Building the next generation of researchers: an “EPIC” student mentoring process

Introduction. Nowadays society is in demand for skills required to conduct scientific research using a foreign language, among other things, but the problem is that students do not have well-formed research skills. In addition, the undergraduate curriculum does not provide for a separate learning course for the formation of such skills. The purpose of the study is to theoretically and practically substantiate the effectiveness of the application of a professionally oriented distance learning course in a foreign language to the formation of research skills in university students of non-linguistic degree courses. Materials and methods. The study involved second-year students (N = 34) pursuing a degree in “Pedagogical education” (main subjects “History, Social science subjects (Social science, Geography)”, “History, Social science”) at Bunin Yelets State University. For statistical data processing before and after the experiment, methods of mathematical statistics and Mann–Whitney U test, in particular, were used. Research results. It was revealed that the proposed authors’ course is effective for the formation of research skills in students of non-linguistic degree courses at a university. The data obtained at the control stage of the experiment after training indicate that the level of formation of research skills in students in the experimental group is much higher than in the control group (U = 70; p < 0,01). Conclusion. The data on the methods for the formation of research skills in university students are systematized and summarized; the formation of research skills in undergraduate students of non-linguistic degree courses while implementing the authors’ specialized distance learning course in a foreign language is experimentally verified; the effectiveness of this course for the formation of students’ research skills while working with foreign language material was proved. Keywords: distance learning course, professional orientation, research skills, foreign language, nonlinguistic degree course

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderFeature1 Apr 2002The Joy of Research Lorraine Ramig Lorraine Ramig Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.FTR2.07082002.6 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In “I don’t want to be a researcher, I want to help people.” How many times have I heard those words spoken by one of my master’s degree students? Why is it, I ask myself, that the research world, which brings so much joy to so many of us, is often perceived by our students as existing in a realm totally removed from anything practical? Since research doesn’t directly help people, some of our students wonder—why should I pursue it? Sharing the Passion With this reality in mind—and faced with a class of 30 master’s students enrolled in the required research methods course in the department of speech, language, and hearing science (SLHS) at the University of Colorado–Boulder—I was determined to help my students feel my passion for research. I speculated that if they could step into the world of engaged researchers and feel their daily excitement, the joys of research would come alive and they would begin to see the relationship between research outcomes and their goal of “helping people.” At the very least, I hoped they would begin to see the “real people” and the “real activities” of the research process and feel that they could have a role in this community. I called this experience “mentored research” and it was considered a laboratory practicum for the research methods course (parallel to the typical clinical practica). Pairs of students selected their research mentor from volunteer researchers. I also invited participation from faculty in related disciplines (e.g., linguistics, computer science, kinesiology) as well as researchers from local laboratories—the Wilbur James Gould Voice Center of the Denver Center for Performing Arts, headed by Ingo Titze, and the Center for Spoken Language Research (CSLR), headed by Ron Cole. In some cases, advanced doctoral students were research mentors. After classroom discussions of “life in the research world,” the students’ first step was an initial interview with their research mentor to enable them to see the big picture of the research. Not only did this experience allow students to hear the personal account of the evolution of the research, but it provided the opportunity to apply the classroom-taught “language of research.” For example, the interview included questions such as “What types of experimental designs do you use and why?”; “What are your independent and dependent variables in this study?”; and “How do you determine measurement reliability in your work?” I warned students that researchers love to talk about their work and that the interview might take on a life of its own! In fact, after the initial interview, I began hearing positive things from the students, such as Robin Cooley, who said, “Ever since my initial contact with my research mentor, I can see that my old ideas about research were misconceptions—that it was boring, that it was tedious, that you just dreamed up a question to answer and did your own thing to answer it, or that if you made an error of any kind you were toast. Now I know that researchers must know what researchers before them have done, as well as how answering their own questions will be a significant addition to an already existing body of knowledge.” Each student pair donated four hours a week throughout the semester to their research mentor. Students put their hands into a number of elements of research, including assisting with literature reviews, grant writing, data entry, galley reading, and poster presentation preparation. At the CSLR, Scott Schwartz hosted four pairs of students. “We did not create work for the students. Every task these students did and every minute they spent working on a task was essential to our project and saved us an enormous amount of time, “ he said. “As the semester evolved, the students transitioned