Mentor Influence Among Hispanic Engineering Students’ Learning Research Experiences

Abstract

The influential role of mentors in undergraduate research experiences (UREs) is of the utmost importance. This study examined the differences between cohorts among engineering undergraduate students who participated in a one-year research-focused program at a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI). The study’s purpose was to gain insight into the mentors’ influence on students’ learning by assessing different cohorts as well as the acquisition of social, professional, technical, and research skills. With a mixed-methods approach, undergraduate students responded to surveys and participated in one-on-one interviews describing the relationships with their mentors. Results indicated differences by cohort in three areas: research understanding in engineering, professional and social skills, and research skills, with students from cohort three scoring lower than the other cohorts in all three sections. Students from the third cohort found gaps and limitations in the mentoring, while students from the other cohorts described benefits and gains with mentors sharing personal, academic, and professional experiences. Students expressed a stronger connection with their mentors when mentors showed accessibility, availability, knowledge, and willingness to support students. Institutional programs should be aware of the essential role mentors play in creating a welcoming and positive climate for students that could ultimately change students’ decisions about their career plans.

1. Introduction

Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) are common strategies to increase students’ involvement in research, usually under the mentorship of faculty and graduate students (Stephens et al., 2017). Multiple studies reported UREs’ positive impacts on students in terms of better understanding and skills within STEM fields (Contreras Aguirre et al., 2024; Estrada et al., 2018; Stephens et al., 2017). In addition, due to their participation in UREs, students report both psychosocial and professional benefits. Psychosocial benefits included gaining perspective around difficult experiences and clarity about what is important to them in their working environments. Professional benefits included acquiring knowledge about skills in writing, publishing papers, and presenting at conferences, opportunities to network with other scientists, strengthened applications for graduate school, and a solidified commitment to pursuing research careers (Frederick et al., 2021). In other UREs, students found gains in the building of mentorship relations, understanding the research process and how scientists work, the role of modeling in a particular field, and how to conduct research, as well as the importance of research in graduate school (George & Domire, 2020). Students also reported an improvement in their scientific identity and confidence as well as an increased understanding of the importance of graduate education in STEM careers, and the various career opportunities in STEM (George & Domire, 2020). For this study, mentoring can be defined as “a professional, working alliance in which individuals work together over time to support the personal and professional growth, development, and success of the relational partners through the provision of career and psychosocial support” (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2019, para 2).

UREs are especially valuable for minority and underrepresented students, such as Latinx students, who are less likely to join and persist in STEM fields (Delgado et al., 2023; Estrada et al., 2018). Consequently, student involvement with UREs has been associated with increased STEM retention (Johnston et al., 2021; Stephens et al., 2017; Wao et al., 2023). For instance, students experienced an increase in knowledge of career paths and in their self-efficacy specific to their skills as research scientists after obtaining URE at a Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) (Capri et al., 2017). Participants also reported that the program allowed them to become more immersed in the professional scientists’ community and contribute to ongoing original research (Capri et al., 2017). This increase in knowledge may also allow Latinx students to understand how they may participate in STEM fields and how this could align with their personal and professional goals (Isenegger et al., 2023). Furthermore, the involvement of women of color in URE is of particular interest, mainly due to the STEM environment often clashing with the cultural and socioeconomic background of Latina students through a social climate that feels unwelcoming (Perrez et al., 2024). Thus, by providing students with role models in STEM through mentoring and knowledge about their specific field, UREs offer these students opportunities to determine how their potential work within STEM aligns with their personal goals, whether communal or otherwise.

The Research-Oriented Learning Experiences (ROLE) program, where this study took place, provided students, mostly Latinx students, with the opportunity to engage in research-oriented education activities in Electrical and Computer Engineering at an HSI. Seven to nine students were grouped in annual cohorts. A total of four student cohorts participated in the ROLE program throughout its three and a half years of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding. Some of the main characteristics of the program included peer and faculty mentorship through graduate students and professors, workshops to help them develop professional, academic, and interpersonal skills, and time in the laboratory was scheduled in such a way that students increased interaction and fostered community (Contreras Aguirre & García Carillo, 2024). The structure of the program evolved every year due to the leadership team’s commitment to meet and discuss changes and improvements to the program (Contreras Aguirre & García Carillo, 2024).

