In this innovative practice work-in-progress paper, enrollment data from five institutions was used to examine equity in undergraduate research through Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Programs. VIP is a model for undergraduate research in which large student teams are embedded in faculty-driven projects. The American Association of Colleges and Universities recognizes undergraduate research as a high-impact experience, associated with higher graduation rates and greater learning gains in college. Participation in multiple high-impact experiences yields cumulative gains to students from all backgrounds, and compensatory gains for minoritized and marginalized students. Nationally however, minoritized students, first-generation college students, and transfer students participate in undergraduate research at lower rates than their peers. In this study, VIP enrollments at five institutions (N = 6,651 over two semesters) were compared to demographics of the institutions to determine the degree to which programs achieved equity among historically underserved minorities, transfer students, first-generation college students, and by gender. Analysis accounted for demographics and level of participation of the academic units involved, comparing enrollments with what would be expected under equitable enrollment. Analyses were done for each institution and across the pooled sample. By institution, equity across categories varied. Across the pooled sample, results show small effects sizes for status as a historically underserved minority, very small effect sizes for first-generation students and transfer students, and slightly higher participation among women than men. The large-scale nature of VIP teams enables institutions to scale-up their undergraduate research offerings. This paper begins answering the question of whether this scaling increases access for marginalized populations, and the results are encouraging. The paper is a work-in-progress, because data needs to be collected from more VIP institutions for a wider-ranging study. The chisquare test and the importance of using effect sizes in interpreting results will be explained, so others can apply the same method. Results, implications, and next steps are discussed.

The Level-up workshop will challenge exclusive and exclusionary models for undergraduate research experiences, and it will give participants tools to expand undergraduate research to serve all students. The model and associated tools are adaptable, and they have been implemented in 44 colleges and universities of varying sizes, settings and missions in 12 countries.

This innovative-practice work-in-progress paper explores student leadership development over multiple semesters in team-structured project-based courses. While student growth is expected in a single semester, the study asks if multiple semesters of participation lead to continued leadership growth, and if so, over how many semesters of participation growth continues. The study examined peer evaluation ratings in general leadership (coordination of teams’ work) and technical leadership (serving as a technical/content area leader) in a single semester of Georgia Tech’s Vertically Integrated Projects (VIP) Program, a multidisciplinary, multi-semester, team-structured, project-based, and credit-bearing program in which student teams support faculty research. Analysis examined means and distributions on two peer evaluation questions (N = 1,073 and N = 1,047) by student academic rank and number of semesters of participation in the program. Findings indicate that within their teams, students’ leadership increased through the third semester, with students making their greatest leadership contributions in the third semester and beyond; and students of lower academic rank provided as much leadership (including technical leadership) as older students who had comparable experience on the team. Both the VIP model and the operationalization of leadership represent innovative practices, because the VIP model yields measurable gains in student leadership, and the measurement of student leadership is based on peer-evaluations instead of self-assessments. The educational model and research in this paper are aligned with the FIE values of encouraging mentorship and professional growth, appreciating multidisciplinary approaches, valuing new approaches, and generating new knowledge. The paper addresses limitations and next steps for the study.

Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering are broad disciplines. If students are given a wide selection of electives within their majors, how do they navigate the curriculum? At one extreme, a student could choose electives from one or two areas, creating specialization in their program of study. Conversely, a student could evenly sample courses from across the discipline, providing a broad foundation in the field. This analysis examines in-major elective enrollments in two majors, Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering, to determine the degree to which students constructed specialized or broad programs of study prior to a curriculum revision, with analysis at the student level (N = 2,013). Measures of specialization are based on course categorizations developed for a new threaded curriculum in which courses are assigned to threads (specializations), and students choose courses from two threads. The extent of specialization that occurred before the new curriculum was measured by students' enrollment in courses corresponding to each new thread, with examination of the number of credits in their largest and second largest threads, and credits earned that could apply to threads in each major. Results show nominal specialization, nominal differentiation between the two majors, no correlation between academic achievement and specialization, and no inequity by status as historically underserved minorities, gender, first-generation status, or transfer student status. The study is novel because it examines the degree to which students constructed specializations within or evenly sampled courses across a broad discipline. The approach will provide departments in broad disciplines a new way of understanding the educations they provide their students, from broad to specialized, and whether these educations align with departmental goals. A limitation of the study is that it does not differentiate between the two majors, it does not differentiate between students who double-majored in both Electrical Engineering and Computer Engineering, and withdrawals were treated as enrollments. Controlling for these factors, future studies will examine the complexity of the old and new curricular models to quantify losses and gains, with a focus on factors that block and delay student progress toward graduation.