Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Spanish

This study explores STEM faculty mentors’ use of multicontext teaching and mentoring strategies to increase underrepresented minority (URM) STEM participation through a guided research program at a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI). Results of narrative research show most faculty mentors in the program engaged in high-context learning activities, and they value the program for the intrinsic satisfaction of mentoring underrepresented students, their commitment to increasing minority participation in STEM, and the mutually beneficial research collaborations. Examples of high context strategies employed included real-world experiences, hands-on experiences, and multi-academic learning styles—allowing faculty and students to make more connections in the learning process.

Keywords

STEM higher education Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI)multicontext approach Underrepresented Minority (URM) Students

Faculty’s ability to connect course material to students’ experiences and students’ ability to see themselves in the course content is an invaluable teaching and learning tool. It speaks to the heart of a program in which faculty mentors seek to increase minority participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields through high context teaching and mentoring strategies at a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI). How does one reach the students’ heart?

Although STEM enrollment has become more racially and ethnically diverse (Adamuti-Trache & Zhang, 2022; Baird et al., 2018; Chen, 2009, 2013; Flynn, 2016; Maltese & Tai, 2011), gaps in underrepresented minority student (URM) graduation rates remain problematic as non-Asian/Pacific Islander URM students (e.g., African American, Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native) continue to be less likely to earn a degree in STEM (Asai, 2020; Bottia et al., 2021; Hatfield et al., 2022; Hurtado et al., 2009; Riegle-Crumb et al., 2019). This has led to calls for broadening participation in STEM so that individuals from more diverse backgrounds become interested in, elect to study, complete baccalaureate degrees, earn graduate degrees, and move into the STEM workforce.

Postsecondary STEM environments provide unique challenges for URMs (e.g., Heilbronner, 2011; King, 2015; Moakler & Kim, 2014; Shaw & Barbuti, 2010; Strayhorn, 2015). Education scholars have questioned the wisdom of deficit approaches and have instead emphasized how programs and institutions can capitalize on the assets that underserved students and their communities possess. Strength-based theories, such as culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994), culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012), and funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) suggest that students learn best when educators acknowledge and incorporate students’ cultural backgrounds. As a result, some STEM faculty are stepping out of traditional teaching roles, merging teaching and mentorship to enhance students’ learning experiences, understanding that inclusive STEM education requires that educators create spaces where students feel valued and supported, ultimately leading to more meaningful and equitable educational outcomes in STEM disciplines. One way of helping students connect to and become a part of the learning environment is through Weissmann et al.'s (2019) context diversity approach.

This study uses Weissmann et al.’s (2019) multicontext theory as a lens to assess how faculty mentors in the New Mexico Alliance for Minority Participation (NM AMP) program (will be referred to as the program moving forward)—a STEM broadening participation program at an HSI with a majority Latinx student population—view teaching and learning within their classrooms and labs. We use the term Latinx as a gender-neutral term commonly used in academic and activist settings. While we recognize the critiques of Latinx, including concerns about its accessibility and cultural relevance outside higher education (Salinas, 2020), we use it here to reflect ongoing efforts toward gender inclusive language to refer to people of Latin American descent in the United States. Faculty mentors in the program were interviewed about their teaching and mentoring philosophies and practices with the intent of developing activities (e.g., faculty workshops) to encourage STEM faculty to teach and mentor in ways consistent with a multicontext approach. There are two main goals: (1) to describe the occurrences of multicontext theory evident in the faculty mentors’ existing practices and beliefs; (2) to illuminate why they go beyond traditional expectations of their faculty roles and volunteer their time and expertise to be mentors to undergraduate students. Information gleaned from these interviews was used to inform workshops designed to promote more inclusive and effective teaching and mentoring strategies, as well as provide valuable insights for both STEM faculty mentors and project investigators.

Literature Review

To better understand the backdrop of student-faculty interactions in STEM, this literature review examined both the academic environment and faculty roles as teachers and mentors. This literature helps us understand the impetus for the program and faculty support needs.

STEM Academic Environment

There is a pervasive belief that all STEM students struggle to some extent with understanding the course content. King (2015) found that 40 to 50 percent of STEM majors do not earn a degree in STEM and that students in STEM did not persist at the same rate as their non-STEM peers even when they were better prepared for college work. That is, students identified as capable of doing the work were not always successful in the classroom. King also found that students with lower grades were more likely to switch from STEM to a non-STEM major. Some students have found the academic environment in STEM restrictive and isolating. STEM offered more in-depth seminars and laboratories which tended to be more challenging and competitive than large survey classes in non-STEM majors (Chang et al., 2014; Heilbronner, 2011). Students in STEM tend to work more independently and feel undue stress to compete with one another (Chang et al., 2014). These students are not always able to express cultural interests, learning differences, be creative, and/or collaborate as they can in non-STEM fields. This may lead faculty to deficit approaches to engage them. However, Rincón and Rodriguez (2021) examined asset-based reimagining among Latinx students in STEM to determine how they were grounded culturally. Findings from their study shed light on how important family, peers, and communities are as students navigate STEM curricula. Consequently, there has to be a connection between the classroom experiences and the whole student.

Classroom experiences play a critical role in student success, especially for URM students in STEM (e.g., Heilbronner, 2011; King, 2015; Moakler & Kim, 2014; Shaw & Barbuti, 2010; Strayhorn, 2015). Thus, it is important for faculty to engage with students in multiple ways. Classroom experiences can help explain the success URM students experience at HSIs. When considering if more sustained involvement from STEM faculty could improve teaching and learning and participation for students in introductory math courses (e.g., astronomy, biology, geography, math) at several 2-year and 4-year institutions in Georgia, Henry (2010) found that the students had to be introduced to the varying ways of teaching and learning (i.e., cognitive theories and/or pedagogy) and be allowed to experiment with different methods. Henry noted that when faculty are introduced to varying teaching strategies, they are more likely to implement them into classroom activities. Additionally, Rodríguez et al. (2018) found that teaching strategies matter. They found that peer-led and project-based teaching strategies were more effective than lecture alone in gateway biology and chemistry courses; the more students were able to engage in peer-led and project-based instruction, the more likely they were to persist. Unfortunately, these peer-led and project-based practices are not widely employed in STEM.

