SURP 2016 Report - NDSU · Table 2- Summer Undergraduate Research Program 2016 Goals and Objectives...

SURP 2016 Report

North Dakota State University INBRE

Summer Undergraduate Research Program

NDSU INBRE | Department of Public Health | PO Box 6050 Dept. 2662 Fargo, ND 58108-6050

Disclaimer

Survey findings recorded in this report was supported by the National Institute of

General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number

P20GM103442. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not

necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Acknowledgements

The NDSU INBRE program staff thanks the SURP 2016 scholars, presenters, speakers,

partners, and NDSU Departments for making this program come to fruition. It would

have not been successful without all of you. Miigwech. Thank you.

Table of Contents

SURP 2016 Overview

SURP 2016 Goals and Objectives

SURP 2016 Surveys

Pre and post surveys

SURP Experience

Responses

Scholar comments

Program Improvement

Identified weaknesses and opportunities

Planning 2017

Appendices

Appendix A SURP 2016 Agenda

Appendix B Program costs

SURP 2016 OVERVIEW

The Summer Undergraduate Research Program (SURP) 2016 is a 2-week

research experience at the North Dakota State University (NDSU) campus hosted by

NDSU IDeA Network for Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE). The program is

open to all tribal college students in North Dakota with some to no research experience.

INBRE provides housing, meals, and a completion fee for scholars accepted into SURP.

The program aims to engage tribal college students in pursuing research as a career

opportunity.

In SURP 2015, INBRE partnered with the NDSU Experimental Program to

Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) to provide more opportunities for engaging

tribal students in research. The NDSU EPSCoR hosts a similar two week research

program as INBRE called Nurturing American Tribal Undergraduate Research

Experience (NATURE). The NATURE program has been at NDSU for over ten years

and recruits from a similar target group as SURP. However, SURP recruitment focused

on tribal college students ages 18 and over, whereas, NATURE recruits high school

students in addition to tribal college students. The majority of NATURE participants are

high school students, though, tribal college students also participate in their program.

The vision for the partnership was to create an opportunity for mentorship between

NATURE and SURP students. The partnership allowed SURP scholars to explore

research activities at the University of North Dakota such as Indians into Medicine

(INMED) and Recruitment/Retention of American Indian Nurses (RAIN).

The program dates in SURP 2015 held June 1-12, hindered participation from

many interested tribal college students due to prior arranged commitments e.g. summer

courses, other larger internships, and summer employment. Based on the input from

the SURP target group during recruitment in 2015, SURP staff pursued to host the

program May 15-28, 2016. These dates are after spring commencement and before

many summer courses begin leading the staff to believe in creating more opportunities

for students to partake in the program.

This year’s program included 5 scholars. The low number is due to a couple of

contributing factors. There was turn over within the program staff in addition to a staff

member taking medical leave during the recruitment phase; this impacted the face-to-

face interaction for recruitment at the tribal colleges. Improving the recruitment for

SURP 2017 will be discussed in the Program Improvement section. The following is a

summary of the demographics of the scholars in SURP 2016 (names and identifiers

have been removed).

Table 1- SURP 2016 Demographics

Tribal Community Turtle Mountain, Red Lake Academic interest Electrical Engineering, Agricultural Economics, Nursing, Medicine (2) College standing Sophomore (5) College attending Turtle Mountain Community College (3) North Dakota State University (2) Gender Female (3) Male (2)

*Table elements are based on the amount of scholars (n=5).

It is critical to include culture in programs for American Indian and indigenous

students. The success of tribal colleges presents a model for engaging students in

education while remaining culturally relevant. SURP strives to incorporate aspects of

indigenous culture as is deemed appropriate by tribal communities. For example, the

program opened and closed with a blessing by a spiritual leader to prepare the scholars

to learn and send them forward in a good way. The last day of the program included a

talking circle that creates a safe space for scholars to share their program experiences

and thoughts. Sessions also featured in the previous SURP included presentations by

indigenous researchers which made a positive impact on scholars. Scholars from

SURP 2015 wanted to see these presentations continue in future programming. The

SURP staff took the input from scholars and transformed the structure of these

presentations as luncheon research seminars.

In SURP 2016, local indigenous researchers gave presentations on their

educational journeys and research interests. Their topics included:

Donald Warne, Overview of Public Health Research in American Indian

Communities

Denise Lajimodiere, Research on Indian Boarding and Residential School

Experiences

Michael Yellowbird, Neurodecolonization: The Neuroscience of Traditional

Contemplative Practices

Petra Onehawk, Establishing a Food Co-Op and Buffalo Stew, and

Jamie Holding Eagle, Sacred Seeds.