from seemingly mundane tasks—such as looking for clip art pictures, creating lists of words, and typing in text—to seeing their work appear in software applications and participating in reviewing and recommending improvements to the software. “The work was not always glamorous, and sometimes the lessons of research were in the mistakes—for instance, the student who learned to save often after she accidentally kicked off the power supply to the computer and lost an hour’s worth of work.” Each week in class, students were asked to describe what they had done that week in the “real world of research” and how these activities contributed to the overall research effort of their mentor. For example, Janice Fairbank noted, “The research project that I am involved in is huge, and my small part seems quite insignificant in the whole scheme of things. As I have learned from my mentor, however, every little thing that I do is much needed and most appreciated.” At the end of the semester, students presented a summary of their research experiences to the class. These presentations included an overview of the “big picture” of the mentor’s research program, aspects of the research design, funding, goals for future research, and the students’ specific roles throughout the semester. The mentors were invited to the talks as well. Rating the Experience So what did the research mentors think of the experience? Cole, director of CSLR, said, “Our experience with these students was so positive, I was motivated to write a small Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) grant to fund undergraduate students in our lab over the summer. We anticipate the REU being a great asset to the project, just as the master’s students from SLHS have been.” Schwartz agreed: “These outstanding master’s students have been a gift to our project. They are bright, hard workers who are helping to build the infrastructure of a Web-based software package that will help teach children how to read.” Lynn Snyder, a professor and chair of the SLHS department, said, “It has been one of the more exciting experiences I’ve had working with students. Their excitement is absolutely contagious! After they had coded and entered some data into the project database, I showed them how to use a statistical program to analyze it. “They asked great questions about the choice of statistical measures and their relevance to the research questions. But the real high point came when I ran the tests and we looked at the results together. They all cheered when the first analysis produced significant findings. We all felt that we were part of something very exciting!” Angela Halpern and Jennifer Spielman of the Wilbur James Gould Voice Center each hosted a pair of students. Halpern and Spielman have the relatively unique positions of being research speech-language pathologists. Their comments from their roles as research mentors also reflect their own evolution as speech clinicians living in the research world. “The research mentor program provides an excellent opportunity for students to experience how fulfilling, rewarding, and exciting research can be, and to expose them to the many facets of the research world,” Halpern said. “When I first began my career, I felt that direct clinical contact was the best way to have an impact on helping individuals improve their functional communication skills. However, through my experiences as a researcher, I have learned that this is not true. I feel the program provided me with a wonderful opportunity to show students who are interested in clinical work that they can have the fulfillment of working directly with patients in a research position, and that discoveries made with these patients have an impact on improving the quality of life of many other individuals with communication disorders.” Added Spielman, “It has been fun to see my two students going through the same experiences I did when I first began working in the lab and to be able to support them. At the moment, both of them have been searching the literature for me and summarizing acoustic analysis methods. It is great to receive their summaries and send them the ‘this is perfect’ message. I think it is the transition from ‘assistant thinker’ to ‘independent thinker’ that is crucial for the emerging researcher, and I am thrilled to participate in this development even at the most basic level.” Did It Work? The big question of course is…what did the students think? At the beginning of the research mentor assignment, I heard a lot of “I can’t possibly fit two more hours of anything into my schedule…” At the end of the semester, there was a range of comments: “I could do research!” “I will do a thesis!” “Research is boring!” “Research is exciting!” A number of students shared their perspectives on the experience. Naomi Kalfon said, “Research can seem like a foreign and elitist clique that’s near to impossible to enter as a graduate student. This practicum puts research into perspective for students as something real and attainable, and enables them to see how it can fit into their lives in the future.” “I had a negative attitude toward research before this experience, mostly because it reminded me of writing research papers at the last minute,” said Julie Bartl. “After a few dedicated hours of searching for the latest articles in my research mentor’s area of interest, I realized that research isn’t that bad if you take the time to do it! I have also learned how much I have to learn!” Rebecca Rothenberg added, “This experience is helping me to bridge the gap between the tedium of research and the excitement of discovery and progress. I finally found an efficacy study that will help my mentor, and I can ’t wait to share it with her. Her enthusiasm is infectious.” What did I learn from the experience? Teaching research methods is enhanced when students are having a concurrent “real world “ research experience. For example, I may teach examples of ways to analyze differences in pre- to post-treatment data and tell the students to ask their research mentors how they study differences in data. Or