As students finalized their research projects, began writing their abstracts and manuscripts, and completed their poster presentations, they also took part in oral presentation practices. Multiple practices allowed them to present their research and its findings to their peers, research mentors, and program coordinators. To better identify their areas of improvement, students had the option of timed or recorded practice presentations. Following each student presentation, each audience member identified strengths and provided suggestions for improvement so that each student could implement the feedback in the following practice session.

The REP summer program was concluded with the Fourth Annual Symposium at the USCSOMG in the 7th week. Students conducted in-person oral and poster presentations to their peers, peer mentors, faculty, and staff. They were judged on their oral and poster presentations in the following areas: their strengths and skills as a presenter, the delivery of their presentation, and the content and design of their posters. Final assessments on learning and study strategies, motivational levels, and self-efficacy were conducted last week. An NIH R25 dinner and awards were the official finale of the summer program, which highlighted the accomplishments of the program, the research mentors, and the students. Their friends and families were invited to recognize and celebrate them as they shared their experiences and received honors and accolades. Each student received a certificate of completion and a personalized academic or social award. Research mentors were acknowledged and thanked for their contributions with a token of appreciation and a personalized honorable mention certificate nominated by the students. Nine students received customized trophies and plaques for outstanding scholar, leadership, R25 citizenship, and first, second, and third place for presentation skills awards. In addition to the summer program, outreach and mentoring continued throughout the year. Research mentors helped students to prepare for participation in the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Conference, Biomedical Engineering Society Conference, University of South Carolina Upstate Symposium, and EPSCoR State Conference. Research mentors and the coordinator also presented the successes and accolades of the Year 2 initiatives at the EPSCoR EOD Conference. Quarterly meetings with the students continued to track progress and access individual needs. Seniors participated in monthly meetings to discuss the graduate application submission requirements for admission to graduate and medical school, updates and revisions to statements of interests and curriculum vitae, and discuss postgraduation options and resources.

Program Evaluation

The research mentors and the students evaluated the mentorship experience. First, research mentors completed a confidential 10-item questionnaire. Section one of the questionnaire required the mentors to complete seven questions to assess the quality of their mentoring experience with their mentees, their interest in mentoring in the future, how well their responsibilities as mentors were communicated, accessibility and approachability of the program coordinator, the adequacy of the time spent during the summer program, and their perceptions of their inclusivity and value as a mentor. Responses were rated using a five-part Likert scale: strongly disagree (1) to agree strongly (5). The remaining three open-ended questions evaluated their assessment of the program's strengths and areas of improvement.

Students completed a confidential 30-item questionnaire. In section one, they conducted 14 questions to evaluate the effectiveness of the experiences they gained from the academic skills they obtained during the program. A five-part Likert scale was used to rank the items from strongly disagree (1) to agree strongly (5). Seven questions were used in the second section to evaluate the impact of the research skills gained from the program. Section three of the questionnaire included six questions to evaluate the effectiveness of using the IDP as an educational tool for academic and professional goal planning and development. The remaining three open-ended questions were asked to gauge their analysis of the benefits of their mentorship experience, the program activities, and if they aligned with their overall expectations.

Quantitative Data Analysis

Statistical Package for Social Sciences v. 26.0 for Windows (SPSS, Chicago, IL) was used for statistical analysis. Academic skills, research activities, and the IDP were assessed using descriptive statistics collected from the scaled responses. Responses were distributed using percentage calculations for academics, research, and the IDP. Academic perceptions were based on their experiences from the following morning seminars: information about graduate school admissions procedure, CV preparation, and application for graduate school admission, learning and study strategies, collaborative learning, academic integrity in research, basics of conducting research, clinical aspects of aging, integration of educational and research skills for future needs, and the development of active expression and communication. Perceptions of the quality of research were derived from their experiences as they facilitated through the elements of writing a scientific abstract, reading scientific articles, formulating scientific hypotheses and research questions, data collection in scientific research, interpreting scientific data, designing and presenting a scientific poster, and making an oral presentation. Perceptions of the IDP were based on the following contributing components of the IDP process: individual development plan orientation; online and written scientific and biomedical assessments and self-reflections; pre- and post-assessment of motivation and self-efficacy; open-ended Interviews; three biweekly individual development plan one on one sessions; and an evaluation of the IDP.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Open-ended responses were assessed to determine the program's strengths and areas of improvement, identify the benefits of their mentorship experience and the program activities, and determine if they were aligned with their overall expectations. The qualitative data collected from the responses was used to identify common patterns, themes, similarities, and differences from the research mentor and mentee experiences. The word cloud generated an in-depth visual representation of the patterns, themes, similarities, and differences.

