Ensuring a Sustainable STEM Sector in the U.S.: The Role of Culturally Responsive Mentoring in Undergraduate Education

Abstract

Creating a sustainable pipeline for the STEM workforce in the U.S. necessitates a significant improvement in the graduation rates of students of color enrolled in STEM majors. This is particularly important given the major demographic shifts projected over the next four decades, where students of color will constitute the majority of the student population. One way to increase graduation rates is to improve the mentoring of these students by implementing Culturally Responsive Mentor Training. Rooted in the Entering Mentoring curriculum, this approach has been shown to enhance mentoring competencies and shape mentoring behaviors of researchers across various disciplines and career stages. However, existing research has predominantly focused on mentor training programs within individual institutions, leaving a significant knowledge gap regarding the potential benefits of inter-institutional mentor training initiatives that share a common objective of supporting underrepresented students in STEM fields. Between 2019 and 2022, a structured mentoring program engaged 45 mentors from the Georgia–Alabama Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (GA-AL LSAMP). Noteworthy outcomes emerged from this initiative, with participants reporting substantial improvements in their mentoring skills post-training. A majority of participants implemented changes in their mentoring practices following the training program. The self-reported findings from mentors were corroborated by data collected from mentee surveys, which validated shifts in the mentors’ behaviors subsequent to the training. These results hold implications for LSAMP alliances nationwide and for all colleges and universities that aspire to create a sustainable pipeline for the STEM workforce in the U.S.

1. Introduction

One of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals is to reduce inequality within and among countries [1]. Inequality within a nation hinders long-term social and economic progress, impedes poverty reduction efforts, and erodes people’s sense of fulfillment and self-worth. Addressing within-country inequality necessitates equitable resource distribution, combating discrimination, and supporting marginalized groups.

In the United States, a persistent inequality exists in access to STEM education, which further contributes to disparities in STEM workforce participation. While African-American/Black, American Indian or Alaska Native, or Hispanic/Latino individuals comprise 33.2% of the total U.S. population, only 22% of STEM undergraduate degrees and 9% of doctoral U.S. STEM degrees in 2016 were conferred upon students identifying with one or more of these underrepresented minority (URM) groups [2]. Moreover, the 6-year graduation rate for URM students with STEM majors stands at 33.8%, contrasting with the 53.1% rate for White STEM majors. Furthermore, only 8.9% of STEM faculty belong to URM groups [2]. The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has determined that issues arising from cultural diversity factors influencing interpersonal interactions, including factors related to race/ethnicity, have the potential to undermine the continued engagement of URM students in the STEM fields [3].

One way to reduce inequalities in access to the STEM workforce is to enhance the retention and graduation rates of students of color in STEM disciplines. A promising approach to achieving this goal is to bolster the mentoring support available to these students throughout their undergraduate experience. Student–faculty relationships, including mentoring relationships, play a pivotal role in students’ overall experiences [4,5,6]. The impact of mentoring is even greater for students of color who are underrepresented in STEM fields [7]. In sum, as Johnson and Gandhi [8] remarked, mentorship matters and mentoring mentors matter for these students.

Despite growing evidence that faculty can benefit from mentoring training [9,10], faculty do not typically receive training on approaches to mentoring students, and traditional training models for STEM faculty members in Ph.D. programs have not prioritized the development of mentoring skills. Mentors often receive limited formal training in data-informed best practices for effective mentoring [8,10]. Many mentors still acquire their skills through modeling, trial and error, and peer observation rather than structured competency-based training [11,12]. Consequently, they may lack awareness or preparation to address dynamics within mentor–mentee relationships, especially those extending beyond conventional scientific skill development [13]. As a result, mentors might unconsciously replicate mentoring approaches they encountered during their own graduate studies [14], potentially perpetuating racial disparities in STEM fields. Despite their well-meaning intentions, they may lack a comprehensive grasp of how to practice culturally sensitive mentoring [15].

Effective mentorship of URM students demands skilled mentors. Consequently, faculty members need structured training in order to navigate the social and cultural complexities inherent in a more diverse student population. Prioritizing inclusivity entails recognizing and engaging with the unique experiences of URM students. Hence, the adoption of a culturally responsive mentoring model becomes essential. This approach to mentoring acknowledges the diversity of backgrounds and demonstrates a genuine interest in mentees’ social identities alongside their scientific identities. The benefits of culturally responsive mentoring training persist long after the program concludes. Womack et al. [16], for example, illustrated the enduring impact of culturally responsive mentoring training on participants. Their study found lasting improvements in participants’ recognition of cultural differences, shifts in their attitudes and approaches to interactions with colleagues and students, and sustained efforts to modify their behaviors to foster inclusive practices in their mentoring and teaching of URM students in STEM disciplines.

This study explores the impact of participating in a culturally responsive mentor training program on the mentoring capacity of faculty engaged in mentoring URM students. Employing survey research, we analyzed the effects of a cross-institution mentoring training initiative on mentors and their mentees. Our analysis focused on both the outcomes and the perceived shifts in mentoring practices immediately after training. The findings presented in this study stem from a thematic analysis conducted on survey data gathered from a convenience sample comprising 45 mentors and 47 mentees.

The following is a review of existing research addressing the obstacles faced by URM students in STEM fields, the short-term and enduring benefits of mentoring, the potential of culturally responsive mentoring, and empirical support demonstrating the efficacy of this mentoring approach.

1.1. Barriers Encountered by URM Students in STEM Disciplines

Historically marginalized students, including individuals of color, first-generation learners, and those from low socio-economic backgrounds, often encounter feelings of isolation, uncertainty, and marginalization within STEM fields [17,18,19]. Specifically, URM groups in STEM disciplines may encounter added challenges in cultivating a scientific identity compared to their White counterparts, largely due to their interactions with predominantly White and male mentors [20,21,22]. Markle et al. [17] observed that while numerous factors influence URM student retention, graduation, and career trajectories, the most formidable obstacles in higher education include stereotype threat, microaggressions, impostor phenomenon, and a lack of social connectedness.

