Affinity Research Groups in Practice: Apprenticing Students in Research

Villa, Elsa Q.; Kephart, Kerrie; Gates, Ann Q.; Thiry, Heather; Hug, Sarah

doi:10.1002/jee.20016

Cited by 41 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cooperative learning was the primary influence for the structured team roles that were adopted in SCI 101L because they had been previously adopted in laboratory environments (Cooper, 2012; Gates et al, 1999; Villa et al, 2013). Our results suggest, however, that in a classroom laboratory environment, this aspect of cooperative learning may not be effective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In TBL, however, static teams are allowed to determine for themselves how to work together efficiently and productively without the added structure of assigned team roles (Michaelson et al, 2004). Moreover, TBL is designed for classroom-based course learning, whereas cooperative learning has been adopted in a variety of educational settings, including laboratory courses (Cooper, 2012) and research groups (Gates et al, 1999; Villa, Kephart, Gates, Thiry, & Hug, 2013). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Students’ Understanding and Perceptions of Assigned Team Roles in a Classroom Laboratory Environment

Ott

Kephart

Stolle-McAllister

et al. 2018

Journal of College Science Teaching

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a cooperative learning framework in a quantitative reasoning laboratory course, students were assigned to static teams of four in which they adopted roles that rotated regularly. The roles included: team leader, protocol manager, data recorder, and researcher. Using a mixed-methods approach, we investigated students' perceptions of the team roles and specifically addressed students' understanding of the roles, students' beliefs in their ability to enact the roles, and whether working with assigned team roles supported the teams to work effectively and cohesively. Although students expressed confidence in their understanding of the team roles, their understanding differed from the initial descriptions. This suggests that students' understanding of team roles may be influenced by a variety of factors, including their experiences within their teams. Students also reported that some roles appeared to lack a purpose, implying that for roles to be successful, they must have a clear purpose. Finally, the fact that many students reported ignoring the team roles suggests that students do not perceive roles as a requirement for team productivity and cohesion. On the basis of these findings, we provide recommendations for instructors wishing to establish a classroom group laboratory environment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ Understanding and Perceptions of Assigned Team Roles in a Classroom Laboratory Environment

Ott

Kephart

Stolle-McAllister

et al. 2018

Journal of College Science Teaching

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study of six graduate students in chemistry, Bhattacharyya and Bodner (2014) note that students' participation in research resulted in a deeper level of understanding of problem-solving techniques and concepts previously discussed in coursework, as demonstrated by their ability to engage in deeper chemistryrelated scientific conversations and research practices. Similarly, in a study of graduate students and alumni, Villa et al (2013) describe how some students improved their writing skills through collaborative writing with a faculty supervisor. The authors describe how participating in research activities and practices transformed students' selfperceptions; students' confidence in their research ability increased as a result of their social interactions and learning within the research group.…”

Section: Graduate Education Team-based Science Fields and Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social learning as a form of mediation is not unique to the Houston Research Group. As explained by Villa et al (2013), "members cross-train on each other's areas of expertise in order to expand participants' expertise and to ensure the group's continuation as members graduate and leave the group" (p. 462). Similarly, work by Pifer (2011) andFlemion (2013) highlights the significant roles social networks play in doctoral students' learning and professional identity development, peers being one of the significant social networks found in their study.…”

Section: Learning Competencies 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning competencies through engineering research group experiences

Burt

2017

SGPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In some fields, research group experiences gained in laboratories are more influential than the classroom in shaping graduate students’ research abilities, understandings of post-graduate careers and professional identities. However, little is known about what and how students learn from their research group experiences. This paper aims to explore the learning experiences of engineering graduate students in one chemical engineering research group to determine what students learned and to identify the practices and activities that facilitated their learning. Design/methodology/approach Ethnography was used to observe the experiences of one research group in chemical engineering. Fieldwork included 13 months of observations, 31 formal interviews (16 first-round and 15 second-round interviews) and informal interviews. Fieldnotes and transcriptions were analyzed using grounded theory techniques. Findings Research group members developed four dominant competencies: presenting research, receiving and responding to feedback, solving problems and troubleshooting problems. Students’ learning was facilitated by the practices and activities of the research group (e.g. weekly full group and subgroup meetings) and mediated through the interactions of others (i.e. peers, faculty supervisor and lab manager). Originality/value This study adds to the engineering education literature and contributes to the larger discourse on identifying promising practices and activities that improve student learning in graduate education.

show abstract

“…The constellation of these characteristics, according to the authors, encourages faster and deeper development of science identities than classroom experiences. Villa et al (2013) explored how participation in a research group prepared 100 current and previous historically underrepresented undergraduates and master's and doctoral students for graduate study and research careers. They studied a particular type of research group that deliberatively develops students' disciplinary learning, research skills, and capacity to work in teams, an affinity research group (ARG).…”

Section: Towards a Theory Of Engineering Professorial Intentionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Theory of Engineering Professorial Intentions: The Role of Research Group Experiences

Burt

2018

American Educational Research Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article advances the Theoretical Model of Engineering Professorial Intentions to explain why individuals do or do not choose to pursue faculty careers. A 13-month ethnographic study of members of a diverse chemical engineering research group was conducted. The resulting theoretical model accounts for six emergent components that contribute to members' identification with faculty careers: (1) social identities and personal factors; (2) sociocultural factors; (3) participation, interactions, and learning in research group experiences; (4) faculty prototype; (5) social comparisons; and (6) AbstractThis article advances the Theoretical Model of Engineering Professorial Intentions to explain why individuals do or not choose to pursue faculty careers. A thirteen-month ethnographic study of members of a diverse chemical engineering research group was conducted. The resulting theoretical model accounts for six emergent components that contribute to members' identification with faculty careers: 1) social identities and personal factors; 2) sociocultural factors; 3) participation, interactions, and learning in research group experiences; 4) faculty prototype; 5) social comparisons; and, 6) individual and institutional experiences. The article concludes with implications for further research and recommendations regarding mentoring and design of research group experiences that may promote greater interest in and identification with the professoriate.

show abstract

Affinity Research Groups in Practice: Apprenticing Students in Research

Abstract: Background The affinity research group (ARG) model is a set of practices built on a

Cited by 41 publications

References 31 publications

Students’ Understanding and Perceptions of Assigned Team Roles in a Classroom Laboratory Environment

Students’ Understanding and Perceptions of Assigned Team Roles in a Classroom Laboratory Environment

Learning competencies through engineering research group experiences

Toward a Theory of Engineering Professorial Intentions: The Role of Research Group Experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About