Results

Quantitative Results

A total of 23 URMs were tracked for admission into graduate and or professional programs for 2 years. Of this, six URMs (26.09%) obtained a bachelor's degree and were admitted into a graduate program; two were directly admitted to a PhD program, all in biomedical sciences. Under the mentorship and guidance of 12 research mentors and the program coordinator, 20 URMs participated in the program in the second year. All the URM students and nine research mentors completed the program's final evaluation. Participants’ demographics comprised four males (20%) and 16 females (80%) from seven colleges and universities in South Carolina. Table 1 presents the research mentors’ results evaluating the program's overall goals and objectives and their mentorship experience. The accessibility and approachability of the program coordinator were the only indicators that 100% of the surveyed research mentors strongly agreed. Eighty-nine percent strongly agreed that they would volunteer to mentor again. Sixty-seven percent strongly agreed that they felt included, valued, and respected as research mentors in the NIH R25 2022 summer program. Fifty-six percent strongly agreed that the weekly mentoring with their mentees was a practical aspect of the mentorship experience. Forty-four percent strongly agreed that their responsibilities were clearly outlined and that the amount of time spent with their mentee was adequate in helping to meet their academic and research needs.

Table 1.

Distribution of Responses by Mentors (n = 9) to Each Item on the 2022 Program Evaluation Survey, n(%) for Objectives and Goals of the REP Program.

Objectives and goals	Strongly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neither agree or disagree	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
1. Weekly mentoring with the URM students.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 11.1	(3) 33.3	(5) 55.5
2. As a mentor, I would describe the quality of my experience as excellent.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(0) 0	(5) 55.5	(4) 44.4
3. I would volunteer to be a mentor in the future	(0) 0	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 11.1	(8) 88.8
4. The responsibilities of being a mentor were clearly described.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 11.1	(4) 44.4	(4) 44.4
5. The coordinator for the NIH R25 program was accessible and approachable.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(0) 0	(0) 0	(9) 100
6. The time that I spent with my research scholars was sufficient to meet the academic and research goals of NIH R25.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 11.1	(3) 33.3	(4) 44.4
7. I felt included, valued, and respected as a mentor within the NIH R25 program.	(0) 0	(1) 11.1	(0) 0	(1) 11.1	(6) 66.6

Note. REP = Research Education Program; URM = underrepresented minority; NIH = National Institutes of Health.

Table 2 presents the distribution of responses (n = 20) from the students. Eighty-five percent of the students strongly agreed that presenting their research findings was the most effective academic skill they gained from the program. Seventy-five percent indicated that they were strongly satisfied with the basis of conducting research and development of active communication and expression. Seventy percent strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the academic integrity of research and the integration of academic and study skills for future application seminars. Sixty percent indicated they were strongly satisfied with the information on the graduate school admission procedures and the social context of aging. Fifty-five percent strongly agreed that they were confident with the information on the CV preparation and application for graduate school admission, writing a statement of academic interest, learning and study strategies, and biology of aging. Fifty percent indicated that they were delighted with the clinical aspects of aging. Forty-five percent strongly agreed they were satisfied with their collaborative learning and aging and health experiences.

Table 2.

Distribution of Responses by Students (n = 20) to Each Item on the 2022 Program Evaluation Survey, n (%) for Academic Skills of the REP Program.