Each presenter discussed indigenous perspectives on health and was a highlight of the

program among the scholars. They commented on how these presentations broadened

their views of health and understanding how to retain their culture while pursuing

research. One scholar said, “I liked learning the history of Native Americans and the

things that actually happened at boarding schools because no one ever tells young

people stories about our history.”

Another aspect of culture embedded into the program was an introduction to

indigenous research paradigms used in academia. The introduction sessions discussed

content from Shawn Wilson’s Research is Ceremony and Leslie Randall and Teshia

Solomon’s Conducting Health Research in Native American Communities. Each scholar

received a copy of Research is Ceremony by Shawn Wilson as a component of the

indigenous research methodologies sessions.

Scholars were introduced to the evolution of indigenous research paradigms in

academia, terminology, and concepts such as reciprocity, sovereignty, and creating

relationships in the indigenous research methodologies sessions. These sessions will

continue to be a part of the program as a means of discussing research that is relevant

to indigenous communities.

SURP 2016 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The recruitment goal for SURP 2016 was 10 students from North Dakota tribal

colleges. Ideally, 2 students from each college: Nueta-Hidatsa-Sahnish College

(NHSC), Turtle Mountain Community College (TMCC), Candeska Cikana Community

College (CCCC), Sitting Bull College (SBC), and United Tribes Technical College

(UTTC) was the anticipated goal for recruitment.

The SURP 2016 program recruited 5 tribal college undergraduate students. Of

the 5 students, 4 were from Turtle Mountain, ND. The fifth student was from Red Lake

Nation, MN. All students had completed at least one year of college coursework. Two

students were returning SURP scholars who participated in the 2015 program. Table 1

shows their academic interests and the gender ratio.

Table 2 describes the overall goals of SURP 2016 as well as the objectives to

achieve those goals. Further detail of the activities can be found in the SURP Agenda

(see Appendix A). The goals and objectives were measured using the pre- and post-

surveys and a 25 percent increase was desireable. The results of the surveys can be

found in the next section.

SURP 2016 SURVEYS

Scholars accepted into the program complete a pre- and post- surveys at the

beginning and end of the program, respectively. This year, the program staff chose to

distribute the survey electronically through an anonymous link created in Qualtrics. The

INBRE Project Manager and Graduate Assistant have secured access to the survey

responses. The questions included in the survey are measurements of the program

goals and objectives. Survey responses are aggregated and have been de-identified.

Although 5 scholars were admitted to the program, the survey responses yield only 4 of the scholar’s responses. One of the scholars did not complete a pre-survey but completed a post-survey, hence, these responses have been omitted to avoid bias.

Table 2- Summer Undergraduate Research Program 2016 Goals and Objectives

Goals Objectives 1. Engage TCU students in research 1.1 Attend and engage in all SURP sessions

1.2 Attend lab tours

2. Increase understanding of research methods 2.1 Attend Research 101, indigenous research methodologies, and photovoice Sessions

3. Gain communication skills and professional 3.1 Attend emotional intelligence, etiquette growth dinner, professional development sessions, and

final presentation 4. Meet future mentors 4.1 Attend luncheon research seminars,

grad school 101 panel

5. Network 5.1 Meet peers from other tribal colleges,

NDSU faculty and staff, and SURP staff

Pre-Surveys Pre-surveys were administered the first day of the program. There are 22 questions in the pre-survey. Among these questions are basic demographic questions (i.e. Tribal affiliation, college, year in college, academic interest) and scaled Lickert questions. These include: interest questions from 1, “not interested” to 5, “extremely interested”, familiarity with research from 1 “not familiar” to 5, “extremely familiar”, ability to integrate culture into research from 1, “not able” to 5, “extremely able”, and self-perception and expectation questions answered from 1, “strongly disagree” to 5, “strongly agree”. Scholars were also asked about their perceptions of NDSU mentorship. Post-Surveys Post-surveys were administered following the close of the program. Questions included the same set of Lickert scaled questions asked in the pre-survey in addition to their satisfaction with the program. SURP Experience

Additionally, the responses and discussion from the Talking Circle highlighted scholars’ experiences and provided further insight to their responses. However, this

year’s Talking Circle was a pilot run and individual responses will not be shared to respect the scholars’ thoughts. Potentially for SURP 2017, they may be shared with prior notice and approval from scholars. Collectively, the Talking Circle provided a safe space that was culturally appropriate for scholars to express their thoughts about the program. It was an activity scholars agreed would benefit future scholars in the program. SURP Survey Responses The following responses are scholar’s perceptions of their research knowledge i.e. familiarity of research and ability to integrate their culture into research. In addition, scholars were asked about their interest in research and perception of available mentors pooling from those they met through the program. Graphs 1 and 2 depict their interest in public health and STEM, respectively. Graphs 3 through 5 illustrate their perceived ability to integrate their culture into research. Table 3 shows scholars’ perceived familiarity with research.