One activity that is particularly helpful for URM students in STEM seems to be undergraduate research experiences (UREs), which match students with faculty members and/ or graduate students for extracurricular experiences in STEM laboratories. Such experiences are important because they foster mentoring relationships with faculty and STEM peers, as well as give students more opportunities to “practice” STEM than they would typically experience in the classroom, thus fostering a stronger STEM identity. Undergraduate research experiences in STEM are widely considered a high-impact practice, especially when it comes to URM students (Estrada et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2010; Simmons, 2018). Students get an opportunity to engage with faculty in one-on-one and/or small group settings outside of the traditional learning/classroom environment. Ultimately, undergraduate research experiences contribute to student engagement because they give students the opportunity to increase their scientific identity, as well as to develop meaningful relationships with STEM peers and faculty. These opportunities to engage in research allow the students to demonstrate their confidence and expand their future career and educational opportunities (Thiry & Laursen, 2011).

Faculty as Teachers and Mentors

Positive faculty-student interactions, both inside and outside the classroom, are important for student success. Faculty often drive curriculum choices, structure assignments and peer interactions, as well as provide feedback to learners. These faculty also interact with students during office hours, social events, professional workshops, and conferences (Guzzardo et al., 2021; Law et al., 2020). When it comes to broadening participation in STEM, faculty play an essential role, particularly in STEM undergraduate research experiences where they direct the sponsoring lab and serve as faculty mentors. Even when more advanced students, lab technicians, and postgraduates often assist newer, less experienced students, faculty set the tone for the lab structure and environment (Hildt et al., 2024); faculty are the drivers of these experiences.

Although Morales et al. (2016) found that mid-career faculty and “faculty who place greater value on the opportunity to increase diversity in the academy through mentorship of underrepresented minorities” (p. 7) were more likely to express willingness to mentor undergraduates from other institutions, their study focused on faculty willingness to support undergraduate research, rather than their actual involvement in mentoring. In a national study of faculty in STEM fields, life sciences faculty, faculty at HBCUs, liberal arts colleges, and more selective institutions were found to be more likely to engage undergraduate students in research (Eagan et al., 2011). More recently, Davis et al. (2020) found that a variety of individual and institutional factors can either encourage or discourage faculty to provide undergraduates with research opportunities, but that institutional support for faculty engagement in undergraduate research mentoring was the single most important factor in predicting faculty participation in undergraduate research programs.

Theoretical Framework

This study uses multicontext theory as the theoretical framework. Drawing on research conducted with Latinx faculty and students, Ibarra (2001) developed multicontext theory as a framework for understanding points of conflict between faculty and students, which centered around time, space, and relationships. Weissmann et al. (2019) built on that work and placed it within the context of STEM education. They argue that people from different cultural contexts exhibit preferences in how they interact with others, connect to the world around them, manage space and time, and process information.

[Low context] cultures tended to value individual success, were more likely to be task-oriented, treat time as a commodity, use explicit language and words to convey ideas, compartmentalize tasks and concepts, and apply linear and logical thought processes. In contrast, [high context] cultures tended to be more community and group focused, process orientated, find meaning in the content of discussions beyond the specific words, subscribe to the holistic worldview, and think in terms of systems and connections. (Weissmann et al., 2019, p. 3)

Multicontext theory goes beyond structural diversity and multicultural frameworks to a more inclusive environment (Ibarra, 2001), grouping teaching philosophies and strategies data clusters into low or high content based on the following: information, examination of ideas, thinking, interactions, orientation, time, space, and academic teaching style. Weissmann et al. (2019) believed that an understanding of context diversity is needed to advance STEM because it leads to a more inclusive learning environment.

Within the multicontext theory, context orientations reside on a spectrum and reflect different ways of “knowing and doing” with task-oriented and linear thinking considered “low context” and process-oriented and systems thinking considered “high context.” In Western higher education, low context teaching tends to be oriented toward individual effort and achievement, while high context teaching emphasizes community learning and process. In addition, high context teaching strategies tend to be aligned with culturally responsive teaching (e.g., Charleston et al., 2014; Chávez & Longerbeam, 2016). These authors collectively suggest that while individuals vary in their context orientation, URM students and women tend to lean toward high context learning. In contrast, higher education faculty, particularly within STEM disciplines, tend to lean toward low context or individualistic academic culture.

Applying parallel logic, Chávez and Longerbeam (2016) argue that faculty can improve student learning by balancing integrated and individuated cultural frameworks in their teaching. High and Low context orientations roughly correspond to integrated and individuated orientations. Similar to Weissmann et al. (2019), Chávez and Longerbeam (2016) argued that teaching should be balanced across culturally-based perspectives but also note that inclusion can be elusive for faculty, especially when they come from different cultures from their students. Both works offer their approach as a tool to build awareness and assist faculty in identifying teaching and learning across the spectrum and incorporating strategies that balance these orientations.

Given the relatively recent visibility of the multicontextual perspective, there have only been a few examples of scholars (Moore, 2022; Pfeifer et al., 2021; Rivera et al., 2013) “activating” the model introduced by Ibarra (2001). Pfeifer et al. (2021) found positive outcomes, higher self-efficacy, and student engagement, after the activation of a multicontext model in a geoscience field-based research program. Rivera et al. (2013) found similar results when complementary high and low context activities are intentionally introduced in a postsecondary math program. In addition, Moore (2022) argued that multicontext theory can be applied to faculty-student interactions as a mechanism for increasing a sense of belonging within STEM environments.

We build on this nascent literature by employing Weissmann et al.’s (2019) multicontext theory lens to examine both the teaching and mentoring strategies of faculty mentors participating in a program aimed at increasing URM participation in STEM. Multicontext theory provides a language and framework through which we analyze the faculty mentors’ approach to teaching and mentoring: what they do? And why they do it? Since low context academic cultures are more normative, expected, and valued in STEM college classrooms, we focus on those behaviors and beliefs that reflect a high context or integrative orientation. Our study aims to answer two key questions: (1) How do these faculty engage students in the learning process, and (2) Why do these faculty extend their teaching practice beyond the classroom into formal mentoring relationships with undergraduate students?

Methodology

Setting

The New Mexico Alliance for Minority Participation (NM AMP) is part of a National Science Foundation broadening participation program, the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP), which aims to assist universities and colleges in diversifying the nation’s STEM workforce by increasing the number of STEM baccalaureate and graduate degrees awarded to populations historically underrepresented in these disciplines (National Science Foundation, n.d). While the program is an alliance of several universities and colleges in New Mexico, the faculty mentors who were interviewed for this study all came from the same 4-year university which is located close to the US-Mexico border and is designated as a land-grant, Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) with a Latinx student population of approximately 60%.