I may give some examples of funding sources for work in the area of child language and tell them to ask their mentors for examples of funding sources for their work. Easy “hands-on access” to a researcher seemed to help students integrate classroom-taught research information and make it real. One of my favorite comments was from the student who said, “I couldn’t believe it—when we were analyzing my research mentor’s data, we pushed the computer key and out came those ‘p values’ we had talked about in class!” What would I change about this experience? Next year our plan is to offer the three-credit research methods course across three semesters. This will allow the students two semesters of mentored research experience (one credit per semester, simultaneous with classroom lectures). If they choose to pursue additional research, they will be encouraged to do so as a third credit of research methods in the summer session. We hope that if students begin this research practicum process earlier in their training and they have more time to integrate the experience, it might allow them to develop and complete a more independent research study, such as a thesis. The idea has been suggested to offer this experience to undergraduates, so students will have this research opportunity even earlier in their training. The reality is that the pool of researchers and PhDs in our field is shrinking. This mentored research experience is one method of engaging all master’s degree students in the research process. Although one semester of an “in the research lab” experience will not likely radically alter the career direction of most master’s degree students, I see it as “ sowing a seed.” If we begin offering all of our students the opportunity to gain access to the passion of the researcher, it certainly will increase the likelihood that some will begin to see research with new understanding. Students have commented that they are now looking at published research articles differently, through the eyes of someone who has played a role in a similar process. They recognize with pride that they have made a contribution to their research mentor’s program. Some of these students report that they are beginning to develop a vision of research as a part of their future professional life. For example, Rothenberg said, “I’m learning what resources are available to me as a student, a researcher, and a future clinician. It has made research much less intimidating and more of a reality for me.” Finally, I am pleased to report that I did observe an impact on the perceived dichotomy between research and “helping people.” Many students made comments similar to those of Jenny Landry: “What amazes me about my mentor is her passion regarding her research topic and her commitment to the population she studies. I can really see how her research will help people!” Author Notes Lorraine Ramig, is a professor in the department of speech, language, and hearing science at the University of Colorado–Boulder and is a senior scientist at the Wilbur James Gould Voice Center of the Denver Center for the Performing Arts. She is also a member of ASHA’s Research and Scientific Affairs Committee. Contact her by email at [email protected] Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 7Issue 8April 2002 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Apr 1, 2002 Metrics Current downloads: 570 Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagasha-article-typesleader-topicsCopyright & Permissions© 2002 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

This study looks at the experiences of seven graduate/postdoctoral research mentors in a novel aerospace engineering course that introduced undergraduate students to research at a midAtlantic research University. In this course, groups of (typically) three undergraduate students were mentored by one graduate student. The undergraduate students worked with and were led by these research mentors in various aerospace engineering research projects. In many cases, the undergraduate students were working on a project related to the research mentors’ theses or research work. Previous studies looking at the undergraduate research experience do so from the undergraduate students’ perspectives; this paper focuses on this experience from the research mentors’ perspectives. In this paper, the experiences of seven research mentors who were involved with the course in the fall 2011 and spring 2012 semesters are described. The paper answers the following research questions: (1) What benefits result from being a research mentor? and (2) In what ways does being a research mentor prepare graduate students for their future careers? Data were collected via individual interviews with the research mentors at the end of each semester. Using situated learning as the theoretical framework, the data were analyzed to determine themes that characterized the research mentor experience. The theory of situated learning was used to identify and inform the ways in which being research mentors can prepare the mentors for their future careers, specifically in terms of how they are prepared to become members of the communities of practice they aspire to join. The benefits for research mentors were classified as follows: (1) benefits related to preparation for their future careers, such as strengthening their technical skills and content knowledge, and developing and improving various professional skills, and (2) benefits related to their current positions as students/postdoctoral scholars, such as receiving help with their theses or research projects. This study is part of a longer-term study to determine the effectiveness of this aerospace engineering course, both in terms of the undergraduate students’ learning experiences, and in terms of the graduate students’ professional development. The results shared in this paper can be useful to universities, departments, and faculty members who: (1) are interested in graduate student professional development, and (2) would like to learn about a novel way to involve graduate students in undergraduate courses.

