2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Multiple studies report the benefits of authentic research experiences in STEM education. While most of them focus either on course-based research projects or on undergraduate students’ experiences, few document authentic learning experiences unfolding in real time among and between graduate students in research laboratories. Therefore, we situate our study in the context of authentic research experiences in research laboratories and focus on documenting learning processes as they unfold during daily practices in the laboratories. Specifically, the goal of our study is to observe and document how graduate students, and other lab members, learn from one another within the cultural space of the laboratory, and what aspects of laboratory culture facilitate and what impede learning. To that end, we use cognitive ethnography, an ethnographic approach combined with cognitive science to study cognitive processes through participant-observation. Two participant observers were embedded and observed the workings of a mechanical and a material sciences engineering laboratory. The mechanical research lab studies human-robot interactions in medical environments, and during the period of observation had six regular members including a postdoc and five graduate students. The research projects in the material sciences lab include research on polymers and fabrication of microelectronic implantable devices. At the onset of the participant-observation, the material sciences lab had eleven lab members, including a lab director and 10 graduate students. During the course of our study, the number of active lab members decreased to eight. Data collection included participant observation, online observation, photo and video documentation, detailed field notes, and recorded interviews. Across both laboratories, we identified the following themes pertaining to learning experiences: scaffolding (structured activities or apprenticeship), peer-to-peer learning, self-directed and self-regulated learning, and independence in research activities. While in many respects the two laboratories are similar, the presence and role of a leader-mentor in daily activities is what set them apart. In this report, we analyze the impact of leadership-mentorship on learning and professional formation.
Based on this analysis, we argue that the degree to which a leader-mentor is consistently active in the laboratory’s life presents advantages and disadvantages with respect to different aspects of learning and professional formation. On one hand, professional development of students may be hindered by the absence of direct oversight from an in-laboratory professional mentor, resulting in delayed graduation for example. On another, absence of direct oversight can compel students to independently seek out mentors who have important expertise to help complete projects in a timely manner, an important professional skill. In the first case, students benefit from the expertise of mentors, so having mentors consistently present in the laboratory helps students efficiently conduct their projects. In the second case, students learn that they cannot always rely on only one person to provide direction and will need to seek help from other quarters.