1.2. Benefits of Mentoring

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [23] defines mentoring as a working alliance between individuals aimed at mutual growth and success through both career and psychosocial support. The existing literature documenting major barriers to the retention and graduation of URM STEM students provides ample evidence for the benefits of structured mentoring programs. Mentorship plays a vital role in shaping the development of undergraduate students’ research and academic abilities, aiding them in refining their research career objectives and making well-informed choices regarding pursuing advanced degrees [24]. In the realm of STEM disciplines, faculty mentorship of students holds particular significance, since a substantial portion of student socialization is intertwined with close collaboration with faculty within laboratory settings [7,25,26].

Mentoring is of critical importance for URM students as they are new to a field and lack the cultural capital within their academic domain and the broader landscape of higher education. As such, mentoring can serve as a guiding force for these students in maneuvering through unfamiliar challenges and opportunities [5,18]. Students derive significant benefits from those mentor–mentee relationships when mentors take the time to understand them personally, invest effort into cultivating the relationships, and demonstrate genuine interest and concern for students’ well-being [5,25]. A study conducted by Ghee et al. [27] revealed that students who enjoyed positive mentoring relationships with faculty reported significant gains in their STEM research skills. Moreover, Gasman et al. [25] demonstrated that fostering a positive mentorship bond in the STEM disciplines is pivotal in students’ ability to envision themselves as capable scientists. Research findings also indicate that STEM students who receive more frequent mentorship are more likely to declare an intent to pursue graduate degrees in STEM fields, even after accounting for other variables such as undergraduate research experiences, financial aid, and peer interactions [28]. Furthermore, students of color who are mentored tend to be less likely to drop out of college [29] and consider positive mentoring experiences to be the most influential factor in achieving their degree goals [30].

Mentoring programs, especially those implemented at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), have shown to have a positive impact on retention and graduation rates for African American students pursuing STEM fields. Through mentoring, students at HBCUs receive valuable academic assistance, guidance, and motivational support, which aids in their persistence and successful completion of degree programs [26,31]. Mentoring yields benefits not only for undergraduate and graduate students but also for junior faculty members. Mentored junior faculty exhibit higher confidence, increased career contentment, and enhanced research output compared to their non-mentored counterparts [10]. In an investigation of career paths among minority and White professionals, Thomas [32] found that scholars who achieved significant career progress had one characteristic in common—they all benefited from an influential network of mentors who fostered their professional growth.

Lastly, mentorship brings about positive outcomes not only for the mentees but also for the mentors themselves. While there is comparatively less research on the advantages of being a mentor, Dolan et al. [33] showed that the enhanced research productivity of mentees translates to increased productivity for their mentors. Furthermore, the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER) mentorship training program, developed at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, has proven to enhance mentor competencies in specific domains, including effective communication, aligning expectations, assessing comprehension, embracing diversity, nurturing independence, and fostering professional growth. Additional benefits for mentors encompass a sense of gratification derived from knowledge and skills exchange, honing leadership capabilities, and heightened awareness [33,34].

1.3. The Promise of Culturally Responsive Mentoring

What type of mentoring training is needed for faculty who mentor STEM undergraduate students from diverse backgrounds? Markle et al. [17] emphasized that successful mentorship requires mentors who acknowledge and value the real-life experiences of their mentees, and understand the ways in which barriers influence their engagement in STEM. Furthermore, the authors proposed that faculty members should undergo training to cultivate a trusting and supportive mentor–mentee relationship and develop an awareness of how systemic inequality in academic environments erects obstacles for URM groups. Similarly, Mondisa and McComb [35] noted that mentors should be attuned to key aspects of mentees’ experiences, including (1) recognizing disparities between their own cultural backgrounds and the institutional culture, (2) understanding their alignment with their students’ perspectives, and (3) acknowledging racial and ethnic identities within the mentoring dynamic. Accounting for mentees’ lived experiences and values empowers mentors to offer tailored support aligned with their mentees’ aspirations. Mentors who are committed to holistically understanding a student invest time in learning how the student’s background and experiences can impact their academic journey. Beyond mere encouragement, genuinely engaging with a mentee on social and emotional levels as part of the mentoring practice can bolster mentees’ career identities and mitigate common challenges faced by URM groups [36].

Building upon the extensive scholarship of multicultural training in the field of teacher education, specifically the effective practices of culturally responsive teaching, the CIMER curriculum seeks to achieve culturally responsive mentoring in research mentoring relationships [37]. The CIMER training materials are based on Entering Mentoring [38], ensuring that mentors acquire the skills necessary to help their mentees reach their full potential. The CIMER training includes instruction and discussion around key aspects of mentoring practice, such as the five fundamental attributes of effective mentoring established by Pfund et al. [10]: research, interpersonal, psychosocial/career, culturally responsive/diversity, and sponsorship. Throughout the training, and especially during the Inclusion and Diversity module, the facilitator dedicates substantial time to both instruction and discussions. These sessions are designed to enhance mentors’ comprehension of the obstacles encountered by URM groups, including challenges like stereotype threat, impostor phenomenon, microaggressions, and social isolation. The training emphasizes the pivotal role mentors can play in mitigating the effects of these barriers. This comprehensive training equips mentors to recognize their potential inadvertent contributions to these challenges and assist their mentees in navigating and overcoming them.

A few studies have documented the advantages associated with culturally responsive mentoring. For instance, gains were reported in previous studies across all six competencies on the validated Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA) instrument in a study conducted by Fleming et al. [39]. The researchers reported that mentors who participated in a six-hour CIMER training rated the quality of their mentoring a full point higher post-training with a mean of 4.36 (before) and 5.38 (after) on a seven-point scale.

Additionally, Luedke et al. [40] showcased the meaningful gains observed when students of color received holistic mentoring, wherein mentors acknowledged both their academic progress and emotional well-being. This mentoring approach contributed significantly to the students’ persistence in STEM disciplines and broader college experiences. Haeger and Fresquez [41] provided evidence that undergraduate STEM students from historically marginalized backgrounds, whose research mentors addressed the relationship between their cultural identities and academic journey, reported higher involvement in research, stronger science identity and sense of belonging, and improved STEM degree graduation rates compared to peers without such mentorship. Furthermore, the authors found that culturally responsive mentoring positively impacts the confidence and commitment of undergraduate URM students in STEM fields, fostering a stronger aspiration to pursue graduate degrees [41]. Recent research has also indicated that interactions with “like me” faculty and mentors play a crucial role in mitigating stereotype threat among URM groups [42].