Graph 1- SURP Scholar 2016 pre- and Graph 2- SURP Scholar 2016 pre- and post-survey responses on interest in a post- survey responses on interest in a public health career STEM career

Responses are reported in percent. The percentages are based on the scholars who completed pre- and post- surveys (n=4).

Graph 1 shows 50 percent of scholars were moderately interested in a public

health career at the beginning of the program. This number decreased by 25 percent (n=1) while scholars interested in a public health career increased by 25 percent (n=1).

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Pre-survey Post-survey

How interested are you in a public

health career?

Not interested Somewhat interested

Moderately interested Interested

Extremely interested

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6


How interested are you in a career in

science, technology, engineering, or

math?

Not interested Slightly interested

Moderately interested Interested

Extremely Interested

This indicates the presentations on public health influenced a scholar to consider public health more as a potential career choice. Likewise, Graph 2 depicts a similar percentage fluctuation in scholars moderately interested in a STEM career (25 percent to 0 percent), interested in a STEM career (0 percent to 50 percent), and extremely interested in a STEM career (50 percent to 25 percent) at the conclusion of the program. The percentage increase and decrease in an interest in STEM careers indicate the lab tours and research sessions influenced scholars to continue their interest in STEM. These numbers also meet the first program goal.

Table 3- SURP 2016 Scholar pre- and post-survey responses on their familiarity with research

Question Item

Scholar Responses

1 2 3 4 5

Q3. How familiar are you with the scientific method?

- - 0.5 -

*0.5

0.5

*0.5

Q4. How familiar are you with how research is conducted?

- - - 0.75

*0.75

0.25

*0.25

Q5. How familiar are you with the role of public health in your community?

- 0.25 0.5

*0.25

0.25

*0.25

*0.5

Q6. How famliar are you with the role of scientific research in

your community?

- - 0.75

*0.25

0.25

*0.25

*0.5

Q7. How familiar are you with indigenous research

Methodologies?

0.25

*0.25

0.5 0.25

*0.75

-

Survey responses are based on the scholars that completed the pre- and post-surveys (n=4).

1- Not familiar, 2-Somewhat familiar, 3- Moderately familiar, 4- Familiar, 5-Extremely familiar

*Scholar responses from the post-survey.

Familiarity with the scientific method, the role of public health in your community,

the role of scientific research in your community, and familiarity with indigenous

research methodologies all increased by 25 percent or more after the close of the

program which meets the second program goal- increase understanding of research

methods. Research 101 sessions provided an overview of research i.e. qualitative and

quantitative research, collecting data, and analysis. Public health presentations

covered basic elements of public health i.e. interventions, health education, health

disparities. Indigenous research methodologies introduced scholars to terminology

used in indigenous research paradigms such as ontology, axiology, epistemology,

reciprocity, and sovereignty. Scholars were also introduced to indigenous research

paradigms that are used in academia e.g. a paradigm used by Shawn Wilson and the

“Spider web” paradigm created American Indigenous Research Association.

Graph 3- SURP 2016 Scholar pre- Graph 4- SURP Scholar pre- and post- and post- survey responses on survey responses on ability to integrate ability to integrate culture in public health culture in STEM research

Aforementioned, scholars participated in sessions where culture was an underlying theme across topics. The luncheon research seminars, for example were on a variety of topics where culture in the context of health disparities and finding solutions was a focal point. In these sessions, scholars gained insight to how culture can be a central part of conducting research. Additionally, scholars learned about a diabetes intervention project in Manitoba, Canada where culture was a center piece of the intervention. Within the project is an Aboriginal Youth Mentorship Program where adolescent mentors lead traditional games and cultural activities for youth enrolled in the diabetes program to prevent weight gain.

Aside from these presentations, the indigenous research sessions discussed the principles of conducting research as an indigenous person. Some of which included reciprocity, carrying out the research in a way that reflects indigenous world views, and disseminating the data appropriately meaning sharing the knowledge that was gained through research with your community. Instances where the tribe has ownership of the research i.e. the methodology, collection, storage, and dissemination of data was discussed, as well. A prime example of this is the model of self-determination is the

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Pre -survey Post-survey

Per

cen

t

How able are you to integrate your

culture into a public health career?

Not able Slightly able

Moderately able Able

Extremely able

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8


Per

cen

t

How able are you to integrate your

culture into a career in STEM research?