Activities	Strongly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neither agree or disagree	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
1. Information about graduate school admissions procedure	(0) 0	(0) 0	(3) 15	(5) 25	(12) 60
2. CV preparation and application for graduate school admission	(0) 0	(1) 5	(1) 5	(7) 35	(11) 55
3. Writing statement of academic interest	(0) 0	(0) 0	(3) 15	(6) 30	(11) 55
4. Learning and study strategies	(0) 0	(1) 5	(0) 0	(7) 35	(11) 55
5. Collaborative learning	(0) 0	(1) 5	(2) 10	(8) 40	(9) 45
6. Academic integrity in research	(0) 0	(0) 0	(4) 20	(2) 10	(14) 70
7. Basics of conducting research	(0) 0	(0) 0	(0) 0	(5) 25	(15) 75
8. Presentation of research findings	(0) 0	(2) 10	(0) 0	(1) 5	(17) 85
9. Social context of aging	(0) 0	(3) 15	(3) 15	(2) 10	(12) 60
10. Aging and health	(0) 0	(2) 10	(0) 0	(9) 45	(9) 45
11. Biology of aging	(0) 0	(2) 10	(0) 0	(7) 35	(11) 55
12. Clinical aspects of aging	(0) 0	(3) 15	(3) 15	(4) 20	(10) 50
13. Integration of academic and research skills for my future needs	(0) 0	(0) 0	(0) 0	(5) 25	(14) 70
14. Development of active expression and communication	(0) 0	(1) 5	(1) 5	(3) 15	(15) 75

Note. REP = Research Education Program.

The distribution of responses (n = 20) for the research skills acquired in the REP program is presented in Table 3. Eighty-five percent of the students strongly agreed that they were mostly satisfied with designing and delivering a scientific poster. Eighty percent strongly agreed that they were satisfied with writing a scientific abstract and reading scientific articles. Seventy-five percent indicated that they were strongly satisfied with making oral presentations. Seventy percent strongly agreed that they were satisfied with data collection in scientific research. Fifty-five percent indicated that they were strongly satisfied with formulating scientific hypotheses and research questions, data analysis in scientific research, and interpretation of a scientific interpretation.

Table 3.

Distribution of Responses by Students (n = 20) to Each Item on the 2022 Program Evaluation Survey, n (%) for Research Skills of the REP Program.

Activities	Strongly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neither agree or disagree	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
1. Writing a scientific abstract.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 5	(3) 15	(16) 80
2. Reading scientific articles.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(2) 10	(2) 10	(16) 80
3. Formulating scientific hypothesis or research questions.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(2) 10	(7) 35	(11) 55
4. Data collection in scientific research.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(2) 10	(4) 20	(14) 70
5. Data analysis in scientific research.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 5	(8) 40	(11) 55
6. Interpretation of scientific data.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 5	(8) 40	(11) 55
7. Designing and presenting a scientific poster.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(0) 0	(3) 15	(17) 85
8. Making oral presentation.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(2) 10	(3) 15	(15) 75

Note. REP = Research Education Program.

Students’ responses to the effectiveness of the IDP are presented in Table 4. Eighty-five percent strongly agreed they were mostly satisfied with the weekly reflection on goals and identifying accomplishments and obstacles. Eighty percent indicated that they were satisfied with the knowledge they gained from their mentorship experience and how it will help them accomplish their academic and professional journeys. Seventy-five percent strongly agreed that they were satisfied with developing short-term and long-term academic goals to help achieve their undergraduate journeys. Seventy percent indicated that they were satisfied with developing the short-term and long-term research goals that will help in their professional journeys, developing the action plan to achieve short-term goals, and assessing the scientific skills, interests, and values.

Table 4.

Distribution of Responses by Students (n = 20) to Each Item on the 2022 Program Evaluation Survey, n (%) for the Individual Development Plan of the REP Program.