In summary, culturally responsive mentoring programs offer a promising strategy for addressing the challenges encountered by URM students in STEM fields. These programs establish a consistent and institutionalized framework to ensure that URM students receive validation and affirmation of their identities [35,36,43]. Culturally responsive mentoring has the potential to serve as a protective factor against the adverse effects of stereotype threat. Building on the mounting evidence that underscores the impact of culturally responsive mentoring, Byars-Winston and Dahlberg [36] emphasized the importance of recognizing and addressing cultural diversity in enhancing mentors’ effectiveness. Their study underscores the pressing need to cultivate such capacity among research mentors, particularly those who mentor URM students. Hence, there is a need for mentor training programs that focus on culturally responsive practices.

2. The Research Setting

The Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP) Leadership and Academic Enhancement Program, named in honor of former congressman Louis Stokes, is a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded program intended to support historically underrepresented students in the STEM fields. By offering a range of academic, social, and financial benefits, LSAMP aims to foster a supportive community for students from Black or African American, Alaska Native, Native American, Latino or Hispanic American, and Native Hawaiian or other Native Pacific Islander backgrounds. There are over forty LSAMP programs throughout the United States funded by NSF, impacting students from 200 colleges and universities. These alliances are actively involved in effective initiatives aimed at enhancing student retention, graduation rates, and overall career success for historically underrepresented minority students. Students who are part of these programs have access to a wide variety of benefits ranging from social to academic to financial. These programs are essential for addressing the nation’s growing demand for STEM expertise.

One of the funded LSAMP programs is the Georgia–Alabama Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (GA-AL LSAMP), which brings together a consortium of higher education institutions in Georgia and Alabama, including research universities and historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). The partner institutions include Clark Atlanta University, Atlanta Metropolitan State College, Georgia State University, J. F. Drake State Community and Technical College, Lawson State Community College, Morehouse College, Spelman College, Paine College, and the University of West Georgia. The program provides comprehensive support services such as academic advising, mentoring, tutoring, and financial assistance to help students navigate STEM education challenges and encourage their retention and graduation. Additionally, it offers research opportunities, professional development through workshops and conferences, and community-building activities to foster a supportive network among minority STEM students. The program significantly impacts the STEM landscape in the Southeastern U.S. by promoting inclusive excellence, improving the social and economic mobility of underrepresented students, and contributing to the innovation and competitiveness of the STEM workforce. The institutions that participated in this study are all 4-year colleges and universities that are part of the GA-AL LSAMP alliance: Atlanta Metropolitan and State College, Clark Atlanta University, Georgia State University, Morehouse College, Paine College, Spelman College, and the University of West Georgia.

3. The Intervention

The intervention examined in this study is a program based on the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER) mentoring training program designed to enhance the effectiveness of mentoring relationships in research environments. The program provides evidence-based training for mentors and mentees across various disciplines, focusing on improving communication, fostering inclusive mentoring practices, and developing mentoring skills. CIMER’s training is widely recognized for its ability to improve mentoring outcomes and create more supportive and inclusive research environments.

The CIMER mentoring training program sets itself apart through its evidence-based approach, customizable and modular training options, and a strong focus on inclusive mentoring practices. Institutions can tailor the content to meet their specific needs, whether in academic, clinical, or industrial research settings. Additionally, CIMER emphasizes diversity, equity, and inclusion, helping mentors create supportive and equitable environments for mentees from diverse backgrounds. Unlike other mentoring programs that are specific to certain fields, CIMER’s training is applicable across a wide range of disciplines, making it valuable for diverse research environments. This combination of evidence-based content, flexibility, inclusivity, and thorough assessment makes CIMER a standout choice for enhancing mentoring relationships in various research settings. This is also the reason the GA-AL LSAMP Alliance selected CIMER to train its mentors.

In a recent study, Markle et al. [17] noted that LSAMP alliances have the potential to act as valuable assets in establishing effective mentoring programs and fostering close-knit communities within member institutions. Demonstrating this concept in practice, the GA-AL LSAMP Alliance has successfully implemented a culturally responsive mentoring training program. From the spring of 2019 to the spring of 2022, STEM mentors within the GA-AL LSAMP Alliance participated in a structured mentor training program. In total, 58 mentors from six institutions were trained. The program was implemented through a cohort model in order to build a learning community for mentors in which they engage in mentorship education as a group. The cohort approach has been shown to increase motivation, help participants build professional networks, and serve as a mutual support resource [44]. In each of the four spring semesters, a different cohort of faculty attended three 90 min training sessions for a total of 270 min. The training was conducted in person in spring 2019, in a hybrid mode in spring 2020, and online in spring 2021 and spring 2022. All sessions were conducted by a National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) trained facilitator, and the training materials used were based on the curriculum established by the CIMER’s Entering Mentoring [38] and Entering Research training materials [45], which have been tested by many universities across the country. Specifically, the training focused on the following five areas: maintaining effective communication, aligning expectations, assessing understanding of research, promoting professional development, and addressing equity and inclusion.

Table 1. CIMER Training Modules Taught to GA-AL LSMAP Participants.

Day	Module	Learning Outcomes
Day 1 (90 min)	Aligning Expectations	1. Design and communicate clear goals for the research project 2. Listen to and consider the expectations of their mentee in the mentoring relationship 3. Consider how personal and professional differences may impact expectations 4. Clearly communicate expectations for the mentoring relationship 5. Align mentee and mentor expectations
	Maintaining Effective Communications	1. Provide constructive feedback 2. Use multiple strategies for improving communication (in person, at a distance, across multiple mentees, and within appropriate personal boundaries) 3. Engage in active listening 4. Communicate effectively across diverse dimensions, including varied backgrounds, disciplines, ethnicities, and positions of power
	Promoting Professional Development	1. Identify the roles mentors play in the overall professional development of their mentees 2. Develop a strategy for guiding professional development using a written document 3. Initiate and sustain periodic conversations with mentees on professional goals and career development objectives and strategies 4. Engage in open dialogue on balancing the competing demands, needs, and interests of mentors and mentees
Day 2 (90 min)	Assessing Understanding	1. Assess their mentee’s understanding of core concepts and processes and ability to develop and conduct a research project, analyze data, and present results 2. Identify reasons for lack of understanding, including expert–novice differences 3. Use multiple strategies to enhance mentee understanding across diverse disciplinary perspectives
Day 3 (90 min)	Addressing Equity and Inclusion	1. Increase understanding of equity and inclusion and their influence on mentor–mentee interactions 2. Recognize the impact of conscious and unconscious assumptions, preconceptions, biases, and prejudices on the mentor–mentee relationship and acquire skills to manage them 3. Identify concrete strategies for learning about and addressing issues of equity and inclusion