This study determined the level of research skills of graduate students at Tomas Claudio Colleges during the Academic Year 2024–2025. Using a descriptive research design, the study involved 178 graduate students, representing fifty percent (50%) of the graduate studies population. The respondents were described in terms of age, sex, civil status, position title, course, years of teaching experience, research-related trainings attended, and number of researches conducted and published. Data were gathered through a researcher-made questionnaire checklist assessing research skills in problem identification and conceptualization, information and evidence seeking, research methodology, statistics, analysis and evaluation, and communication and language, as well as challenges encountered in research.Findings revealed that most respondents were aged 25–34, female, single, and held the position of Teacher I, with less than five years of teaching experience. The majority had attended research trainings at the school level and had limited research experience and publication output. Despite this, the respondents demonstrated a high level of research skills across all dimensions. Further analysis showed that demographic and professional variables were not significant determinants of the respondents’ research skill levels. The study highlights the importance of continuous research capability-building programs to enhance graduate students’ research productivity.

The research aims to substantiate the effectiveness of a methodology for developing research skills in pedagogical students (training program specialization “Foreign language”) during their teaching practicum in general secondary education institutions in Moscow. The article analyzes the theoretical foundations of integrating research activities into the structure of pedagogical education, proposes an original methodology for the phased development of research skills in students – future foreign language teachers – in the context of methodological training, and presents the results of its effectiveness testing during experimental teaching. The methodology developed by the author is based on an activity-based approach and includes four stages: motivational-value, cognitive-operational, project-activity, and reflective-analytical. At each stage, the goal, types of tasks and exercises, methods, techniques, and forms of work with students, and the skills being developed reflected at the levels of knowledge, ability, and mastery are highlighted. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the fact that it makes a certain contribution to linguodidactics, expanding the understanding of the development of research skills in students – future foreign language teachers – filling a gap in existing methodologies, namely in clarifying the content, principles, and pedagogical conditions for the formation of such skills. As a result of the research, the feasibility of using the developed complex of tasks and exercises, which ensures an increase in the level of formation of these skills in the process of professional training, is substantiated.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the theory and practice of Generative Research mentoring. The author has been involved in research mentoring teachers in schools since 2002 and in the course of her work her concepts about integrating mentoring and action research have changed. She explains how and why she has moved to adopt an Appreciative Inquiry approach integrated with a model of mentoring that she developed in the course of her own practice in schools.Design/methodology/approachThis is a self study of teacher education practice where the author analyses her own theories and practices of research mentoring for teachers in schools in England and in Japan, over a ten year period. She investigates how the nature of self‐study is impacted upon by culture in diverse intercultural contexts.FindingsThis article reflects work in process. The findings to date suggest that teacher research and thus (potentially) research mentoring for teachers: is not informed by consensus on what teachers should learn as research skills; might usefully be focused upon action research enabled by teachers’ self study; works differently as self study according to Eastern/Western concepts of self; is likely to become more universally acceptable as self study through use of web‐based templates where self studies are shared e.g. atwww.merlot.org; and should challenge mentoring/coaching techniques from other contexts such as business, nor assuming techniques successful in one context are so in another. Practitioner researchers in educational settings are likely to benefit from outsiders’ support, be that from colleagues based in universities or from teacher researchers working in other schools. That situation, in my experience, could come about where generative research mentoring has been successful and research mentees emerge to become research mentors for others within the profession of teaching. Importantly, individuals’ self study research should not rely upon unsupported opinions or upon validation by a peer group with self‐interest in seeing one of the community's study, accepted for university accreditation such as a Masters Level Award or a doctorate.Originality/valueWhile the practice of research mentoring for teacher researchers has been in process in schools in England for ten years, the concept of Generative Research Mentoring, whereby the mentee prepares to become a mentor for other teacher researchers, is unique to the author's work. The value of generative research mentoring, not just for schoolteachers but also for academic contexts such as universities internationally, is that it can build capacity for research to be undertaken among those whose research skills are previously under‐developed.