The Undergraduate Research Scholars (URS), a central part of the program, brings together STEM faculty and URM students to conduct research for an academic semester or during the summer. The STEM faculty mentors in the URS program are expected to develop students’ research skills and to nurture, encourage, and support the progress of individual students to graduate studies, providing opportunities for students to establish networks, help students learn the role and work of professionals in their disciplines, improve communication skills, benefit from professional and academic mentoring, and to give students a place where they feel they belong and are accepted. Student researchers are encouraged to present their research at state and national professional conferences and to participate in other professional development activities.

Recognizing the importance of student-faculty interactions, the program committed to sponsoring a presentation and two professional development workshops by Roberto Ibarra and Gary Weissmann related to the multicontext framework. These “Context Diversity Workshops” were intended to introduce STEM faculty to the concept of context diversity, encourage participants to “activate” the multicontext approach in their classrooms and labs, and develop practical strategies for implementation. The interviews used in this study were conducted with potential workshop participants to better understand how STEM faculty mentors’ interactions and perspectives reflected high and low context orientations prior to participating in the workshops.

Research Design

This research study used a narrative research design. According to Creswell (2013), narrative research is ideal for telling stories to illuminate what is occurring by capturing the experiences of the participants. Narrative research inquiry can be generalized to the extent the phenomena relates to the overall experiences as it relates to the potential site for generalization (Osbeck & Antczak, 2021). Overall, this study sought to tell the stories of what was occurring with respect to faculty mentors’ roles in URS, work with students, research philosophy/identity, teaching philosophy/strategies, and student success. This manuscript only focuses on how faculty mentors worked with the URM students and why they did this work.

Sample/Participants

We invited 33 faculty mentors to participate in telephone interviews based on their participation in the NM AMP Undergraduate Research Scholars (URS) program as faculty mentors. One-third (n = 11) were interviewed. The sample included six women and five men. A majority were white (n = 9), held the title/rank of Assistant Professor (n = 6), and were predominantly from engineering (n = 5), as detailed in Table 1. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identity of the participants, allow for readability of quotes, and humanize the participants. These STEM faculty had all served as URS mentors for at least 1 year, with an average of 8 years of involvement, and one had worked with the program for 18 years.

Table 1.

Descriptions of Faculty Mentors Interviewed in the Study.

Faculty Mentor	Discipline	Title/ranks	Race/ethnicity	Gender	Number of years with/program
Allen	Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering	Assistant Professor	Asian	Male	2½
Beverly	Chemical and Materials Engineering	Assistant Professor	White	Female	4–5
Calvin	Biology	Professor	White	Male	18
David	Civil Engineering	Professor	White	Male	15
Eric	Chemical and Materials Engineering	Assistant Professor	White	Male	2
Fiona	Biology	Associate Professor	White	Female	15
Geraline	Psychology	Assistant Professor	White	Female	1½
Heather	Civil Engineering	Associate Professor	White	Female	16
Ingrid	Chemistry and Biochemistry	Assistant Professor	White	Female	2
Janet	Animal and Range Sciences	Assistant Professor	Hispanic/Latino	Female	2
Kendrick	Physics	Professor	White	Male	10

Data Collection

This study employed a semi-structured interview protocol, which allows researchers to ask questions of each participant so they could tell their stories centered around a particular topic, yet be flexible enough to probe as needed (Patton, 2015). This allowed participants to tell their stories (Creswell, 2013; Patton, 2015). Each faculty mentor was asked to share their stories of mentoring URM students in research apprenticeships and teaching strategies employed as methods to create inclusive learning environments that improved the learning experiences of all of their students. Follow-up probing questions were asked to ensure descriptive stories regarding teaching, mentoring, research, scientific identity, and student success. Interview questions related to teaching and mentorship included the following: “What is your teaching philosophy?” “How do you convey complex ideas to students in class?” “Which teaching strategies have you used that you find most effective?” “What does mentorship look like for you?” and “Why did you become a mentor?” An example of a probing question was “Tell me about your experiences with New Mexico AMP students in the labs.” This allowed us to better understand how their activities related to the program participants (with special attention given to the intersection of multiple identities, i.e., women, ethnic minorities, low-income, first-generation) at this HSI.

Data Analysis

We utilized two different data analysis strategies to illuminate the stories of the participants: qualitative comparative analysis (QCA; Ragin, 1998; Ragin et al., 2003; Ragin, 2005) and thematic coding (Creswell, 2013). To determine how these faculty engaged students in the learning process, we employed QCA. To determine why these faculty extend their teaching practice beyond the classroom into formal mentoring relationships with undergraduate students, we employed thematic coding analysis.

Research question one, about multicontext teaching strategies employed by the URS faculty mentors at an HSI, was interpreted primarily from the deductive perspective using QCA. QCA is a qualitative data analysis approach that strengthens context-rich cases while making possible a systematic comparison that illuminates both the differences and similarities between cases ranging from eight to 200 (Ragin, 1998; Ragin et al., 2003; Ragin, 2005). The Weissmann et al. (2019) framework specified the contrast between low-context (LC) and high-context (HC) academic context was used to categorize the pedagogical perspectives of faculty. Based on that understanding, a codebook was developed to examine our research question about multicontext teaching strategies employed by URS faculty mentors with the predetermined high context educative strategies. The QCA coding took into consideration case variations and uniqueness based on the predetermined phenomena. In the final analysis, both “+” and “−” were used to create truth tables with “+” indicating the representation of the phenomena and “−” representing the non-existence of the phenomena per case. In this study, the phenomenon is low or high multi-context learning by educational concept category.

For research question two, about why these faculty extended their teaching practice beyond the classroom into formal mentoring relationships with undergraduate students, we used thematic coding. Thematic coding allows researchers to label descriptive text based on categories that best describe the phenomena (Creswell, 2013). These descriptive text clusters are grouped into themes. Themes are “broad units of information that consist of several codes aggregated to form a common idea” (p. 186). Themes with the most text clusters within the category were identified. For this study, the following themes emerged: intrinsic benefits, affinity to increase URM student participation in STEM, and build research capacity.

Creswell (2013) likens validation to trustworthiness, and vice versa. Simply stated, he sees validation as a means of assessing the accuracy of the findings, which can employ a number of strategies (e.g., prolonged engagement in field, clarifying researcher bias, peer review or debriefing, member checking, external audits, rich, thick descriptions; pp. 250–253). For this study, we employed the following: peer review; rich, thick descriptions; and audits. Once data were coded, a peer reviewer examined the codes and text to determine if they reached the same conclusions. Any text not fitting the code was discussed and re-aligned with a code that better fit its meaning (when applicable). Having rich, descriptive text allowed us to do so, by letting the words of the participants speak for themselves. Also, as we continued to analyze and write up the findings, the authors continuously provided internal audits of text for accuracy by asking do these data support the conclusion, especially as it related to the multicontext strategies and reasons for engaging in the work.