NOTE: Modules chosen for the customized curriculum were drawn from materials based on Entering Mentoring (Pfund, Branchaw, and Handelsman, 2014) [38].

summarizes the learning outcomes for each module across the three training sessions.

In all sessions, the facilitator employed a series of case studies and role-playing exercises to introduce discussions about racial and ethnic considerations within a mentoring context. These activities aimed to foster the development and application of critical thinking and communication skills among participants. Through role-playing and case study analyses, attendees were provided with a platform to engage in discussions, practice, and observation of culturally sensitive behaviors. This approach facilitated the enhancement of their self-efficacy, enabling them to effectively engage in similar interactions with colleagues from other GA-AL LASMP institutions in real-life scenarios.

4. Methods

The study addresses the following research questions:

• Did the CIMER Mentoring Training Program have an impact on participants’ mentoring skills and overall quality of mentoring based on the MCA scores?
• What specific behavioral changes did participants in the CIMER Mentoring Training Program make to their mentoring practices?
• To what extent did mentees observe changes in their mentors’ behaviors following the CIMER Mentoring Training Program that impacted their academic and personal growth?

To address our research questions, we employed a mixed-methods approach. For the quantitative component, we analyzed data from the multiple-choice questions in two mentoring capacity surveys: the Mentor Survey and the Mentee Survey. To complement these findings, we conducted a qualitative content analysis of the open-ended responses provided by both mentors and mentees in the two surveys. These surveys were designed using Qualtrics and were administered between 2019 and 2023, both prior to and following the mentor training sessions. The authors obtained Institutional Review Board approval for the study from Clark Atlanta University prior to conducting the surveys.

We used an adaptation of the MCA Training Survey, a validated tool for measuring mentors’ self-assessed skill levels across five competency domains that were addressed during training: maintaining effective communication, aligning expectations, assessing understanding, addressing equity and inclusion, and promoting professional development [39]. Since the mentor training did not address fostering independence, only the results for the other five domains are presented in this study. Additional survey items asked training participants to rate the overall quality of their mentoring before (retrospectively assessed) and after the training, express their level of satisfaction with the training, and indicate whether the training prompted them to implement, or consider implementing, changes to their mentoring practices.

We also used the MCA Mentee Survey, a validated tool for measuring mentors’ skill levels from the mentees’ perspectives. The survey addresses the same six competency domains: maintaining effective communication, aligning expectations, assessing understanding, addressing equity and inclusion, fostering independence, and promoting professional development. Like with the Mentor Survey, since the mentoring training did not address fostering independence, only the results for the other five domains are presented in this study. Additional questions were asked of students to indicate whether they observed any changes in their mentors’ behaviors after completing the training and whether those changes had affected their research.

For the first research question, as a first step in assessing whether the CIMER Mentor Training improved mentoring skills, we employed a paired Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test to account for the non-normal distribution of the variables to compare participants’ mean scores before and after training (retrospective pre- versus post-training ratings) for each of the five competencies that were addressed during training. Second, we asked students in the MCA Mentee Survey to compare their mentors’ skills before and after training. Similar to the analysis of Mentor Survey data, we used the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test to make these comparisons.

To answer the second research question, using the Mentor MCA Survey data, we first examined the responses of faculty participants who made a change or planned to make changes to their mentoring practices following training as a measure of intended behavioral change. We analyzed responses from faculty participants in the Mentor MCA Survey who indicated making or planning to make changes to their mentoring practices following training. Specifically, we completed a content analysis of mentor responses to the open-ended question, “What changes have you made or do you plan to make?” These changes were categorized along the five themes corresponding to the modules addressed in the mentoring training program.

For the last research question, we used the Mentee MCA Survey to examine whether students observed a change in the behaviors of their mentors following the completion of the training program. This evaluation was conducted at the end of each academic year. The Mentee MCA Survey was administered online to all GA-AL LSAMP scholars whose mentors participated in the mentor training program.

5. Results

We begin by presenting the results derived from the survey data, summarizing the impact of the CIMER mentor training program on mentors’ proficiency in the five domains of the MCA framework: maintaining effective communication, aligning expectations, assessing understanding of research, promoting professional development, and addressing equity and inclusion. Our analysis integrates the insights garnered from both the MCA Mentor Survey and the MCA Mentee Survey.

The MCA Mentor Survey was distributed to 58 faculty participants, 45 of whom completed and submitted the evaluation, yielding an overall response rate of 78%.

Table 2. Characteristics of Mentor Survey Participants.

Attribute		n	%
Institution Type
	Private HBCU	34	76%
	Public MSI	6	13%
	Public PWI	5	11%
Gender
	Male	20	44.4%
	Female	25	55.6%
Race
	White	13	28.9%
	Black	18	40.0%
	Asian	13	28.9%
	Other	1	2.2%
Academic Rank
	Professor	10	22.2%
	Associate Professor	18	40.0%
	Assistant Professor	11	24.4%
	Senior Lecturer	1	2.2%
	Instructor	3	6.7%
	Doctoral Student	2	4.4%
Discipline
	Biology	15	33.3%
	Chemistry	12	26.7%
	Computer Science	3	6.7%
	Environmental and Health Sciences	1	2.2%
	Mathematics	6	13.3%
	Neuroscience	1	2.2%
	Physics	2	4.4%
	Psychology	4	8.9%
	Sociology	1	2.2%
Total		45	100.00%

presents the demographic characteristics of the faculty who participated in the mentor training. As the table reveals, there were four mentors from psychology and one from sociology. Although these are not STEM disciplines, we included these mentors in the study because they teach a non-STEM course in a STEM program.

