Research Apprenticeship Program Ambassador
October 2022 - May 2023

My junior year on campus, I was prompted to apply for the Undergraduate Research Center’s Research Apprenticeship Program (RAP) Ambassadors, and I was lucky enough to be selected. This was a continuation of the RAP program that I had participated in the previous semester. This Ambassador program was focused on the six of us chosen actually doing a research project. The Undergraduate Research Center (URC) had chosen the research question for us ambassadors, and they provided us with a few articles to use for background research. The question they had us researching was ‘why do undergraduate students not participate in undergraduate research.’ The URC was curious as the number of students who participate in their research programs was low compared to the total enrollment of the university. After doing our background research, we each tried to find more articles that related to the topic.

​

​

The next time we got together, the group came up with a list of the potential reasons undergraduate students do not participate in undergraduate research. In total we came up with six total reasons that students may not participate. Then, each of us ambassadors took a reason we thought that students may not participate and proceeded to look for more articles that addressed our specific topic. I chose the topic of anxiety, and I read approximately seven more articles that addressed research anxiety in various majors. I used the school library’s MavScholar database to look for the articles. I had originally used this database when I was in the RAP program, and due to my experience using MavScholar, I knew how to filter the database to find the correct articles. After we had done the research on our personal topics, we discussed how we would like to collect data for the project. We decided that a survey would be our best course of action to gather the data that we needed. Each ambassador took the time to write about ten questions for the topic they chose. Our group then analyzed these questions before writing a rough draft of the survey. When we finalized our survey, we turned it into the Minnesota State University Mankato Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB returned our survey three times, and each time we made the appropriate changes to the survey. Finally, upon clearance from the IRB, all the ambassadors reached out to various instructors that taught the lower-level courses (100-200 level) to ask them to distribute the survey. We received the data and analyzed it approximately one week before presenting our findings at the Undergraduate Research Symposium in the spring of 2023.

​

​

One thing that this process taught me is that nothing is good the first time around. When submitting our survey to the IRB, we swore each round that it was good and that we would be able to send the email out to the professors the minute it got sent back. However, something we all thought was good, was not good enough for the IRB, so we had to rewrite the survey a few times before it was finally deemed well enough. I also did not realize how much went into creating a survey and how many different types of questions there are. Most of our questions ended up being Likert scale questions due to the scale nature of most of the questions. We originally also had a sliding scale for a few of our questions, but then accessibility concerns were brought up. I did not realize the extent of the thinking that surveys took. It took the group of six undergraduate students, two faculty members, and a graduate student over a month to create and finalize the survey. While I have never done research in my major, I do know that the IRB is helpful in all projects that include subjects as it ensures that the subjects are treated rightfully and that it does not infringe on their lives.

​

​

When it came to analyzing the data, the group was unsure of how to proceed. took the results from my section and gave them numerical values. I then ran one-way ANOVAs with my data and the demographic data that we had collected. The results were varied and not having the data analyzed in the same manner created an extra challenge to coming up with results. My section revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in student anxiety when comparing the different demographic groups. The other researchers said that their data leaned one way or another. For instance, in our workload slides, the majority of students said that they somewhat agree that the workload of research projects is concerning for students. However, the biggest takeaway from the project was that over 90% of students said that a paper certificate would be a big motivator to convince them to participate in research. Now that the URC has this information, they can try to find a way to alleviate students’ workload concerns, and they can use certificates to motivate the students to participate.

​

​

Something that I took away from presenting this research is that when presenting in a group, presenting can be awkward. My group had only two practices together, and one was interrupted by other people, and we never had the entire group present for these practices. Our presentation was clunky, but it could have been much smoother if we had practiced as an entire team. After our presentation we received a few questions, and none of us knew who was supposed to answer what question. It often ended up that the student who was willing to take the question started to answer and then someone would jump in. This led to times when we were speaking over each other. I believe that better communication and more practice could have helped make this section of the presentation smoother. Another aspect of our presentation that needed work was our slides. Our PowerPoint was thrown together in less than a week, and if we had more time, our PowerPoint would have looked so much nicer. However, on the timeline we had, it turned out fairly well.

​

​

The first time I was in RAP, our posters were placed online for people to go and look at. I never had to actually give any presentation or say anything in front of a group. This was my first out of class experience in presenting research. Coming from a background of speech and drama, I felt I was prepared. However, I did not realize the extent of questions that would be asked. They were not just the simple how did you do this questions, but rather they wanted to know more about future possibilities. I am more used to straightforward answers, and the questions often did not have straightforward answers. They were more open to interpretation, meaning that I was often left second guessing everything that I had written down.

​

​

Going forward, I see this experience helping me out in the future. If I end up becoming a crime scene investigator, like I want to be, I will be presenting a lot in different courtrooms. This experience instilled in me that each presentation takes time to get it set up and if possible, many practices with the information should be run before the actual presentation. Another aspect of this experience that I will take with me is that it is okay not to get it right the first time around. In criminal investigation, getting it right in one test is preferable because there are often times when there is not enough DNA for a second test. However, I know that in presentations it is okay not for it to be perfect the first time around. If or when I have to present the findings of a case, I know that I can make a presentation in multiple different ways before deciding which one I want. I don’t know if I will do any more structured research projects like this, but I do know that it is a possibility as I head into my future career as well as a possible master’s program.