Activities	Strongly disagree	Somewhat disagree	Neither agree or disagree	Somewhat agree	Strongly agree
1. Development of short-term and long-term academic goals for continuation in my undergraduate degree.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(2) 10	(3) 15	(15) 75
2. Development of short-term and long-term research goals for continuation in my professional journey.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 5	(5) 25	(14) 70
3. Development of an action plan to help me achieve my short-term goals.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 5	(5) 25	(14) 70
4. Gained knowledge in my mentorship needs that will aid in my academic and professional journey.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 5	(3) 15	(16) 80
5. Reflecting on weekly goals and identification of accomplishments and obstacles.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(2) 10	(1) 5	(17) 85
6. Assessment of my current scientific skills, interests, and values.	(0) 0	(0) 0	(1) 5	(5) 25	(14) 70

Note. REP = Research Education Program.

Qualitative Results

The word cloud analysis for the visual representation of the conduction of the research experience from the projects and the professionalism of the coordinator by the research mentors is presented in Figure 1. As indicated by research mentors, the program implemented a series of academic enrichment activities, student leadership activities, and research experiments with the students that produced quality collaborations and met expectations, as evidenced by the successes and outcomes. Additionally, research mentors provided insight into how an orientation with the mentors before the program will help establish expectations, roles, and responsibilities and more opportunities for everyone to come to the USCSOMG campus.

Figure 1.

The word cloud analysis for a visual representation of the frequently used words in the research mentor evaluation.

The patterns and themes for the frequency of words and phrases used by URMs to describe how the REP program met the expectations of the students are presented in Figure 2. As shown in the figure, URM's communications with their mentors aligned with their goals. It also helped them to prepare for admission to graduate school. They also identified creating presentations and data interpretation as beneficial elements to help them improve and seek more opportunities.

Figure 2.

The word cloud analysis for a visual representation of the frequently used words in the URM student evaluations.

Discussion

Developing trusting relationships with mentors helps to create appeal and enthusiasm in STEM careers while encouraging career achievement (Stelter et al., 2021). Implementing inter- and intrainstitutional collaboration and recruitment through REP, such as the NIH R25 funded program at the USCSOMG, builds these mentor relationships.

The finding that a significant percentage of research mentors indicated that they strongly agreed that they would volunteer to mentor again in the future and that they felt included, valued, and respected as a research mentor within the NIH R25 2022 summer program reflected the positive contribution of research mentors in successfully achieving program goals and objectives of the REP in enhancing URMs to attend graduate and professional school. The underrepresented research mentors and the entire team of research mentors in the REP offer unique skills and motivations and serve as important role models and mentors for URMs in our REP. In addition, they provided students with research and scientific presentation experience with the opportunity to work extensively with experienced scientists themselves to promote the growth of our URMs. Our finding is supported by other studies that research mentors play a major in increasing the interest of URMs in science careers (Estrada et al., 2018; Martinez et al., 2018) and motivating them to attend graduate and professional school (Morales et al., 2017; Rodríguez Amaya et al., 2018).

As short-term outcomes, we report URM's preparedness to attend graduate or professional schools, as students strongly agreed that presenting their research findings was an effective academic skill, they gained from the program that could help them in graduate school admission. They indicated that they were strongly satisfied with the basis of conducting research and development of active communication and expression during their oral and poster presentation sessions in the program. They agreed that they were satisfied with the academic integrity of the research and the integration of academic and research skills for future application seminars. In addition, they indicated that they were strongly satisfied with the information presented on the graduate school admission procedures and the social context of aging, and the information presented on the CV preparation and application for graduate school admission, writing statement of academic interest, learning and study strategies, and biology of aging. These results indicate the importance of the REP as a necessary step toward successful admission to graduate school. Similar findings have been reported by other studies for research (Crockett, 2014; Hurtado et al., 2009; Kricorian et al., 2020).