The MCA Mentee Survey was sent to students mentored by the faculty that participated in the training program. A total of 47 students responded to the survey. While the mentee survey did not specifically gather data on race/ethnicity, it is important to note that all participants in the GA-AL LSAMP program were students from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, predominantly consisting of African-American students and other students of color. To provide insight into the composition of the study sample,

Table 3. Characteristics of Mentee Survey Participants.

	n	%
Private HBCU	36	76.6%
Female	21	44.7%
Male	15	31.9%
Public MSI	3	6.4%
Female	2	4.3%
Male	1	2.1%
Public PWI	8	17.0%
Female	8	17.0%
Total	47	100.0%

offers an overview of the demographics of the sample of mentees.

5.1. MCA Scores Reported by Mentors

The results pertaining to the first research question reveal a substantial improvement in mentoring skills as reported by participating faculty before and after training. As shown in

Table 4. Self-Reported Changes in Mentoring Skills as reported by Mentors.

	Before Training			After Training			Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test	p
	n	Mean	SD	n	Mean	SD
Maintaining Effective Communications	4.62	45	1.42	6.07	45	0.84	703	<0.001
Aligning Expectations	4.36	45	1.25	5.96	45	0.77	780	<0.001
Assessing Understanding	4.29	45	1.33	5.91	45	0.87	780	<0.001
Addressing Equity and Inclusion	4.82	45	1.44	6.07	45	0.99	561	<0.001
Promoting Professional Development	4.76	45	1.30	5.96	45	0.95	465	<0.001

, significant improvements were observed across all five domains, with the Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests demonstrating significance at the 0.001 level for each area. Following the training, the domains of Addressing Equity and Inclusion and Maintaining Effective Communication exhibited the highest self-reported scores, both recording a mean of 6.07 on a rating scale ranging from 1 to 7.

5.2. MCA Scores Reported by Mentees

The results of the mentee evaluation are outlined in

Table 5. Changes in Mentoring Skills as reported by Mentees.

	Before Training			After Training			Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test	p
	n	Mean	SD	n	Mean	SD
Maintaining Effective Communications	47	5.68	1.40	47	6.02	1.31	330.5	<0.001
Aligning Expectations	47	5.66	1.45	47	6.06	1.31	276	<0.001
Assessing Understanding	46	5.44	1.74	46	5.80	1.61	136	<0.001
Fostering Independence	46	5.61	1.50	46	5.90	1.45	187.5	<0.001
Addressing Diversity	44	5.92	1.43	44	6.07	1.40	10	0.068
Promoting Professional Development	44	5.43	1.75	44	5.73	1.65	144.5	<0.01

and demonstrate that across four of the five domains of mentoring skills, mentees observed a significant change in their mentors’ behaviors when comparing pre- and post-training behaviors. The only domain that did not exhibit significant improvement post-training was Addressing Diversity. This might be explained by the fact that most faculty mentors in the study are affiliated with minority-serving institutions, and therefore, they were already demonstrating strong skills in this area prior to participating in the training program. Indeed, as indicated in Table 3, Addressing Equity and Inclusion received the highest average score before training, standing at 4.82 (on a scale of 1 to 5).

5.3. Changes in Mentoring Practices as Reported by Mentors

Changes in mentoring practices reported by mentors were analyzed using the responses provided to open-ended questions in the MCA Mentor Survey and the MCA Mentee Survey. This section discusses the results from the mentor survey, followed by the results of the mentee survey. Behavioral changes were reported in the following areas: communications, aligning expectations, assessing understanding or research, addressing equity and inclusion, and promoting professional development.

5.3.1. Changes in Communications

The content analysis of the changes reported by mentors in the area of maintaining effective communications yielded three key themes: (1) enhanced communication strategies and techniques, (2) strengths-based approach, and (3) increased awareness and understanding of students’ needs. As a result of the training program, mentors have actively improved their communication skills and techniques. This includes incorporating methods such as writing recap emails, implementing wellness checks, and utilizing active listening. Mentors have shown a commitment to engaging in more frequent mentoring meetings, both in groups and one-on-one, to foster better communication. A focus on efficient and step-by-step communication has emerged, which demonstrates the importance of clear and structured interactions.

The shift towards a supportive, strengths-based approach was evident, where mentors aim to identify and reinforce students’ strengths while assisting them in addressing weaknesses. There was also a recognition of the value of reinforcing positive behaviors and accomplishments, thus contributing to a more encouraging communication environment. Mentors also emphasized the importance of setting clear expectations for their mentees, which involves openly communicating goals, tasks, and agendas for meetings.

A recurring theme in the survey responses was mentors’ increased awareness and understanding of their mentees’ needs. This includes being attuned to concerns, listening more intently, and focusing on students’ unique expectations. Mentors also expressed a willingness to adapt and be flexible in their communication styles to better meet the needs of their mentees. The importance of considering the bigger picture beyond face-to-face interactions was acknowledged, which indicates a broader understanding of the mentees’ overall experiences.

5.3.2. Changes in Aligning Expectations

Overall, the reported mentor changes in this area demonstrate a shift towards more structured and transparent communication of expectations, utilizing written agreements and contracts, and actively engaging in discussions to ensure alignment between mentor and mentee goals. The emphasis on accountability, adaptability, and improved mentoring practices indicates a commitment to fostering effective and mutually beneficial mentor–mentee relationships. Mentors stressed the importance of establishing structured expectations through various means, such as mentor/mentee contracts, compacts, and written agreements. They also emphasized the importance of providing “clear and detailed communication about project objectives, goals, and tasks” at the beginning of the mentorship relationship. They proposed having an orientation session in addition to developing a mentoring compact, where mentors and mentees discuss and document mutual expectations, helping both parties understand their roles and responsibilities.

