Search

Purpose This study aims to examine the contribution of faculty–student coauthorship to the development of graduate students’ research skills in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) by quantitatively assessing rubric-measured research skill gains over the course of an academic year compared to students who did not report participating in coauthorship with faculty mentors.Design/methodology/approach A quasi-experimental mixed methods approach was used to test the hypothesis that the influence of STEM graduate students’ mentored writing mentorship experiences would be associated with differential improvement in the development of their research skills over the course of an academic year.Findings The results indicate that students who co-authored with faculty mentors were likely to develop significantly higher levels of research skills than students who did not. In addition, less than half of the participants reported having such experiences, suggesting that increased emphasis on this practice amongst faculty could enhance graduate student learning outcomes.Originality/value Qualitative studies of graduate student writing experiences have alluded to outcomes that transcend writing quality per se and speak directly to the research skills acquired by the students as part of their graduate training. However, no study to date has captured the discrete effects of writing experiences on these skills in a quantifiable way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Using the threshold concepts framework, this paper aims to explore how differences in the ability to meaningfully apply relevant literature to one’s research are reflected in descriptions of graduate training undertaken in an academic year.Design/methodology/approach This paper used a sequential-explanatory mixed method design. Phase I analysis used quantitative performance data to differentiate research skill threshold crossers from non-crossers. Phase II analysis used qualitative interview data to identify common and differentiating themes across and between the two groups.Findings Participants identified coursework, research activities and teaching assignments as primary research skill development sites. However, only the patterns of mentorship and engagement with literature within the context of supervised research activities consistently differentiated threshold crossers from non-crossers. All non-crossers reported having full autonomy in their research endeavors, whereas all crossers articulated reliance on supervising mentor guidance. Similarly, most non-crossers did not frame research as incremental contributions to existing literature, while most crossers did.Research limitations/implications The study sample size is small (n = 14), and the study is exploratory in nature.Practical implications The importance of exploring the factors that actually indicate and lead to research skill development is highlighted.Originality/value Few studies address graduate student research skill development, although this skill development is a core goal of many graduate programs. This study does so, using performance rather than self-report data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]