Not able Slightly able

Moderately able Able

Extremely able

Responses are reported in percent. The percentages are based on the scholars who completed pre- and post- surveys (n=4).

model of a Research Review Board that the Tribal Nations Research Group (TNRG), Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa uses to approve the research conducted in their community. Another part of these sessions was talking about how sharing what has been learned through research and teaching it to others is a sacred responsibility. Put simply, it is building relationships to share knowledge.

The information provided in these sessions together gave scholars an idea of how culture can be engrained in research. The influence these sessions had on scholars with respect to self-perception are shown in Graphs 3-5. In addition to Research 101, indigenous research methodologies, luncheon research seminar, scholars participated in grad school 101, research ethics, research topics, case studies, and professional development sessions. Grad school 101 sessions covered information on how to apply for graduate schools, the importance of a personal statement and what to include, fellowships, internships,

and assistantships as opportunities to conduct research while in college. The Grad School 101 session also included a transfer student/undergraduate and graduate student panel featuring a previous SURP participant and current Master’s in Public Health graduate students. The means of having a student panel was to foster mentorship and provide scholars with information on current students’ educational journeys. Research ethics were sessions that discussed how to conduct research with American Indian populations appropriately using the South Dakota Health Survey as an example. The South Dakota Health Survey was a study done in 2010 on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scores. Research topics included research modules that were developed by NDSU INBRE faculty for tribal colleges to use in the desired capacity. The modules were launched in 2016 and were the pilot round of modules. Modules used for the Research topics sessions were an introduction to Social and Behavioral Sciences in Public Health and using the scientific method to separate fact from fiction. Case studies provided scholars with an overview of how to critique a scientific article, thereafter, provided with two cases of research conducted in Indian Country that was harmful to the community. One of particular interest was the case of the Havasupai Tribe of Arizona where the tribe was told they were participating in diabetes research and their blood samples were a part of the study. However, the researchers failed to inform or seek approval from the tribe to use their samples for other purposes. The Havasupai were not

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8


Per

cen

t

How able are you to integrate indigenous

research methodologies into a career?

Not able Slightly able Moderately able

Able Extremely able

Graph 5- SURP 2016 Scholar pre- and post-survey responses on ability to integrate indigenous research into a

career

Responses are reported in percent. The percentages are

based on the number of scholars who completed pre- and

post- surveys (n=4).

told their blood samples were used for genetic research and the research had been published. They brought this to court and won their case due to unethical research that was conducted. Among other sessions in the program was professional development and lab tours. Scholars participated in an etiquette dinner, learned ways to work with difficult people, and about emotional intelligence. Twenty-five percent agreed and 75 percent strongly agreed that these sessions improved their communication skills, meeting program goal three. Lab tours included the Center for Nanoscale Science & Engineering (CNSE), Plant & Food Science, Center for Protease Research- Chemistry Facility, and Cassel Woods- Soil and Geoscience lab. The lab tours are intended to broaden scholar interest in various research fields while providing hands-on activities. Table 4- SURP 2016 Scholar pre- and post- survey responses on SURP Experience

Survey responses are based on the scholars that completed the pre- and post-surveys (n=4) and are reported in percent. 1- strongly disagree, 2- disagree, 3- nuetral, 4- agree, 5- strongly agree

Question Item Scholar Responses

1 2 3 4 5

15a. Touring NDSU labs will broaden(ed) my research experience.

*0.25

0.25

*0.25

0.75

*0.5

15b. Developing a final presentation will enhance(ed) my research knowledge

0.25 0.5

*0.25

0.25

*0.75

 15c. I will utilize(ed) indigenous research methodologies in my final presentation

0.5

*0.25

0.5

*0.75

15d. My presentation to the group will be/was a useful learning experience

*0.25

1

*0.75

15e. The professional development workshops will improve(ed) my communication skills.

*0.25

1

*0.75

15f. The Research 101 modules will improve(ed) my research knowledge

0.25

*0.5

0.75

*0.5

15g. The Research Ethics modules will improve(ed) my research knowledge

0.25

*0.5

0.75

*0.5

15h. The Indigenous Research Methodology modules will improve(ed) my research knowledge

*0.25

1

*0.75

15i. The Grad School 101 and Research Careers modules will improve(ed) my understanding of pursuing research careers

*0.5

1

*0.5

15j. The Case Studies module will improve(ed) my research knowledge

*0.5

1

*0.5

15k. The Research Topics modules will improve(ed) my research knowledge

*0.25

1

*0.75

15l. I will give/gave my full effort during the program 1

*1

15m. I will be/was satisfied with what I learn during SURP. 1

*1

Italics indicates a post-survey question. *Scholar responses from the post-survey.