The mentors’ reflections also suggest a desire to enhance accountability by aligning mentor and mentee expectations. Mentors recognize that clear expectations help hold both themselves and their mentees accountable for progress with the research projects. Mentoring contracts were seen as a “tool for visualizing expectations, tracking progress, and ensuring that both mentor and mentee work towards shared goals”. The idea of adjusting expectations as the mentoring relationship evolves suggests a dynamic approach to goal alignment, allowing flexibility for growth and changes over time. Most mentors also stated that they would use Individual Development Plans (IDPs) and written documents to guide the mentorship relationship and described them as a “valuable tool for guiding discussions and setting expectations”. Participants also recognized the benefits of “upfront conversations about expectations”, particularly regarding students’ research experience and goals, to foster effective communication and a shared understanding.

5.3.3. Changes in Assessing Understanding of Research

Two key themes emerged in the area of assessing understanding of research based on the analysis of responses to open-ended questions in the mentor survey: (1) Interactive and Collaborative Learning and (2) Tailored Assessment and Skilled Development. Following the training program, mentors are adopting strategies that involve active participation and collaboration among students. Using “breakout sessions and group discussions”, as well as “reading and summarizing journal articles”, encourages students to contribute to conversations and share their understanding of research projects conducted in their mentor’s lab. Following the mentor training, there was also a shift towards creating an inclusive learning environment where students are actively engaged in discussions and contribute to the assessment of their own understanding of the research being pursued. One mentor noted that she started using Google Hangouts with her mentees, which demonstrates a focus on interactive and technology-enabled approaches to assessing and enhancing student comprehension of research.

As a result of the CIMER mentoring training, mentors are also recognizing the importance of aligning research activities with the skills and abilities of undergraduate students. “The redesign of the research lab” mentioned by one mentor indicates a thoughtful approach to adjusting the research environment to better match the students’ capabilities and foster meaningful learning experiences. The mention of “discussing career goals alongside journal articles” by another mentor suggests a holistic view of mentoring, where mentors aim to understand not only the students’ comprehension of research but also their broader aspirations and development.

5.3.4. Changes in Addressing Equity and Inclusion

One mentor emphasized the importance of addressing implicit bias and recounted that he encouraged his colleagues to undergo implicit bias training in order to identify and minimize biases: “The implicit bias training is very good. I will strongly encourage all our faculty mentors to take that training to know where their biases are”. Another participant noted that the content covered in the training sessions is not sufficient for effectively mentoring minority students, particularly at non-HBCUs. This underscores the need to provide more targeted guidance and strategies to ensure that mentoring practices are equitable, inclusive, and sensitive to the unique challenges and experiences of URM students.

5.3.5. Changes in Professional Development

Mentors reported actively implementing and emphasizing the use of Individual Development Plans (IDPs) as a “structured approach to guide the professional development” of their mentees. Following the training, there is a focus on setting goals, understanding skills and limitations, and working toward higher objectives. Mentors are using IDPs to “facilitate discussions about career goals, growth opportunities, and skill development”. The incorporation of IDPs across the alliance was seen by many mentors as a valuable strategy to help mentees identify their strengths, areas for improvement, and long-term aspirations.

Additionally, mentors are adopting a more personalized and comprehensive approach to mentoring, taking into consideration the unique situations, needs, and goals of individual mentees. There is an emphasis on open communication, as mentors are encouraging mentees to “provide input and engage in discussions about their professional development”. Mentors also seek to better understand mentees’ current situations and long-term aspirations in order to support them better. The focus on teaching specific skills, such as using LaTex for writing, indicates a deliberate effort to tailor the learning process to the mentees’ abilities and provide them with the necessary tools for success.

5.4. Changes in Mentoring Practices as Reported by Mentees

Behavioral changes observed in mentors’ practices were reported by mentees in the following areas: communications, aligning expectations, assessing understanding or research, and promoting professional development. Overall, the insights provided by mentees confirm the changes in mentoring practices that were reported by mentors. These findings suggest that the training effectively influenced mentors’ behavior and positively impacted their interactions with mentees.

5.4.1. Changes in Communications

The analysis of changes observed by mentees in their mentors’ communication skills reveals themes centered around improved communication, increased engagement, and personalized mentoring. Mentees noted that, after training, their mentors adopted new methods of communication, became more attentive, and made more efforts to enhance their presence and availability. These changes have led to a stronger mentor/mentee relationship and better support for the mentees’ academic and personal growth.

Mentees also observed that their mentors have become more active and attentive in their communications. Mentors are making efforts to understand and stay updated on mentees’ progress throughout the week, ensuring that research goals are met. This increased engagement helps establish a sense of connection and involvement in the mentees’ work. The following are selected student quotes reflecting improved mentor communication and engagement after the training:

“My mentor has employed a few new methods to communicate with us and understand what we have done throughout the week”.

“She has made an effort to be even more present and available for questions”.

“He became far more attentive when students talk”.

As a result of the training program, mentees also report that their mentors are going beyond academic issues and are getting to know them on a personal level. For instance, one student noted that “my mentor is making sure we stay on top of our research goals and is trying to get to know me on a personal level to better mentor me”. Similarly, another student remarked, “At first, it was a more disconnected feeling with my mentor, but luckily, he became my teacher and mentor at the same time. He always brought opportunities to the students of the comp science department, but now, as my mentor, he pushes me more”. This personalized approach allows mentors to better understand mentees’ individual needs, preferences, and challenges, ultimately leading to more effective guidance and support.

The mentees also noted that their mentors are demonstrating flexibility and accommodation in their interactions with them, adapting to their busy and variable schedules. This consideration of the mentees’ time and commitments contributes to a positive mentoring experience, as reflected by the responses of the mentees. For instance, one student stated, “My mentor became even better at being accommodating and working with our busy and flexible schedules”.

Lastly, mentees reported that the changes noted in their mentors’ communication skills and mentorship style have had a significant impact on their overall mentorship experience. Mentees noted that their mentorship relationship has been elevated and that their mentors are providing more guidance, opportunities, and support. Speaking of his mentor, one mentee remarked, “He always brought opportunities to the students of the Computer Science department, but now, as my mentor, he pushes me more”. Likewise, another student commented on the observed impact of training on his mentor: “My mentor was already amazing, but it truly took our mentor/mentee relationship to the next level”.