Positionality

The authors are first-generation college graduates who recognize the profound impact mentors have had on their educational and professional journeys, and on the journeys of the many students that they have worked with. Two of the authors hold PhDs in Sociology and one holds a PhD in Educational Administration; they are at various stages of their careers, currently serving as Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Dean/Full Professor. Their teaching and research have focused on underserved populations across all stages of the educational process, including K-12 and higher education. Each has extensive experience teaching, mentoring, and conducting research at HSIs.

Findings

Multicontext Teaching and Mentoring Strategies

When analyzing multicontext strategies of the URS faculty mentors, we learned that nearly all of them used high context teaching and mentoring strategies, as shown on Table 2. Of the 11 participants, almost all of them engaged in high context teaching and mentoring strategies: academic style (92%), orientation (82%), approach to knowledge (73%), interaction (64%), information/data (64%), space (55%), time (46%), and space (46%). That is, faculty’s academic styles were more likely to be more student-oriented and sought to engage students by beginning with the students’ knowledge base and then moving to more scientific phenomena. Additionally, they focused on understanding processes as opposed to tasks (orientation); the correct answer was less important than ensuring that students understood how to do so. The faculty also focused on real-world occurrences to help students make connections (approach to knowledge) while sharing stories to help information stick (interaction). Faculty spent a lot of time contextualizing data to help students digest it (information/data) as well as forced students to work collaborative and share resources. Additionally, both men and women faculty mentors used high context learning strategies. Strategies that stood out included: use of real-world experiences, hands-on experiences, and engaging multiple learning styles, which we explain in detail. The following section highlights the high context teaching and mentoring strategies employed by these STEM faculty.

Table 2.

Use of Multicontext Strategies by STEM Faculty in the Study.

Dimension of Academic Culture	Context(Low or High)	Characteristics of Context Strategy*	Count and Percentage of Interviewees Using Context Strategy
Academic Teaching/ Mentoring Style	Low	Technical; individual, less interactive, faculty oriented	1 (9.1%)
Academic Teaching/ Mentoring Style	High	Personal; open, more interactive, student oriented	10 (91.9%)
Orientation	Low	Task Oriented	1 (9.1%)
Orientation	High	Process Oriented	9 (81.8%)
Approach to knowledge	Low	Theoretical; values examination of ideas over real-world applications	1 (9.1%)
Approach to knowledge	High	Applied; applications of knowledge to the real world are highly valued	8 (72.7%)
Interaction	Low	Direct communication of unembellished facts	0 (0%)
Interaction	High	Indirect communication of ideas that uses stories to convey meanings of facts and concepts	7 (63.6%)
Information/ Data	Low	May be separated from context	3 (27.3%)
Information/ Data	High	Must be evaluated in context	7 (63.6%)
Space	Low	Personal property is shared less	0 (0%)
Space	High	Personal property is shared more	6 (54.5%)
Time	Low	Regimented; a commodity that is spent, wasted, saved	0 (0%)
Time	High	Flow; deadlines are goals, but completing work correctly is more important	5 (45.5%)
Thinking	Low	Linear	1 (9.1%)
Thinking	High	Nonlinear, relational	5 (45.5%)

adapted from Weissmann et al. 2019

Real-World Experiences

Faculty mentors provided real-world experiences for students to engage with complex material. Fiona, a faculty member in Biology, summed up this sentiment by noting that teaching in STEM is quite the opposite of low context learning: “A lot of time students are thinking that science is about memorizing facts. What I'm trying to get students to do is to first of all understand and second of all to analyze data.” This sentiment was expressed by most of the faculty who provided examples of what this may look like. For example, Allen stated “I don't like just lecture. I avoid the use of just the slides. I prefer to use the discussion with the students and writing on the board and I keep asking questions during the lecture making sure that it is an interactive way. My discussions are based on applications.” Another faculty mentor noted how he doesn’t just contextualize with real-world examples, but also tries to make it relatable. Calvin, a faculty member in Biology, noted: “I try to introduce them to the kinds of experiments that gave rise to how we know what cells do and why. More importantly, why cells do what they do when things go wrong. . . I'm always trying to tie in things like examples that they could relate to such as diseases or pathologies and things like that that are associated with underlying some of the things that I talked about in class.” These examples allow students to see the real-world issues being addressed by the work they are studying.

Hands-on Experiences

Other faculty members focused on providing more hands-on experiences for students. David, a faculty member in Engineering, noted: “My teaching philosophy kind of revolves around getting students, I would describe it in one or two words, transfer learning. In the laboratory, you're working with your hands. It's very hands-on type work.” Geraline, a faculty member in Psychology, explained: “I think, it is important for students to get hands-on experience working with all aspects that they're interested in. . . .They'll eventually get to the point where they are designing and running their own studies. . . . They start working on some of the more basic tasks, but they see how the lab works they help in their first semester.” Eric, a faculty member in Engineering, describes the importance of hands-on experiences in teams:

As I mentioned, getting hands-on experience is key. I like to focus on active learning process. They just don’t do it by themselves. Instead, they sometimes do it in a team, actually, most of the time, they do it in the team:

Collectively, the faculty mentors found ways to create hands-on experiences in order for students to engage with the material in new and different ways.

Multiple Academic Learning Styles

Another aspect of multicontext teaching and mentoring was being able to engage students using multiple academic learning styles. This included using multiple approaches and intentionally blending classroom and lab experiences. Heather, a faculty member in Engineering, noted how you must read, write, explain, do, and then repeat.

I also know that and that’s human nature. We learn by doing and by being exposed to the concepts multiple times. So, I explained it once. I give an example. I give them the opportunity to write it down. I give them the opportunity to read it and then they look at it again. We look at it multiple times in different ways. . . .

When blending these different ways of explaining complex thoughts, faculty mentors were better able to connect with the students, as Ingrid, a faculty member in Chemistry, explained, one must blend the different classroom and lab experiences. She first talked about her lab experience, then she discussed how it connected to the classroom. “I use lots of active learning and interactive lectures in the lab I have a lab manager. So, the students get a form of mentoring from me for like the big question about their projects.” Thus, the faculty mentors saw the value in allowing students to use their multiple learning strategies to connect with the material.