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact mental health by exacerbating anxiety, fear, and substance use worldwide. Several studies have demonstrated increased substance use and declining mental health in students abroad, but no investigation has assessed the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on mental health and substance use in graduate and healthcare students in the United States. Objective Researchers sought to quantify and qualify the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic’s impacts on Colorado graduate and healthcare students’ mental health and substance use, hypothesizing that greater COVID-19-related fear would correlate with higher substance use rates across metrics. Methods Investigators utilized an online, institutionally-distributed, mixed-methods survey to assess quantitative and qualitative changes in various mental health metrics and substance use in Colorado healthcare and graduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic from June 2020 to February 2021. An augmented Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) academic survey served as the primary data collection vessel. Results Students who reported higher levels of depression, exhaustion, loneliness, nervousness, and anger had significantly higher FCV-19S scores. Higher FCV-S19 scores were also significantly associated with increased levels of alcohol consumption, binge drinking, and cannabis use. Qualitative analysis elucidated recurring themes regarding use frequency, substances used, and the reasons underlying use. Further qualitative analysis revealed three common student concerns: worries regarding the length of the pandemic, its social impact, and educational/financial impact. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the well-being of Colorado healthcare and graduate students, directly increasing substance use while simultaneously exacerbating feelings of fear, anxiety, and helplessness.

It has become commonplace in academia to encourage students from underrepresented groups to provide insider perspectives on experiences of marginality. Yet, there has been little discourse on how painful and traumatic this kind of vulnerability can be for students, or how academic advisors can best support students exploring potentially triggering researcher topics. In this article, we explore trauma, ethics and mentorship in graduate student research. To begin, Shea, a graduate student and transgender woman, describes the emotional and psychological trauma she experienced while chronicling her medical and social transition from male to female as part of her graduate research study. In section two, Kate discusses the difficulty of mentoring students experiencing research-related trauma and urges members of the academy to become more active in developing strategies to support students through such hardships. The purpose of this piece is not only to spark a frank discussion about the very real potential for trauma while conducting research on marginalized populations, but to also act as a cautionary tale by providing an example of an unexpectedly traumatic research experience from the points of view of the both mentor and the mentee.

Students' research skills still need to be empowered. The Research-Based Learning (RBL) model is reported to improve students' research skills, but it has weaknesses that need to be addressed. The Team-Based Learning model can accommodate the weaknesses of the RBL model and vice versa. The RBL and TBL models have advantages and disadvantages that complement each other. Therefore, this study aims to integrate the RBL and TBL models into a model that is expected to empower students' research skills. This study also ensures the model's validity, practicality, and effectiveness in empowering students' research skills by using validation sheets, observation sheets, response questionnaires, and student research skills questionnaires. The Plomp & Nieveen development model is used in this study. The developed model was tested on 40 students who had taken Environmental Science courses at the University of Riau. The findings show that the developed RTBL model with the stages of Preparing, Assessing Readiness, Researching in a Team, and Reflecting is valid based on the validator's assessment. The RTBL model is also practical and effective in improving research skills. The RTBL model developed can empower research skills and can be used by educators in the learning process.