5.4.2. Changes in Aligning Expectations

The analysis of changes observed by mentees in their mentors’ skills related to aligning expectations yielded the themes of increased accountability, improved efficiency in research and collaborative project development, and skillset expansion and learning. Mentees observed that their mentors have become more accountable for guiding and monitoring their progress. “He holds me more accountable”, noted one student. Students also stated that their mentors are actively setting clear expectations and goals, resulting in a more focused approach to research activities: “After my mentor attended the research meeting, the lab goals and expectations were more focused and better executed”. Mentees also reported that mentors are demonstrating excellence in setting clear and attainable expectations for them. These expectations are challenging yet manageable, leading to an increased overall learning experience and the development of new skills. One student stated, “My mentor excellently set clear expectations for me as a student researcher that challenged me but were ultimately still attainable and increased my overall learning and skillset”.

Mentees also reported that their mentors are adapting their mentoring practices to align with the needs of virtual research settings. This adjustment involves a focus on efficient research practices, enabling mentees to navigate virtual research environments effectively. “We just focused more on how to efficiently perform research while being virtual”, noted one student. In response to new challenges, mentors and mentees are also working collaboratively to develop research projects. This collaborative effort provides an opportunity for mutual learning and shared problem-solving, particularly when facing novel situations. One student reflected, “We were able to work together in order to develop my first virtual research project. I am usually assigned a project, so because this was new to the both of us, we worked as a team”.

The changes observed by mentees in their mentors’ practices have led to the expansion of their skill sets and an improved overall learning experience. They report that their mentors are focusing on providing guidance and support that enhance mentees’ research capabilities. One mentee remarked, “My mentor excellently set clear expectations for me as a student researcher that challenged me but were ultimately still attainable and increased my overall learning and skillset”.

5.4.3. Changes in Assessing Understanding of Research

Improvements in mentors’ skills in assessing student understanding of research are evident through several positive outcomes reported by mentees. Mentees experienced increased familiarity with their research work, higher motivation to comprehend the underlying context, improved communication of their progress and future plans, and enhanced confidence in working independently on research projects. One mentee stated that “being able to clearly communicate what we have done and plan on doing in the future is important to me”. In reflecting on the help provided by her mentors, another mentee noted, “They have allowed me to become more familiar with my research work in a way I have never before”. Similarly, another mentee revealed that his mentor provided him with “more motivation to understand the background behind what we are doing”. As a result of the mentor’s improvement in this area, one mentee stated, “I feel more confident working on a project independently than previously to engaging in research this year”.

5.4.4. Changes in Professional Development

Mentees reported that, following the training program, their mentors have provided them with exposure to multiple research opportunities and resources, enabling them to develop their career plans and aspirations. This includes guidance in exploring different paths within their field and having access to a wealth of options. One student remarked, “I have been exposed to more opportunities to conduct research and develop a plan for what I want to bring to my career”. Another student echoed the same sentiment, “I have so many resources and options of what I can do. I have someone that is there to guide me through my career”.

Mentees stressed the role of mentors in motivating and guiding them toward their career goals. Mentors’ passion for teaching and mentoring has inspired mentees to strive for excellence, explore new avenues, and stay consistent in their research efforts. Speaking of his mentors, one student noted, “They have motivated me to a high degree, and I really want to explore and try new things related to my major”. Another mentee confessed that his mentor’s passion for teaching and mentoring “has motivated me and allowed me to bring opportunities for myself”.

Most mentees revealed that mentors have contributed to their skill development, critical thinking abilities, and overall research competence. Mentors have helped mentees enhance their skill sets, providing them with valuable tools and awareness skills that positively impact their pursuit of careers in fields such as medicine and pharmacology. Said one student of his mentorship relationship, “It has given me new critical thinking skills and awareness skills that keep me on my toes to continue striving in the direction of medicine and pharmacology”.

6. Discussion

This study examined the influence of a culturally responsive mentoring training program on faculty who mentor URM students in STEM disciplines within an LSAMP alliance. One note of caution is warranted in discussing the findings of this study due to the relatively small sample size and the use of basic statistical methods. The results should be considered preliminary and indicative rather than definitive conclusions. Additionally, these findings may not be representative of the broader population of STEM mentors in the United States.

This study advances the existing body of research on mentoring STEM students in two key areas. First, demonstrating the effectiveness of the CIMER training program in enhancing faculty mentoring skills and practices reinforces previous findings [39,46]. The study’s unique contribution lies in its exploration of inter-institutional collaboration in mentoring training, a factor often overlooked in previous research. By examining the program’s effectiveness across multiple institutions, the study provides valuable insights into the benefits of collaborative approaches to mentoring training.

Second, the study adds to the literature by demonstrating the value of specific mentoring tools—the Mentor–Mentee Contract and the Individual Development Plan (IDP)—as perceived by undergraduate students from underrepresented communities. While previous research [47,48,49,50,51,52] has established the efficacy of these tools for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, this study fills a critical gap by focusing on the undergraduate student experience. The findings provide evidence of the positive impact these tools can have on the academic and professional development of undergraduate STEM students from marginalized backgrounds.

The analysis of surveys administered to participants demonstrated the training’s efficacy in enhancing mentoring skills. In line with the study conducted by Fleming et al. [39], this study demonstrates that the CIMER training program improves mentors’ skills and practices, as evidenced by both student and faculty accounts. Additionally, the feedback from mentees supports the findings of Gasman et al. [25], who showed that a positive mentorship relationship in the STEM disciplines plays a key role in students’ ability to envision themselves as capable scientists. The results also confirm earlier findings from Sorkness et al. [46], demonstrating that the CIMER training program stands as an exemplar, offering a model of mentoring that incorporates cultural competency resources for faculty. The findings also reinforce the results of Markle et al. [17], who noted that one approach to ensure comprehensive mentor training is to pair mentees exclusively with mentors who have completed the training.