Differences Among High Context Teaching and Mentoring

Comparisons were drawn between the number of years faculty had participated in the program and evidence of high context practices apparent in the interviews. Almost everyone employed some type of high context learning strategies. One faculty member with a decade of experience with the program showed none of the high context practices, while a faculty member who had only 2 years with the program showed evidence of all high context practices. Gender differences were also explored. Women were slightly more likely to describe high context teaching and mentoring practices than men; specifically, women expressed 50% to 100% of high context practices in interview data, while men expressed 0% to 88% of the high context practices in their interviews. Engineering professors had less variability in their use of high context teaching and mentoring practices (50%–63%) while the professors in sciences ranged from 0% to 100% high context practices. The race and ethnicity of faculty were rather homogenous, making a comparison on this category unnecessary.

Although all participants expressed ideas related to high context strategies, there was one who did not see a connection between the work he did in the classroom and the work he did with the students in the URS. Kendrick, a faculty member in Physics, noted that “There is no connection between what I do in the classroom and New Mexico AMP.” He was also the faculty mentor who practiced a number of low context strategies. Other differences were that female faculty were more likely than the male faculty to be flexible with time and deadlines, prioritize the use of shared space, and use nonlinear/relational thinking. Geraline noted how she allowed students to work in the labs to complete assignments for the experience alone; they get to work until they get it right (or closer to the answer). Janet, a faculty member in Animal Sciences, “I try to keep my lab, everybody helping each other in my lab. So, I have senior undergrads that are training junior undergrads, and grad students helping everybody.” This participation in high context teaching strategies was prevalent among the mentors.

Why Faculty Serve as URS Mentors

Overall, the faculty mentors working with the URS began their work in many of the same ways. Many of the faculty mentors were recruited by department heads and colleagues with whom they worked. Their motivation to participate in the program solidified their connection to multicontext teaching and mentoring strategies, more specifically, provided the foundation for why high context teaching and mentoring matters. When specifically asked why they served as mentors, the faculty’s responses could be grouped into three different themes:

Intrinsic Benefit of Mentoring Undergraduates

A majority of the faculty mentors participated because they found working with students in a research setting intrinsically beneficial. As Calvin stated, “I love working with the students.” This sentiment resonated with most of the mentors. According to Geraline, student enthusiasm for the work reinvigorates the faculty member in the effort. In addition, the faculty member understood how the research experience as an undergraduate can be valuable for students, and that knowledge further provokes undergraduate research engagement.

I love how students can really get excited about projects and that motivates me to keep doing research. I also had some really good experiences when I was a student being mentored and getting my hands on all different parts of the project, and I think it was really valuable for me and helping me to get where I am. So, I want to be able to provide opportunities like that for students so that they can also succeed.

As this mentor noted, the students motivated her to persist in her mentoring research endeavors.

Affinity for Increasing Participation of Underserved Students in STEM

Faculty mentors participate in URS to increase minority participation in STEM. The faculty members believed the extra attention to retain minoritized students was important, particularly given the mission of the institution as an HSI. Faculty mentors did not always specify that they were URS faculty mentors, yet two of the faculty mentors noted that as a reason specifically. For example, Calvin indicated the role of an ally, and described having underrepresented students in the lab had become the norm for the faculty member’s team:

I, not really being an underrepresented minority myself, I feel an obligation to especially being here at New Mexico State University to try and broaden the participation of underrepresented groups. So I've had Native American PhDs and African-American PhDs. . .. PhDs, Masters, and undergrads. It's sort of part of the lab’s identity.

Allen, a faculty member in Engineering, added that he believed participation in a program for underrepresented minority students in undergraduate research for making connections across academic and applied STEM, and for opening doors to new opportunities.

[Participating in URS] was a very good opportunity for the undergraduate students and for minority students here pursuing STEM. They can see a connection between research and their education . . . New Mexico AMP opened many doors for myself and for these students for their future.

Other faculty members discussed minority and women participation in STEM at New Mexico State University. NM AMP aims to recruit primarily minoritized students, and as such, it was an overarching belief by nearly half of the faculty members that students in the program were representative of the student population at New Mexico State University, which is a Hispanic-Serving Institution. In this way, engaging undergraduate students inherently promoted the participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM.

Research Capacity Improvements Through Undergraduate Student Participation

Faculty mentors also served because of the mutually beneficial relationship they had with students. When asked why she mentored students in URS, one mentor indicated that she did it for multiple reasons but mainly because she enjoyed the research with students and saw the value of including them in her own productivity.

I know this is very beneficial to them but in a selfish way I enjoy doing it [uhm]. . . It takes a lot of time, but from my part, I get joy and satisfaction from seeing them enjoying the project, presenting their results, their posters and, learning through the process. . . .I get to work with them and mentor them, but also um. . . it is good for my project to have undergraduates.” [Heather].

In a similar vein, five faculty discussed the work they do with the URS program students as a win-win situation for the student and for the productivity of the research group. Faculty members saw the URS program as a means for getting students interested in STEM by engaging in firsthand (hands-on) laboratory work. Students were able to gain experience with research and faculty were able to receive assistance in their labs.

Beyond the work of undergraduate students in the program, faculty noted the ways in which they have created graduate pathways for their undergraduate students that support deep knowledge of their research work and extended time for students to develop skills alongside their mentors. A faculty member described how working with a student as an undergraduate then recruiting the student to graduate work can create a smooth transition and support rapid student development within the research project. The faculty mentor stated:

To have a graduate student where you know them already from their undergraduate for one year or two years –it will be a very smooth transition. And if a student does not know what that means, you know graduate studies, he (or she) will be learning it during that research experience with the program and it may encourage him or her to pursue graduate studies at New Mexico State University or other schools. It will enhance the performance of the future engineers and researchers in STEM.

Another faculty mentor who also served because of the work with students noted that being a mentor helped strengthen the pipeline to graduate education in the field, whether in his or her group or beyond. Allen added:

I am very happy to do this because of many reasons. The first one is that we are preparing the next generation of researchers and engineers. So, for me, maybe from these 5 or 7 fellows I am working with, okay, maybe three or four of them will go on to pursue their graduate studies in my lab or in the department of mechanical and aerospace. . . . So that's when it would be very good pipeline.

Collectively, the URS faculty mentors appeared to be re-energized by the work they were doing with the URM students. The relationships appeared to be mutually symbiotic. The desire to help their students make connections appeared to also drive them to engage with their students in the classrooms in high context ways as well.