Table 4 shows the scholar’s responses on their SURP experience. Trends in their responses indicate the content of the sessions can be strengthened but meet the second goal of the program. One hundred percent of the scholars at the beginning of the program strongly agreed that the final presentation, professional development workshops, indigenous research methods, Grad School 101 and Research Careers, case studies, and research topics would improve their communication skills and research knowledge. However, after completion of the program, only 75 percent strongly that these sessions improved their communication skills and research knowledge (except case studies which is 50 percent strongly agree). The lab tours is another activity that can be strengthened. Seventy-five percent of scholars strongly agreed that lab tours would broaden their research experience while 25 percent agreed. At the conclusion of the program, only 50 percent strongly agreed, 25 percent agreed, and 25 percent were neutral about lab tours broadening their research experience. Scholars also strongly agreed 50 percent and agreed 50 percent that research 101 and research ethics improved their research knowledge. Though these responses indicate the sessions improved their research knowledge, there is room for strengthening the content. Table 5- SURP 2016 Scholar post-survey responses on satisfaction with SURP experience

Survey responses are based on the scholars that completed the pre- and post-surveys (n=4) and are reported in percent.

1- strongly disagree, 2- disagree, 3- nuetral, 4- agree, 5- strongly agree

Scholars were satisfied with their overall SURP experience. Table 5 further explores their satisfaction with the program. It is apparent workshop and presentation

Question Item Scholar Responses

1 2 3 4 5

I was satisfied with receiving information prior to SURP.

0.25 0.75

I was satisfied with access to a computer and internet. 0.25 0.75

I was satisfied with the interaction between research faculty and staff.

0.25 0.75

I was satisfied with workshop and presentation locations.

0.25 0.75

I was satisfied with workshop and presentation times. 0.5 0.5

I was satisfied with the lab tours. 0.25 0.25 0.5

I was satisfied with housing. 0.5 0.5

I was satisfied with Concordia housing & meals. 0.5 0.5

I was satisfied with NDSU dining & meals. 0.25 0.5 0.5

I was satisfied with transportation. 0.25 0.75

I was satisfied with the completion fee. 0.25 0.75

times, lab tours, Concordia housing & meals, and NDSU dining & meals were items scholars were not satisfied with. SURP 2016 program dates did not allow students to stay in the NDSU dorms due to annual scheduled maintenance. Hence, students were able to stay in Concordia dorms. The caveat with this arrangement was starting on time due to transportation in between campuses where roads were being constructed. Scholars were the only program staying at Concordia during the program dates and had breakfast as well as dinner at Concordia. Concordia made special arrangements to have their kitchen open for the scholars meaning scholars had to arrive for breakfast and dinner at the designated times. This became problematic with the construction and traffic when traveling between campuses. Additionally with the meal arrangements, scholars did not have as many options as they did in SURP 2015 when meals were from the Residence Dining Center (RDC) at NDSU. Lunches were served at NDSU through Catering. Scholars strongly voiced their disappointment with the food and meals provided during the program. Though, it was not terrible scholars would like to have chosen their meals from a menu or given more options to choose from rather than the meal being chosen for them. Another suggestion they provided was to be notified of the meals each day before the start of the program. Lab tours, as mentioned above, can be strengthened. There were only four lab tours scholars participated in. Scholars mentioned they would like to see more lab tours and interactive learning for the tours included in the program.

Survey responses are based on the scholars that completed the pre- and post-surveys (n=4) and are reported in percent. A= I do not feel anyone at NDSU would speak with me B= I do not know anyone at NDSU, but if I did, they would probably speak with me. C= I feel there is ONE person at NDSU that I can talk to D= I feel there are a COUPLE of people at NDSU that I can talk to E= I feel there are SEVERAL people at NDSU that I can talk to

Graph 6- SURP 2016 Scholar pre-

and post- survey responses on

mentors at NDSU

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

A B C D E

Do you feel there is someone at NDSU you can speak to about

continuing your education here?


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

A B C D E

Do you feel there is someone at NDSU who you can speak to about pursuing a career in public health?




mentors at NDSU in public health

A majority of the scholars felt a sense of mentorship is available to them at NDSU. Seventy-five percent felt there are several people they can speak to while 25 percent felt there are a couple people they can speak to about continuing their education at NDSU. One hundred percent of the scholars feel there are several people they speak to about pursuing public health. Fifty percent feel there are a couple of people and 50 percent feel there are several people at NDSU they can speak to about pursuing STEM research as a career. These responses indicate the fourth program goal, meet future mentors, and the final goal of networking were met.

Scholar Comments Scholars were asked open ended questions on the post-survey to gage additional thoughts about the program. These included questions about the lab tours, a big picture of what they learned from the program, how they would improve the program, and if they would the program to others. The following are the questions and their comments.

Which of the lab tours did you find most

interesting and why?