All students in the first and second year of the REP submitted abstracts to present a poster at a national research conference, and those abstracts were accepted for presentation at regional and national conferences. One student won a national award at the ABRCMS for the best poster presentation, and five students coauthored published papers using aging and Alzheimer's data collected during the summer REP. Our longitudinal follow-up data shows that 26.09% had enrolled in graduate or professional school, and two enrolled directly in a PhD program from their bachelor's degree program in the first two years of implementing the program. While our current numbers are small to draw strong conclusions, our early results indicate the success of our program. Moreover, they indicate a promising future effort toward higher representation or URM in STEM programs.

Conclusion

The program coordinator constantly improved the program's academic rigor so that URMs were well-prepared for the graduate/medical school application process. We used both qualitative and quantitative data from participants in the first year to improve the program by partnering with other 4-year colleges and universities to increase the pool of research mentors by 50%, with 75% of our research mentors being from underrepresented professionals. In addition, we included IDP, and students strongly agreed that they were most satisfied with the weekly reflection on goals and identifying accomplishments and obstacles from the IDP. In addition, it indicated that the IDP effectively developed short-term and long-term research goals and action plans to achieve short-term goals and assessed scientific skills, interests, and values.

Limitations

The evaluation of our REP has some limitations. First, we did not randomly select our URMs for the REP. Therefore, we did not have a control group for our selected groups of URMs for evaluation. In addition, during the recruitment process, we selected URMs who we assumed were highly motivated and were more likely to benefit from the REP. This may affect our ability to assess the real effect of our program on graduate school admission. However, our evaluation of the REP's short-term outcome reveals that even among our recruited or selected URMs, we have significantly motivated and enhanced 26.09% to gain admission to graduate or professional school following 2 years of implementing our REP.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the NIH R25 (Grant No. 1R25AG067934-01).

ORCID iD

Nishika Edwards

Nishika T. Edwards is a native of Orangeburg, South Carolina. As a transformational leader, she is committed to maximizing individual student performance, impacting the lives of learners, being a lifelong educator, and instilling a sense of pride among all. She is passionate about inspiring others while building a sense of confidence in academia and enabling youth to grow and succeed as learners. She holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education, two master's in education, and a Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership with a Specialization in Higher Education. As the Educational Research Program Coordinator for the NIH R25 grant, she collaborates with undergraduate research students and investigators to gather information, develop educational plans, and support professional development activities for the students participating in the program.

Richard L. Goodwin, PhD, is an instructor in the Biomedical Engineering Department at the University of South Carolina. He received his PhD in Biology at the University of South Carolina and his BS in Biological Sciences from Indiana University. His research focus is cardiovascular development and disease as well as educational research.

Brooks McPhail is an assistant professor specializing in Translational Neuroscience at Wake Forest University School of Medicine. She completed her undergraduate studies at South Carolina State University in 2002 before pursuing further education at the University of Georgia, where she obtained her degree in 2008. With a passion for bridging the gap between basic neuroscience research and clinical applications, her work focuses on translating scientific discoveries into innovative treatments for neurological disorders.

Lauren A Fowler is a professor of Translational Neuroscience at Wake Forest School of Medicine. She received her BA from Agnes Scott College and her MA/PhD at Georgia State University. Her research focuses primarily on biological rhythms, sleep, and fatigue.

Larry Lenard Lowe is a professor of Biology, Distinguished Faculty Member, and Chair of the Biology Department at Benedict College in Columbia, SC. He received his undergraduate education at Tougaloo College, Tougaloo, MS, graduate training at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (MS in Cell Biology, Department of Zoology), and PhD from Atlanta University, Atlanta, GA in Biology (protein and nucleic acid biochemistry). His research focuses on the effects of extreme environmental factors on gene expression including simulated microgravity induced skeletal muscle atrophy and the potential use of various isoenzymes as biomarkers to environmental pollutants and mutations related to plant growth and development in outer space (space gardening) or earth-based habits.

Steffani Driggins is an associate professor of Biology at Claflin University. She completed her PhD in Biological Sciences at Tennessee State University in Nashville, TN. Her current research focuses on health disparities and drug discovery studies.