Discussion

Ultimately, these findings from the study may begin to illuminate ways we can increase URM student participation in STEM at HSIs by understanding the how and why of faculty work as we examine what we learned and how it relates to the existing literature. When answering the question, how do these faculty engage students in the learning process, we found that most faculty mentors employed high context teaching and mentoring strategies as suggested in Weissmann et al.’s (2019) framework. They engaged students in hands-on experiences; focused on the process of conducting experiments (less on actual results); had students working in teams; explored real-world, relatable examples, contextualized; delivered interactive lectures (discussion of ideas); employed multiple approaches (e.g., reading, writing, experimenting); and intentionally blended classroom and lab experiences. Because STEM instruction has been known for its sterile learning environments (Chang et al., 2014; Heilbronner, 2011), findings from this study suggest that things may be changing. Our findings are aligned with existing literature that note the importance of STEM faculty incorporating ways for students to see themselves in instruction (Moore, 2022; Pfeifer et al., 2021; Rivera et al., 2013).

Additionally, we found that female faculty members were more likely than their male counterparts (women = 6.1; men = 4.6) to use more high context strategies than males per Weissmann et al. (2019). Specifically, female faculty mentors were also more likely than male faculty to use nonlinear/relational thinking, be flexible with time and deadlines, and prioritize the use of shared space. This finding suggests that the more diverse the STEM field is, the more likely we are to see multiple teaching and mentoring strategies that allow students to thrive. It not only speaks to diversity of race, but also gender and teaching approaches. Although current literature does not specifically speak to gendered differences among faculty mentors, one must consider the notion that high context teaching and mentoring strategies are more aligned with faculty at HSI who are intentional about “serving” and supporting the success of students. By understanding the multiple contexts in which the students are learning, the faculty were able to incorporate that information into their lessons as a way to help students better understand the material. Faculty made every effort to help students make real-life connections with the work they are doing in STEM. This finding is consistent with research that finds that STEM faculty engaging with students in meaningful ways has a positive impact on student success (Estrada et al., 2016; Jones et al., 2010; Simmons, 2018; Thiry & Laursen, 2011). Although Weissmann et al.’s (2019) framework was created and applied to classroom experiences, we also applied it for use in the undergraduate research mentorship strategies, thus blurring the lines between mentorship and teaching with regard to the learning environment.

Faculty play a critical role in student success. Thus, understanding why these faculty extend their teaching practice beyond the classroom into formal mentoring relationships with undergraduate students became equally critical. Similar to the research related to faculty mentors (Guzzardo et al., 2021; Law et al., 2020; Morales et al., 2016), URS faculty mentors wanted to engage with students because they saw the impact of the work on their success. This finding speaks to institutional support of such endeavors that Davis et al. (2020) noted in their work that institutional support matters. Unlike Davis et al. (2020) which found that institutional support for undergraduate research participation was the main reason, the defining reason for this study’s faculty was either to increase URM student participation in STEM fields and because it was a win-win situation in which they were able to learn from the students while the students were learning from them. Several faculty even highlighted the excitement from the students, while others explained that it was simply part of the culture at the Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) where they worked. Fortunately, faculty saw their work as inherent to the mission of the institution.

One potential explanation for the alignment between these faculty’s philosophies and practices and multicontext theory is the institutional context. As faculty at a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI), participants may have been aware of the discussions around diversity, equity, and inclusion broadening participation and multicontext sustaining teaching practices and these informed their professional worldview. HSIs play a substantial role in college access and persistence of URM students in higher education, especially with regard to STEM education. While HSIs make up only 8% of all postsecondary institutions in the U.S., they award a disproportionately higher number of STEM degrees to Hispanics (as cited in Museus et al., 2011). Museus et al. (2011) noted that minority-serving institutions (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), HSIs) had more student success (i.e., degree attainment) among URM STEM students than Predominantly/Historically White Institutions (P/HWIs). That said, faculty tended to be keenly aware of the context within which they engaged with students.

Some faculty mentors expressed a sense of responsibility to “serve” the university’s student population which is congruent with the HSI/land grant institutional mission and appeared to organically embrace Garcia et al.’s (2019) notion of servingness. Extending beyond mere enrollment figures, servingness brings attention to the role institutions and organizations play in shaping students’ experiences and subsequent outcomes (for review see Garcia et al., 2019). Although our research does not directly address the role institutional factors may have played in shaping the attitudes of the faculty mentors in our study, the congruence between servingness, multicontext theory and our findings is noteworthy and suggests that faculty at HSIs may be particularly amenable to professional development efforts that facilitate the development of teaching and mentoring strategies based in strength-based approaches. In other words, multicontext allows faculty to speak to the students’ language.

Implications

Grounded in the ability to help all students and faculty make connections with course content, multicontext learning and mentoring strategies (Ibarra, 2001; Weissmann et al., 2019) speak to the hearts of URM students enrolled at an HSI. Findings from this study have major implications for practice, especially as it relates to using varying teaching and mentoring strategies to increase URM participation in STEM at HSIs. These implications center around using high context teaching strategies, faculty mentors in programs like the program featured in this study, and the role of the HSI in building the capacity of URM students in STEM.

When faculty mentors work with URM students, they should create classroom experiences that help students imagine themselves pursuing a path in STEM (e.g., Heilbronner, 2011; King, 2015; Moakler & Kim, 2014; Shaw & Barbuti, 2010; Strayhorn, 2015). One way this happens is through high context teaching and mentoring strategies, such as allowing students to research issues that revolve around problems and/or issues based on their experiences; allowing students opportunities to learn to experiment in low-risk processes; and allowing students to show what they have learned using multiple ways (e.g., videos, reflections, poster sessions). These strategies enable students to connect with STEM in ways that highlight their culture and experiences. Given that this specific program is designed for students early in their STEM careers, it is essential for faculty mentors to demonstrate to students the various aspects of STEM work, including experimental design, fabrication, research, and management (Hildt et al., 2024). This could be done by moving students through a whole cycle for the first semester and then allowing students to specialize in specific areas of interest as they continue in the program. This could allow students to hone special skills in STEM that highlight strengths. Faculty mentors could create peer networks that provide support for URM students in STEM. This will allow students to share ideas of overcoming obstacles that may not be apparent to faculty mentors and other students in the laboratories. Combined, these strategies help URM students feel connected to STEM.