“I liked the chem labs because chem is

interesting.”

“"I found the computer chip lab most

interesting because I felt as though I learned

a lot by them explaining step by step how

they make the chip in their lab and getting

the full experience. " (CNSE)

“"The clean room was very interesting.

Just because you need to be absolutely

germ free when you enter." (CNSE)

What are the most valuable things you

learned after participating in SURP?

"The most valuable thing I learned was everything about research."

"Issues in public health (Indian country)"

"The most valuable thing I have learned is indigenous research methodologies and

how to combine culture and research."

"I learned what literature review was and the American Indian Public Health program

NDSU offers. Also learned how to write a personal statement."

Survey responses are based on the scholars that completed the pre- and post-surveys (n=4) and are reported in percent. A= I do not feel anyone at NDSU would speak with me B= I do not know anyone at NDSU, but if I did, they would probably speak with me. C= I feel there is ONE person at NDSU that I can talk to D= I feel there are a COUPLE of people at NDSU that I can talk to E= I feel there are SEVERAL people at NDSU that I can talk to



mentors at NDSU in STEM research

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

A B C D E

Do you feel there is someone at NDSU who you can speak to about

pursuing a career in STEM research?


If you could change the program, what would you improve?

“Food”

"Less lectures on the weekend, a brunch rather than getting up at 8am. Choosing

where to eat. More outside activities."

"I would possibly have a longer lunch, maybe a half an hour longer and have brunch

on the weekends instead on a normal breakfast and lunch."

Would you recommend SURP to your peers or other students interested in learning

about research?

“Yes definitely”

“Absolutely!”

“Yes”

“Yes”

PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

The responses and comments from the surveys clearly point out the activities

that were highlights of the program. However, it also is clear which areas need to be

strengthened and modified for the next year’s program. It is imperative to consider

scholar feedback from the surveys in addition to daily conversations throughout the

program to understand needs that are not being met. In addition, their feedback paired

with Tribal College instructor input and SURP staff planning are crucial to improving the

program. Figure 1 illustrates this process. Below, the identified weaknesses of the

program and plans for improvement are discussed.

Figure 1- Continuous Improvement Model

Identified Weaknesses and

Opportunities

The SURP 2016 surveys show

sessions that can be strengthened

include lab tours, session content,

meal arrangements, housing

arrangements, and presentation times.

Scholars were intent on making the

meal selection an area for

improvement. They also commented

on how the housing would have been

better if there were other students

staying in the dorms with them.

Assess

Plan

Act

The blue arrow refers to the surveys and feedback from scholars

and Tribal College instructors. The orange arrow refers to the

SURP staff utilizing feedback and strategizing for the best

recruitment and outcomes in the upcoming year. The green

arrow is the strategy and planning coming to fruition, which is

assessed again.

Scholars were the only summer program staying at Concordia during the program

dates. Driving from Concordia to NDSU daily in the midst of construction, traffic, and

trains, may have contributed to their rating for presentation times. The program staff

chose to begin sessions at 9:00am rather than the start time in SURP 2015 (8:00am) to

allow scholars enough time to prepare for the day and eat breakfast. The travel time

and breakfast arrangement at Concordia did not run as smoothly as planned. Scholars

may have slept in or simply skipped the breakfast offered due to lack of meal choices.

There were a few days during the program when the morning session did not start on

time because of these contributing factors.

Research 101, indigenous research methodologies, research ethics/topics, case

studies, Grad school 101, and lab tours are all activities that need to be strengthened

for SURP 2017. SURP staff noted on occasion, scholars were not attentive during

sessions i.e. very tired. This may be due to the travel from campus to campus in

addition to the way sessions were structured; most were in a lecture format in a

classroom setting. Scholars mentioned having sessions outside on nice days and

interactive or hands-on learning would help them be more attentive. However, research

topics such as the activity and presentation provided by Dr. Lyle Best and Ashley

Parisien on Pre-eclampsia was a great learning opportunity for the group. Interactive

and topics that relate research to American Indian communities seemed to spark

interest among all scholars. Although interesting to scholars, there were few lab tours.

Of these lab tours, only two provided hands-on activities. This indicates lab tours can

include more labs, increasing the duration of time spent in the lab, or making hands-on

activities a requirement for lab tours.

In addition to these identified weaknesses, scholars did not receive their

completion fee until several weeks following the conclusion of the program. This

problem stemmed from administrative changes that occurred during the program and

will be a focus point for program staff in planning SURP 2017.