Nnenna Chidinma Igwe graduated from the Abia State University College of Medicine, Nigeria, with an MBBS in Medicine and Surgery in 2000. She began practicing as a general physician with an emphasis in internal and preventive medicine until she moved to the United States in 2002. While in the United States, she earned more degrees in Diagnostic Medical Sonography (2009) from Greenville Technical College, SC, and a master’s in public health degree (2018) from George Washington University, Washington DC. She is working on her certification as a clinical anatomy educator with the Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas.

Randall H. Harris is an associate professor of Biology at Claflin University. He received his PhD in Microbiology from the University of Alabama at Birmingham and did a post-doctoral fellowship at the Research Institute at Nationwide's Children Hospital. His research focuses on bacterial keratitis and chromium bioremediation.

Kimberly Shorter has a Bachelor's of Science in Biology and in Chemistry from Converse College. She completed her PhD in Biological Sciences at the University of South Carolina and completed her postdoctoral studies in molecular psychiatry at the McKnight Brain Institute at the University of Florida College of Medicine. She teaches Cell and Molecular Biology, Neurobiology, and Histology at the University of South Carolina Upstate where she also conducts research on epigenetics in autism-related cell phenotypes and in cellular stress and aging.

Zhi Gao is a professor in the Department of Bioengineering at Clemson University, holding a PhD in Cardiovascular Engineering from the University of Miami. His research includes using laser beams to pattern individual cells, enhancing the study of cell-environment interactions and improving the production of tissue-engineered medical devices. In collaboration with Dr. Ye, he co-developed an innovative AI-assisted, non-destructive, and dye-free optical probe for real-time cell viability detection. Their pioneering work utilizes deep learning to enhance cell image segmentation and classification, achieving up to 90% accuracy in measuring chondrocyte viability. This technology is now advancing towards clinical application in tissue repair. His cutting-edge research is also integral to his projects funded by the NIH R01 and DARPA.

Renee J. Chosed, PhD, is an associate professor of Biochemistry and vice chair in the Department of Biomedical Sciences at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville. Dr. Chosed's research is in the field of reproductive biology focused.

Mohammed K. Khalil, DVM, MSEd, PhD, is a Clinical Professor at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine Greenville, USA with interests in students' academic support, integration of technology into medical education, and curriculum integration and evaluation.

Thomas I Nathaniel, PhD, FWSO, FAHA is a Professor of Neuroscience, at the University of South Carolina School of medicine Greenville. He received his M.Sc. in Biology, while his PhD is Neuroscience at the International Graduate School of Neuroscience at Ruhr University of Bochum, Germany.

References

Allen-Ramdial

S. A.

Campbell

A. G.

(2014). Reimagining the pipeline: Advancing STEM diversity, persistence, and success. Bioscience, 64(7), 612–618. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu076

Beadle

M. R.

Graham

G. N.

(2011). National stakeholder strategy for achieving health equity .

Branchaw

Guerrero

Pfund

(2020). Interventions to optimize mentoring relationships for diverse biomedical researchers. Understanding Interventions, 11(1).

Chatterjee

Jacob

G. A.

Varvayanis

S. S.

Wefes

Chalkley

Nogueira

A. T.

Fuhrmann

C. N.

Varadarajan

Hubbard

N. M.

Gaines

C. H.

Layton

R. L.

Chaudhary

(2023). Career self-efficacy disparities in underrepresented biomedical scientist trainees. PLoS One, 18(3), Article e0280608. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280608

Crockett

E. T.

(2014). A research education program model to prepare a highly qualified workforce in biomedical and health-related research and increase diversity. BMC Medical Education, 14, Article 202. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-202

Edwards

K. J.

Akam

Ijoma

J. N.

Mack

K. N.

Pereira

P. M. R.

Dhanvantari

H. T.

Wang

Alt

Henry

K. E.

(2022). Visions by WIMIN: Global mentorship to retain underrepresented trainees. Molecular Imaging and Biology, 24(4), 519–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-022-01716-2