Finally, a vital implication for this research is the notion that faculty mentors have to be keenly aware of the students enrolled in their programs (Morales et al., 2016). Since HSIs have a reputation for increasing minority participation in STEM (Museus et al., 2011), it is important for faculty mentors to know this and be able to prioritize the mission of the institution and/or learning the students they serve (Morales et al., 2016). This could be accomplished through professional development opportunities, such as the Context Diversity workshop sponsored by NM AMP, the integration of these priorities into formal institutional strategic plans or mission statements, and ongoing communication by university leadership. Additionally, it is incumbent upon search committees to seek to understand faculty knowledge of institutional dynamics of “servingness” and how it fits within their teaching, mentorship, and research philosophies.

Programs such as the New Mexico Alliance for Minority Participation are designed to increase URM student participation in STEM. This is especially helpful at HSIs which graduate more URM students in STEM than other institutional types. Possibly, this works because faculty mentors in STEM are willing to engage URM students in high context learning strategies. That is, they allow students to see themselves as scientists and engineers by connecting activities to real-world problems, providing multiple ways of showing growth and learning, and showing students that there is value in their experiences. As institutions may have to consider becoming less reliant on federal interventions for research, development, and inequities in STEM education, it becomes increasingly important for STEM faculty and HSIs to ensure that the great work begun can continue.

Future research should work to gain a deeper understanding of how multicontext teaching and mentorship strategies contribute to URM student success in STEM at HSIs, and offer actionable recommendations for faculty, institutions, and policymakers working to broaden participation and support student success in STEM fields. To continue and expand the use of high context teaching and mentoring strategies by STEM faculty, for example, researchers might want to explore how these approaches to teaching and mentoring impact STEM faculty themselves, particularly in terms of their professional development, job satisfaction, and ongoing commitment to serving underrepresented students. Do postsecondary institutions value and reward faculty providing high context learning for their students? How can institutions better support faculty in their efforts to engage URM students through innovative teaching practices?

To understand the true impact of high context teaching and mentoring strategies on STEM undergraduate students, we recommend more narratives from STEM undergraduate students to better appreciate which approaches are most and least effective across diverse student populations. Longitudinal quantitative work with students could also investigate whether students that experience high context teaching have higher levels of self-efficacy and a more sustained interest in STEM disciplines and careers in the shorter term, and also track the long-term academic and career outcomes of students who are engaged in high-context teaching and mentoring strategies throughout their undergraduate experience. This would further our understandings of whether the use of multicontext strategies by faculty correlates with increased student success, graduate school admissions, and/or career success for students in STEM fields.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to Roberto Ibarra, Gary Weissmann, and the WAESO LSAMP team for their invaluable consultation. Their visionary scholarship has provided a foundational framework for understanding identity, inclusion, and transformation in higher education, and continues to inform our approach to fostering faculty and student success in diverse academic contexts. We also extend our thanks to the New Mexico Alliance for Minority Participation (NM AMP) staff, students, and faculty mentors for their contributions and support throughout this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1826758. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

ORCID iDs

Henrietta Williams Pichon

Sandra M. Way

Stephanie M. Arnett

Author Biographies

Henrietta Williams Pichon is a Dean/Professor in the College of Education and Human Sciences at Louisiana Tech University. She earned her doctoral degree from the University of New Orleans. Her research focuses on the experiences of underrepresented individuals in higher education, centered around student success, the professoriate, and leadership.

Sandra M. Way is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at New Mexico State University. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Arizona before working as a Post-Doctoral Fellow at RAND Education. Her scholarship focuses on the effects of school organization and climate on students’ educational outcomes.

Stephanie M. Arnett earned her Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame. She is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at New Mexico State University. Her research centers on educational inequality, cross-national comparisons of student achievement, and STEM identity formation among underrepresented students.

References

Adamuti-Trache

Zhang

Y. L.

(2022). Science and engineering degree attainment of aspiring-scientists in the United States. International Journal of Science Education, 44(14), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2119898

Asai

D. J.

(2020). Race matters. Cells, 181(4), 754–757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.03.044

Baird

M. D.

Buchinsky

Sovero

(2018). Decomposing the racial gap in STEM major attrition: A course-level investigation (RAND Working Paper Series WR-1171). https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1171.html

Bottia

M. C.

Mickelson

R. A.

Jamil

Moniz

Barry

(2021). Factors associated with college STEM participation of racially minoritized students: A synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 91(4), 614–648. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211012751

Chang

M. J.

Sharkness

Hurtado

Newman

C. B.

(2014). What matters in college for retaining aspiring scientists and engineers from underrepresented racial groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(5), 555–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21146

Charleston

Jackson

(2014). Using culturally responsive practices to broaden participation in the educational pipeline: Addressing the unfinished business of Brown in the field of computing sciences. Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 400–419. https://doi.org/107709/;nergoeducation.83.3.0400

Chávez

A. F.

Longerbeam

S. D.

(2016). Teaching across cultural strengths: A guide to balancing integrated and individuated cultural frameworks in college teaching. Stylus Publishing.

Chen

(2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education (NCES 2009-161). U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009161.pdf

Chen

(2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014oo1rev.pdf

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(Ed.). (2013). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

11.

Davis

S. N.

Jones

R. M.

Mahatmya

Garner

P. W.

(2020). Encouraging or obstructing? Assessing factors that impact faculty engagement in undergraduate research mentoring. Frontiers in Education, 5(114), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00114

12.

Eagan

M. K.

Jr Sharkness

Hurtado

Mosqueda

C. M

Chang

M. J.

(2011). Engaging undergraduates in science research: Not just about faculty willingness. Research in Higher Education, 52(2), 151–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9189-9

13.

Estrada

Burnett

Campbell

A. G.

Campbell

P. B.

Denetclaw

W. F.

Gutierrez

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), 151–177. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0038

14.

Flynn

D. T.

(2016). STEM field persistence: The impact of engagement on postsecondary STEM persistence for underrepresented minority students. Journal of Educational Issues, 2(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v2i1.9245

15.

Garcia

G. A.

Núñez

A. M.

Sansone

V. A.

(2019). Toward a multidimensional conceptual framework for understanding “servingness” in Hispanic-serving institutions: A synthesis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 745–784. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319864591

16.

Gay

(2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. Teachers College Press.

17.

Guzzardo

M. T.

Khosla

Adams

A. L.

Bussmann

J. D.

Engelman

Ingraham

Gamba

Jones-Bey

Moore

M. D.

Toosi

N. R.

Taylor

(2021). The ones that care make all the difference: Perspectives on student-faculty relationships. Innovative Higher Education, 46(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09522-w

18.