The findings also indicated that, following the training program, faculty confirmed the integration of newfound tools and approaches into their mentoring practices, which was corroborated by mentees in a separate survey. In particular, two mentoring tools were adopted widely by participating mentors across the alliance: the Mentor–Mentee Contract (or compact) and the Individual Development Plan (IDP). Both mentors and mentees commented extensively on the benefits of these tools. This finding is in line with previous research that has demonstrated the value of these mentoring tools. For instance, the study conducted by Hagerty et al. [47] showed that written mentoring contracts (or compacts) increase mentoring effectiveness. The finding also aligns with previous research documenting the benefits of IDPs, which have been shown to significantly enhance the mentoring experience [48,49,50,51,52]. Assessments of IDPs suggest they are useful in facilitating skills identification and developing the abilities needed to support career success [48]. Previous research also indicates that mentees who use IDPs experience greater career satisfaction, increased productivity, and stronger social support networks [49,50]. Additionally, IDPs can also foster a sense of belonging, reduce anxiety, and improve overall outcomes, including academic performance, resilience, persistence, networking, and long-term career satisfaction [51,52].

The results also demonstrate that inter-institutional training can be an effective approach to improving faculty mentoring. This finding is in alignment with the results of Estrada et al. [53], who found that strategic partnerships between programs with aligned objectives can be a pivotal catalyst for driving systemic change in member institutions. The finding also supports the research by Markle et al. [17], who noted that LSAMP alliances have the potential to act as valuable assets in establishing effective mentoring programs and fostering close-knit communities within the member institutions. One of the key benefits of the inter-institutional training program emerged in the form of knowledge exchange among participants hailing from diverse institutions within the alliance. Because all participants shared the same vision –improving the success of students of color—in each session of the training, they discussed best practices for culturally responsive mentoring practices. The interactive nature of these sessions facilitated skill practice among peers, fostering camaraderie, mutual support, and motivation among mentors within the GA-AL LSAMP Alliance.

The findings of this study have several implications for practitioners. Faculty and staff engaged with URM students could utilize these findings as guidelines to enhance their mentoring practices. Our findings provide evidence that CIMER training, as one of the models of culturally responsive mentoring training, could be incorporated into other LSAMP programs across the country. This integration could bolster the confidence and competence of faculty mentors, enabling them to more intentionally acknowledge and address cultural disparities within their mentoring interactions with URM students. Higher education institutions might consider implementing a policy wherein mentors who have not undergone the training program can still mentor primary research mentees, yet they would be required to complete the mentor training before taking on additional secondary mentees.

By cultivating collaborative support communities across institutions within an LSAMP alliance, a strong network of support is forged where faculty can continually exchange insights and best practices for mentoring URM students well beyond the conclusion of the mentor training. Nonetheless, given that LSAMP programs usually possess resources to serve a limited cohort annually, member institutions should consider extending culturally responsive mentoring training initiatives beyond the LSAMP cohorts. In line with the suggestion offered by Markle et al. [17], higher education institutions should proactively engage with the principal investigators and campus coordinators of their respective LSAMP programs to glean insights into effective strategies for supporting URM students and to collaborate on the development of impactful mentoring approaches on a larger scale, beyond STEM disciplines.

Following the model established by the GA-AL LSAMP alliance, other LSAMP alliances in the U.S. could play an important role in equipping STEM faculty with culturally responsive mentoring skills, given their support for a large number of historically underrepresented students in STEM fields. However, the implications of this study extend beyond HBCUs and MSIs, although the study focused on these institutions. All colleges and universities that aspire to foster inclusivity and effective mentorship should equip their STEM faculty with cultural awareness resources and/or training to provide the essential tools for supporting their increasingly diverse mentees.

There are several limitations related to the methodology used in this study. This study represents a single case study focused on the GA-AL LSAMP, which limits its generalizability to other mentor training programs. Moreover, the results of the faculty survey reflect perceptions of what faculty think happened, which may not accurately represent reality. These perceptions can be subjective. Other limitations include the small sample size, the use of a convenience sample, and the limited power and efficiency of the paired Wilcoxon test as compared to a paired t-test.

We identified potential avenues for future research on the effectiveness of mentoring training programs, including areas related to the limitations of the current study. Forthcoming studies should adopt mixed methods designs, complementing the MCA surveys with interviews and focus groups that include both mentors and mentees. Moreover, given the restricted sample of minority-serving institutions in this study, larger-scale investigations should encompass predominantly White institutions as well. Faculty members at these institutions may have a higher need for culturally responsive mentoring compared to their counterparts at minority-serving institutions. Consequently, there is a pressing need to evaluate the efficacy of CIMER training programs within such institutional contexts.

Further research is necessary to document the specific benefits of mentoring compacts and Individual Development Plans (IDPs) for undergraduate students from underrepresented groups. While these tools have been praised by both mentors and mentees in this study, existing research primarily focuses on mentoring graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. Additional studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these tools in supporting the academic and professional development of undergraduate students from historically marginalized backgrounds.

Additionally, future research should delve deeper into the comparative benefits of inter-institutional versus single-institution mentoring training. While existing research primarily focuses on single-campus training, this study represents an initial exploration of inter-institutional training through an alliance. Given the preliminary nature of these findings, further investigation is needed to understand the unique advantages and synergies created by multi-campus training and cross-institutional mentor collaboration.

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that culturally responsive mentoring training for faculty who mentor underrepresented minority (URM) students in STEM fields offers a promising avenue to address race-based barriers and foster a more inclusive STEM environment. By equipping mentors with the tools and understanding to effectively guide and support URM students, such training can significantly enhance the academic experiences and outcomes of these students. To maximize the benefits of culturally responsive mentoring, it is crucial to implement this training prior to the establishment of the mentor–mentee relationship. By ensuring mentors are well-prepared and equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills from the outset, we can create a solid foundation for a successful mentoring experience that promotes the academic and professional growth of URM students.

If implemented with fidelity, culturally responsive mentoring has the potential to significantly improve the retention and graduation rates of URM students in STEM disciplines. This, in turn, will contribute to a more diverse and representative STEM workforce, ultimately enhancing the long-term sustainability and innovation capacity of the STEM sector in the United States. By investing in culturally responsive mentoring, we are investing in the future of STEM and the broader society that benefits from its advancements.

Lastly, it should be noted that the implications of this study can be extended to mentoring students outside the STEM disciplines. Specifically, in the field of education, enhanced mentoring from seasoned educators can better prepare future educators by providing them with the support and guidance needed to navigate their academic and professional journeys. Culturally responsive mentoring strategies can contribute to a more inclusive and supportive educational environment, benefiting students across all areas of study.