Mental health problems in university students were highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic, showing the need to pay greater attention to psychological, emotional and social conditions. Since confinement and isolation, diseases and disorders have increased in school environments. Therefore, the objective of the paper is to analyze empirical evidence on mental health in students of higher education through a systematic review of scientific literature, which allows recognizing effects on training and academic performance. The methodology adapted to the study is qualitative cut, based on the systematic review of scientific literature, which consists of three phases, the first consisted of the exploration of 17,649 materials including scientific articles and degree theses; the second phase consisted of a more detailed exploration based on the implementation of filters such as keywords, reading abstracts and reading the full text; The third phase was the processing of materials that met with methodological quality and contribute to knowledge about mental health in university students, in an analysis matrix that allowed identifying categories of analysis, concepts, debates, among others. The systematic literature review identified lines of analysis, the first contributing to the debate on mental health in university students; the next consisted in identifying the most common sufferings in students that compromise their mental health; and third, the effects of mental health on training and academic performance of university students are presented. As a conclusion, it is identified that mental health in university students is an issue that became relevant in the pandemic by Covid-19 and that prevails as a problem that affects training and academic performance.

The objective of this study was to perform a bibliometric analysis of digital competencies and research skills in graduate students between 2003 and 2023. To analyze the academic production, the research method was based on bibliometric analysis. A total of 378 publications were selected from Scopus for the study based on their relevance and the keywords in English (Digital AND competencies, research AND skills). The results show that the most significant increase in scientific productivity occurred between 2016 and 2023 (n=341; 90.2%). In addition, the United States was the country with the highest scientific output (10.3%), the main publication sources were Education Sciences and Sustainability Switzerland (n=9 each), while Falloon, G. was the most referenced author (228 citations; 2 papers). Scientific articles accounted for 87% of the total, with 44% being research papers in the social sciences and 15% in computer science. It is concluded that the thematic diversity, authorship, sources and available resources have been progressively advancing with respect to digital competencies and research skills in graduate students. Thus, this bibliometric analysis can serve as a basis for further studies.

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderAcademic Edge1 Sep 2006The Power of Passionate MentoringMentoring: Person-to-Person Professional Development Ray D. Kent Ray D. Kent Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.AE.11122006.26 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Advisor, tutor, master, sponsor, model, coach—these are six roles performed by a mentor. These roles enable the mentor to guide, equip, and encourage someone who is preparing for a professional career or other responsibility. The accomplished mentor emphasizes different roles as the needs of the protégé change, so that mentoring is dynamic and adaptive. Of course, mentors do not necessarily rationalize their work by thinking, “Today I will be more of a sponsor and model as opposed to an advisor or tutor.” Rather, the idea is that reflecting on these roles with respect to the protégé’s needs helps to remind mentors of the various ways they can help their protégés develop the skills and attitudes needed for career success. Mentoring takes different forms that are often determined by characteristics of the mentor, the protégé, and the circumstances of their association. Mentoring can be formal, such as when a department or supervisor assigns a mentor to someone who was recently recruited. More informal varieties of mentoring can arise through common interests or a connection of some kind. Mentors may be master clinicians, senior scientists, experienced teachers, or leaders in a profession who share their expertise with younger or less experienced individuals. Distal mentoring is increasingly important, as mentors and protégés connect by means of the Internet or by telephone. These opportunities enable mentoring across long distances. The tradition of mentoring is rooted in Greek mythology, when Odysseus (Ulysses) entrusted the care of his son, Telemachus, to Mentor. Mentor’s name survives to this day to refer to the activity in which an experienced person takes an interest in one who is less experienced, to guide him or her to proficiency. Over time and across circumstances, mentoring has served different purposes, such as grooming younger individuals in business, aiding nurses in the transition from classroom to ward-based training, developing research skills in graduate students, and teaching reflective and self-evaluative thinking to professionals of many kinds. In academic and professional circles, mentoring is the means to implicit knowledge about the “hidden curriculum,” that is, professionalism, ethics, values, career development, financial issues, and the art of practice. This implicit knowledge complements the explicit knowledge that is found in curriculum content. Mentoring offers mutual benefits to the protégé and the mentor. The protégé naturally benefits from the mentor’s experiences and may be supported financially, emotionally, and professionally. The mentor, in turn, generally experiences career growth and satisfaction, increased productivity, new ideas, networking, and self-evaluation. Selected References Berk R. A., Berg J., Mortimer R., Walton-Moss B., & Yeo T. P. (2005). Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships.Academic Medicine, 80, 66–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Johnson W. B. (2002). The intentional mentor: Strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring.Professional Psychology—Research & Practice, 33, 88–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Mahayosnand P. P., & Stigler M. H. (1999). The need for mentoring in public health.American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1262–1283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Minghetti N. J. et al. (Eds.) (1993). Research Mentorship and Training in Communication Sciences and Disorders. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation. Google Scholar National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1997). Advisor, teacher, role model, friend. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Google Scholar Rose G. L., Rukstalis M. R., & Schuckit M. A. (2005). Informal mentoring between faculty and medical students.Academic Medicine, 80, 344–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Author Notes Ray D. Kent, is professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and currently serves as ASHA vice president for research and technology. Contact him by e-mail at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetailsCited ByPerspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups6:3 (601-609)25 Jun 2021Undergraduate Student Success Initiatives in Communication Sciences and DisordersJairus-Joaquin Matthews, Twyla Perryman and Dena Kneiss Volume 11Issue 12September 2006 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Sep 1, 2006 Metrics Downloaded 718 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2006 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Currently, innovations are being implemented through dialogue learning, diagnostic, distance learning, project method, collaborative learning, problem-based learning, collective learning, brainstorming and other learning technologies and methods. Among these innovative methods, methods that were effective, formed research skills of schoolchildren and gave positive results are presented in the article. Barriers to the formation of students ' research skills are identified and solutions are presented using new methods. The reasons for changing the paradigm of students ' attitudes towards learning were also revealed. In the course of teaching geography, various methods and techniques have been used so far. And in teaching a child of a rapidly changing society, there was a need to form research skills, influencing the thinking of students. That is why new methods, new classifications are needed. The great scientific and practical significance, effectiveness of this classification, its function as a guide for design, selection and evaluation are analyzed by the authors in the article. The analysis of school experience on the topic of the study made it possible to identify a number of stages in the development of students ' educational and research skills with a new methodology.

The introduction of Practical Research courses in senior high school (SHS) highlights the Philippines’ continuous efforts to improve the status of research in basic education but also unravels critical challenges for education stakeholders. Being part of a research-oriented institution, the De La Salle University Senior High School (DLSU SHS) designed and implemented a Research Advising and Mentoring Program (RAMP) to support research activities in more structured and sustainable ways. Since research advising programs are not usually part of the basic education system, this article identifies and describes the key features of DLSU SHS’s RAMP through the perspectives of its main stakeholders: Research Mentees, Research Advisers, and Research Program Administrators. Data were collected through qualitative surveys, focus group discussions, and document and archival analysis. Thematic analysis yielded eight core features: 1) Presence of Research Mentors and Research Advisers, 2) Deliberate Topic-Adviser Alignment, 3) Regular Consultations, 4) Collaborative Environment, 5) Sufficient Financial Support, 6) Functional Facilities and Platforms, 7) Strategic Exposure to Research Opportunities, and 8) Reflective and Learner-Centered Process. The findings suggest that the program’s success and sustainability are grounded in these interrelated features, which collectively enhance research quality and cultivate a sustained culture of mentorship, critical reflection, and scholarly engagement within the SHS context. Furthermore, these features may serve as a benchmark for other Philippine senior high schools as they navigate ongoing curricular reforms in basic education and address the broader challenges posed by the current educational landscape, particularly in preparing students for research-oriented university environments. Keywords; Lasallian education, Philippine basic education, RAMP, research mentoring, research program, senior high sch

The flexible Ph.D.