Edwards

Nathaniel

Goodwin

Khalil

McPhail

Fowler

Russ-Sellers

Chosed

(2023). Research education program for underrepresented minority students: Students’ perception of academic enrichment and research activities. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 96(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914150221106652

Estrada

Burnett

Campbell

A. G.

Campbell

P. B.

Denetclaw

W. F.

Gutiérrez

C. G.

Hurtado

John

G. H.

Matsui

McGee

Okpodu

C. M.

Robinson

T. J.

Summers

M. F.

Werner-Washburne

Zavala

(2016). Improving underrepresented minority student persistence in STEM. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038

Estrada

Hernandez

P. R.

Schultz

P. W.

(2018). A longitudinal study of how quality mentorship and research experience integrate underrepresented minorities into STEM careers. CBE Life Sciences Education, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066

10.

Figueroa

(2014). The significance of recruiting underrepresented minorities in medicine: An examination of the need for effective approaches used in admissions by higher education institutions. Medical Education Online, 19, Article 24891. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v19.24891

11.

Gafney

(2010). State University of New York Louis stokes alliance for minority participation: Report on best practices. Online submission.

12.

Hurtado

Cabrera

N. L.

Lin

M. H.

Arellano

Espinosa

L. L.

(2009). Diversifying science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Research in Higher Education, 50(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9114-7

13.

Ilonze

O. J.

Avorgbedor

Diallo

Boutjdir

(2022). Addressing challenges faced by underrepresented biomedical investigators and efforts to address them: An NHLBI-PRIDE perspective. Journal of the National Medical Association, 114(6), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnma.2022.09.007

14.

Jackson

C. S.

Gracia

J. N.

(2014). Addressing health and health-care disparities: The role of a diverse workforce and the social determinants of health. Public Health Reports, 129(Suppl 2), 57–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549141291s211

15.

Kricorian

Seu

Lopez

Ureta

Equils

(2020). Factors influencing participation of underrepresented students in STEM fields: Matched mentors and mindsets. International Journal of Stem Education, 7(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00219-2

16.

Liebler

Wise

Todd

R. M.

(2018). Occupational dissimilarity between the American Indian/Alaska native workforce and white workforce in the contemporary United States. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 42(1), 41–70. https://doi.org/10.17953/aicrj.42.1.liebler

17.

Martinez

L. R.

Boucaud

D. W.

Casadevall

August

(2018). Factors contributing to the success of NIH-designated underrepresented minorities in academic and nonacademic research positions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(2), ar32. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-09-0287

18.

Morales

D. X.

Grineski

S. E.

Collins

T. W.

(2017). Faculty motivation to mentor students through undergraduate research programs: A study of enabling and constraining factors. Research in Higher Education, 58(5), 520–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9435-x

19.

Newman

L. A.

Pollock

R. E.

Johnson-Thompson

M. C.

(2003). Increasing the pool of academically oriented African-American medical and surgical oncologists. Cancer, 97(S1), 329–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11027

20.

Rodríguez Amaya

Betancourt

Collins

K. H.

Hinojosa

Corona

(2018). Undergraduate research experiences: Mentoring, awareness, and perceptions-a case study at a Hispanic-serving institution. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0105-8

21.

Sopher

C. J.

Adamson

B. J.

Andrasik

M. P.

Flood

D. M.

Wakefield

S. F.

Stoff

D. M.

Cook

R. S.

Kublin

J. G.

Fuchs

J. D.

(2015). Enhancing diversity in the public health research workforce: The research and mentorship program for future HIV vaccine scientists. American Journal of Public Health, 105(4), 823–830. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302076

22.

Stelter

R. L.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Stump

K. N.

(2021). Establishing effective STEM mentoring relationships through mentor training. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1483(1), 224–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14470

23.

Tate

K. A.

Fouad

N. A.

Marks

L. R.

Young

Guzman

Williams

E. G.

(2015). Underrepresented first-generation, low-income college students’ pursuit of a graduate education: Investigating the influence of self-efficacy, coping efficacy, and family influence. Journal of Career Assessment, 23(3), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072714547498