Planning 2017

SURP scholar survey responses give program staff insight to the activities that

can be strengthened, continued, and modified for SURP 2017. Table 6 lists the

activities that will be continued, modified, or added to activities that were featured in

SURP 2016. Among other efforts to improve the program, SURP staff will continue to

gather feedback from TCU contacts and students about the program activities and

dates. SURP staff will select program dates that will provide the best opportunity for

TCU students to participate in the program. Additionally, a stronger recruitment plan will

be implemented; earlier recruitment and on-site visits with an application available was

feedback received from some of the TCUs. The following timeline outlines the intended

plan for SURP 2017.

SURP 2017 Planning Timeline

August 2016—Set program dates

September 2016—Develop recruitment materials e.g. SURP Fact sheet, flyers

October to November 2016—Conduct site visits to TCUs for recruitment, seek TCU

faculty presenters, key note speakers, and other faculty to participate in the program

December 2016— Develop application and surveys

January 2017—Open applications, confirm speakers and presenters

February 2017—Conduct site visits to TCUs, provide assistance on applications as

necessary, develop agenda (application closes at the end of the month)

March 2017— Confirm room reservations, participants, and submit all required forms to

NDSU (e.g. SPA/GCA), develop curriculum and activities for SURP 2017

April 2017— Develop curriculum and activities for SURP 2017

May 2017—Confirm all activities and curriculum in the SURP 2017 agenda, purchase

“Welcome Packs” for students (e.g. pens, folders, notebooks, shirts)

June 2017—Host SURP 2017, conduct pre- and post- surveys, conduct follow-up

surveys with previous participants

July 2017—Program staff debrief on SURP 2017, begin writing SURP report

August 2017—Submit SURP 2017 report to funder, program participants, and TCUs

Table 6- 2017 SURP Additions

Additions - More TCU Instructors as Presenters (Brent Voels volunteered) - Have the Students Stay at the Candlewood Suites - Have Breakfast at the Hotel - Make More Meals Optional/with Increased Choice for students (Look into Having

Bison Bucks Be Uploaded to a card?)

- Give Students a Grocery Stipend to Keep Snacks/Food in Their Hotel Rooms - Host More Sessions Outdoors - Ice Breaker Sessions each Morning and Throughout the Day - More Culturally-based Sessions – Possibly Include more Books/Resources as

Lessons for the Students - Let Students Have the Opportunity to Choose/Vote on Activities Before the Program

Starts

- Have Nightly Activities Planned When the Program Begins - Start Sessions at 9:30 instead of 9:00 AM Have the Students Partner with a Faculty Member/Look at Research of Interest and Host a Poster Competition

Continued activities

- “Hands-on” Research Presentations

- Presenters: Tribal College faculty-researcher, Dr. Neil Dyer, CNSE Tour, Soil Science Tour, Ethnobotany Tour

- Snack Breaks - Bring Snacks for the Students to Have During the Sessions - Thunder Road Evening - Indigenous Research Methodologies/conducting research in American Indian

communities

- Public Health in Tribal Nations Sessions

Proposed activities

- Professional Development Session (dealing with difficult people) with Role Playing/Prompts

- Including more hands-on activities to do during sessions (i.e. doodle, pipe cleaners, decorate name tags)

- Sessions with TCU Researchers - Ropes Course in Wahpeton - Ropes games - Canoeing on the River - Movie Night - Bowling - Microsoft Tour - Swimming at the Community Pool - Poster Competition to Be Open to the Public/Interested Parties

SURP staff will use the above timeline for planning the program to ensure

program activities run smoothly. It is essential to the overall function of the program to

utilize TCU and SURP scholar feedback in planning for subsequent programming.

SURP staff plan to continue tracking previous participants to understand their level of

research involvement and how the program has influenced their educational careers.

More important, are continuing the activities that are culturally relevant to TCU students

interested in pursuing research. All activities will be strengthened to contribute to the

research knowledge scholars can gain through the program. Program staff will also

work to ensure the administrative aspects of the program are sound to prevent waiting

time for scholars’ completion fee. To remain tribally focused in the development and

planning of SURP 2017, staff will continue to include the opening and closing blessing,

talking circle as a form of evaluation, indigenous research methodologies, and

discussions on research and culture.