Hatfield

Brown

Topaz

C. M.

(2022). Do introductory courses disproportionately drive minoritized students out of STEM pathways? PNAS Nexus, 1(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac167

19.

Heilbronner

N. N.

(2011). Stepping onto the STEM pathway: Factors affecting talented students’ declaration of STEM majors in college. Journal for the education of the gifted, 34(6), 876–899. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211425100

20.

Henry

R. J.

(2010). An assessment of STEM faculty involvement in reform of introductory college courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 39(6), 74–81. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42993840

21.

Hildt

Laas

Miller

C. Z.

Taylor

(2024). Student views on the culture of STEM research laboratories: Results from an interview study. Accountability in Research, 31(2), 100–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2109018

22.

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

23.

Ibarra

R. A.

(2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher education. University of Wisconsin Press.

24.

Jones

M. T.

Barlow

A. E.

Villarejo

(2010). Importance of undergraduate research for minority persistence and achievement in biology. Journal of Higher Education, 81(1), 82–115. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0082

25.

King

(2015). Changing college majors: Does it happen more in STEM and do grades matter? Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3), 44–51.

26.

Ladson-Billings

(1994). The dreamkeepers. Jossey-Bass Publishing Co.

27.

Law

D. D.

Hales

Busenbark

(2020). Student success: A literature review of faculty to student mentoring. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 4(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.15142138x2-n847

28.

Maltese

A. V.

Tai

R. H.

(2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among U.S. students. Science & Education, 95(5), 877–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20441

29.

Moakler

M. W.

Kim

M. M.

(2014). College major choice in STEM: Revisiting confidence and demographic factors. Career Development Quarterly, 62(2), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00075.x

30.

Moll

L. C.

Amanti

Neff

Gonzalez

(1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534

31.

Moore

M. Z.

(2022). Fostering a sense of belonging using a multicontext approach. Journal of College Student Retention Research Theory and Practice, 24(3), 703–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120944828

32.

Morales

D. X.

Grineski

S. E.

Collins

T. W.

(2016). Influences on faculty willingness to mentor undergraduate students from another university as part of an interinstitutional research training program. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(3), ar35. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-01-0039

33.

Museus

S. D.

Palmer

R. T.

Davis

R. J.

Maramba

(2011). Factors that influence success among racial and ethnic minority college students in the STEM circuit. Racial and Ethnic Minority Students’ Success in STEM Education: ASHE Higher Education Report, 36(6), 53–85. https://dx.doi.org/10/1002/ashe.3606

34.

National Science Foundation. (n.d). Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP). https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/louis-stokes-alliances-minority-participation

35.

Osbeck

L. M.

Antczak

S. L.

(2021). Generalizability and qualitative research: A new look at an ongoing controversy. Qualitative Psychology, 8(1), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000194

36.

Paris

(2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x12441244

37.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

38.

Pfeifer

L. S.

Soreghan

M. J.

Feille

K. K.

Soreghan

G. S.

Weissmann

G. S.

Ibarra

R. A.

Stroud

W. A.

(2021). Activation of the multicontext model in a field-based program for traditionally underserved students. Journal of Geoscience Education, 69(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2020.1838850

39.

Ragin

C. C.

(1998). The logic of qualitative comparative analysis. International Review of Social History, 43, 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020859000115111

40.

Ragin

C. C.

(2005). Core versus tangential assumptions in comparative research. Studies in Comparative International Development, 40(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02686286

41.

Ragin

C. C.

Shulman

Weinberg

Gran

(2003). Complexity, generality, and qualitative comparative analysis. Field Methods, 15(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x03257689

42.

Riegle-Crumb

King

Irizarry

(2019). Does STEM stand out? Examining racial/ethnic gaps in persistence across postsecondary fields. Educational Researcher, 48(3), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x19831006

43.

Rincón

B. E.

Rodriguez

(2021). Latinx students charting their own STEM pathways: How community cultural wealth informs their STEM identities. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 20(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192720968276

44.

Rivera

M. A.

Howland-Davis

Feldman

Rachkowski

(2013). An outcome evaluation of an adult education and postsecondary alignment program: The Accelerate New Mexico experience. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 11(4), 104–111. https://www.businessperspectives.org/images/pdf/applications/publishing/templates/article/assets/5482/PPM_2013_04_Rivera.pdf

45.

Rodríguez

Mundy

M. A.

Kupczynski

Challoo

(2018). Effects of teaching strategies on student success, persistence, and perceptions of course evaluations. Research in Higher Education Journal, 35, 1–21. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ej1194444.pdf

46.

Salinas

(2020). The complexity of the “x” in Latinx: How Latinx/a/o students relate to, identify with, and understand the term Latinx. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 19(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192719900382

47.

Shaw

E. J.

Barbuti

(2010). Patterns of persistence in intended college major with a focus on stem majors. NACADA Journal, 30(2), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.12930/0271-9517-30.2.19

48.

Simmons

K. N.

(2018). Effect of undergraduate research programs on retention of Hispanic students [Doctoral dissertation, University of New Mexico]. University of New Mexico Digital Repository. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent

49.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2015). Factors influencing black males’ preparation for college and success in STEM majors: A mixed methods study. Western Journal of Black Studies, 39(1), 45–63.

50.

Thiry

Laursen

S. L.

(2011). The role of student-advisor interactions in apprenticing undergraduate researchers into a scientific community of practice. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 771–784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9271-2

51.

Weissmann

G. S.

Ibarra

R. A.

Howland-Davis

Lammey

M. V.

(2019). The multicontext path to redefining how we access and think about diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. Journal of Geoscience Education, 67(4), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10899995.2019.1620527

Understanding the “Why” of STEM Faculty Mentors and How They Engage in High Context Teaching and Mentoring Strategies

Abstract

Keywords

Literature Review

STEM Academic Environment

Faculty as Teachers and Mentors

Theoretical Framework

Methodology

Setting

Research Design

Sample/Participants

Data Collection

Data Analysis

Positionality

Findings

Multicontext Teaching and Mentoring Strategies

Real-World Experiences

Hands-on Experiences

Multiple Academic Learning Styles

Differences Among High Context Teaching and Mentoring

Why Faculty Serve as URS Mentors

Intrinsic Benefit of Mentoring Undergraduates

Affinity for Increasing Participation of Underserved Students in STEM

Research Capacity Improvements Through Undergraduate Student Participation

Discussion

Implications

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Author Biographies

References