APPENDIX A

SURP 2016 Agenda- Week 1

Sunday May 15

Monday May 16

Tuesday May 17

Wednesday May 18

Thursday May 19

Friday May 20

Saturday May 21

MSUM Admission Presentation and Tour (9AM-10:30AM) MSUM Campus Erin Coil, Campus Visit Coordinator

Research 101 STEM Building Rm 326

Case Studies STEM Building Rm 326

Research 101 STEM Building Rm 326

Indigenous Research Methodologies STEM Building Rm 326

Team Building Activity

Journal Club STEM Building Rm 326

Journal Club STEM Building Rm 326

TRIO and SSS Programs STEM 326 Shanti Behrens

Check-in/Registration Program orientation Concordia

Communication Skills/Professional Development STEM Building Rm 326

Research Ethics/Topic STEM Building Rm 326

Communication Skills/Professional Development STEM Building Rm 326

Research Topics STEM Building Rm 326

Review of Week 1 material STEM Building Rm 326

Lunch NDSU

Lunch & Research Seminar MU- Room of Nations Don - Intro AI public health

Lunch NDSU

Lunch & Research Seminar MU- Room of Nations Denise Lajimodiere

Lunch NDSU

Lunch & Research Seminar MU- Badlands Room Michael Yellowbird

Lunch Concordia

Tour of Concordia Campus and NDSU Campus

Indigenous Research Methodologies STEM Building Rm 326

Research Careers/Grad School 101 STEM Building Rm 326

Jacob Swaney-Walker & Dipayan Sakir- Ethnobotany walking tour Buffalo River State Park

Lab Tours NDSU Plant and Food Science

Grad School 101 STEM Building Rm 326

Lab Tours NDSU CNSE

Lab Tour NDSU Center for Protease Research

BBQ at Don’s

Dinner Concordia

Dinner

Concordia

Dinner Concordia

Dinner Concordia

Dinner Concordia

Extracurricular Activity TBD

Extracurricular Activity TBD

Talking Circle Concordia

Dinner Concordia

Journaling Concordia



SURP 2016 Agenda- Week 2

Sunday

May 22

Monday

May 23

Tuesday

May 24

Wednesday

May 25

Thursday

May 26

Friday

May 27

Saturday

May 28

Intro to Photovoice

Concordia Old Main 302

Research 101

STEM Building Rm 326

Lyle Best- demonstration (pre-eclampsia/genetics)


Research 101


Review of Week 2 material:


Review of Week 1 and Week 2 material


Check-out

Concordia

SURP student Presentations

Concordia Knutson Center

Communication skills and Professional Development


Indigenous Research Methodologies


Research Topics


Lunch


Lunch & Research Seminar

NDSU MU- Meadow Lark Room

Jamie Holding Eagle

Lunch

NDSU

Lunch & research Seminar

NDSU MU- Room of Nations

Petra

Lunch

NDSU

Lunch

NDSU

Lunch & Awards

Concordia Knutson Center

Program Concludes

Indigenous Research Methodologies


Presentation Prep


Presentation Prep


Lab Tour

Bernie and David

Lyle Best- demonstration and Pre-eclampsia/genetics


Neil Dyer- Animal Science

Van Es 101

Research Proposal Writing


VA Medical Center Tour

Fargo VA Medical Center

Kimberly Hammer

Presentation Prep

Concordia

Old Main - 302

Dinner

Concordia

Dinner

Concordia

Dinner

MU-Rose Room

Business & Dinner Etiquette

Dinner

Concordia

Dinner

Concordia

Red Hawks Game- Home Opener

Newman Outdoor Field (NDSU)

Dinner

Concordia

Journal/Eval

Concordia

Extracurricular

TBD

Journal/Eval

Concordia

Journal/Eval

Concordia

Talking Circle

Concordia

APPENDIX B

SURP 2016 Program Costs

Item Per Person Per Day

Per Person- 14 days

Group of 5

Notes

Housing 30 390 1950 Concordia College- Double room with A/C unit

Rooms 0 0 180 Includes room reservations at Concordia: Classroom for May 22 and 27th ($25 per day) May 28th presentation & Luncheon (Tri College Discount- $80) and sound/technology for May 28th ($50)

Meals:

Breakfast 6.8 88.4 442 Breakfast is at the Concordia Meal rates. Check-in will be in the afternoon of May 15th.

Lunch 7.5 105 525 Lunch is at the cash meal NDSU rates. All lunch will be at NDSU. The final lunch and lunch on weekends will be held at Concordia. The Luncheon on the 28th will be for 20 to include those that participated in SURP and would like to attend.

Dinner 9.8 117.6 588 Dinner is at the Concordia Meal rates. Dinner- BBQ at Don's the first day of the program on May 15th.

Catering 0 0 717 Catering includes research seminar luncheons and events at NDSU and catering at Concordia.

Completion Fee

0 600 3000 Each scholar received a $600 completion fee for participating in the program.

NDSU Goodies

0 0 171.64 Each scholar received an NDSU pen, folder, waterbottle, and 12GB USB storage unit.

Total 54.1 1301 7573.64

SURP 2016 Report - NDSU · Table 2- Summer Undergraduate Research Program 2016 Goals and Objectives...

Documents

Transcript of SURP 2016 Report - NDSU · Table 2- Summer Undergraduate Research Program 2016 Goals and Objectives...