The changes that benefited the program most and better supported students’ learning and research experiences are explained next. Over the years, and through all cohorts, mentors sought better ways to keep students engaged in research activities. A couple of changes were the use of Canvas for keeping track of student progress and the development of a curriculum with clear objectives and activities. Therefore, students felt guided while gaining confidence in their abilities to contribute to the research projects. Furthermore, students from cohorts 1 to 4 had more autonomy to choose the type of research projects that were more interesting for them, as well as allowing them to work with peers with similar interests. In addition, the last 2 student cohorts presented research progress reports regularly. Lastly, the program coordinator met with the mentor(s) bi-weekly to discuss students’ achievements, challenges, and setbacks, as well as planning upcoming events and activities.

The program technical aspect consisted of a first semester of learning the basics for coding, programming, and becoming familiar with programs such as Linux OS, Robot Operating System (ROS), and the Python 3.13.7 programming language. As a result, students were able to combine the software and hardware necessary to control a real-time aerial robotic system. In the second semester, students applied what they learned through a specific research project, such as vision-based object detection and obstacle avoidance. Students left the program with an increased determination, motivation, confidence, and ability to seek other research opportunities, competitive graduate school programs, and industry positions.

Purpose and Research Questions

The study’s purpose was to gain insight into the mentors’ influence on students’ learning by assessing different cohorts as well as the acquisition of social, professional, technical, and research skills after they participated in the ROLE program. The research questions guiding this study are the following:

• (QUANT) How do cohorts within the ROLE program differ in their perception of gaining social and professional skills, research understanding in engineering, and research skills?
• (QUAL) How did students per cohort differ in the perceptions of their main peer mentor after they participated in the ROLE program?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Undergraduate Research Experience

Undergraduate research experiences (UREs) provide students with further access to mentorship, opportunities to engage in scientific practices, opportunities to become involved in the larger STEM community, and to understand what research is about (Morales-Chicas et al., 2022; Crisp et al., 2017; Crane et al., 2022). Both research experiences and high-quality mentorship have been positively associated with science self-efficacy and science identity, as well as valuing the objectives within the scientific community (Estrada et al., 2018; Robnett et al., 2015). Students involved in a URE also reported psychosocial gains, including an increased sense of belonging to school and science self-efficacy, which were then positively associated with students’ intention to remain in their STEM major (Makja et al., 2023). Research mentors served as part of students’ STEM community and played a critical role in providing advice and other forms of support (Crane et al., 2022). Involvement in research predicted which students would identify as scientists two years after their participation in research through a UREs, which was associated with higher retention rates (Crisp et al., 2017). While undergraduate research experiences have had positive impacts on undergraduate students, STEM lab settings have also acted as negative influences for STEM Students of Color (Rodriguez et al., 2022). Students of color have described their STEM labs as being sources of isolation and competition (Rodriguez et al., 2022). However, STEM labs that were diverse in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity were described by Students of Color as having more positive connotations, such as being welcoming (Rodriguez et al., 2022).

2.2. Latinx Student Retention Strategies Through Research

The population of Hispanic or Latinx individuals in the United States has been growing, and with this growth, the number of Latinx people within the STEM workforce has also increased (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2023). For instance, in 2011, Latinx individuals consisted of 11% of the STEM workforce, and that percentage increased to 15% in 2021 (National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2023). This positive trend has also occurred within higher education, with the number of specifically Latinas receiving STEM degrees nearly doubling from 2011 to 2021. However, Latinx students still graduate at a lower rate compared to Caucasian students and are underrepresented in STEM fields (Johnston et al., 2021; Simmons & Smith, 2020). Additionally, Latinx students experience challenges not faced by their white peers. For example, Latina students in STEM reported their environments in their programs as being isolating and being viewed as less capable (Rodriguez & Blaney, 2021).

UREs and mentoring are common strategies that have been considered in improving the retention of Latinx undergraduate students in STEM (Markle et al., 2022). Latina women’s involvement in an undergraduate biology research program was associated with a 90% retention rate in STEM for those students who participated (Markle et al., 2022). These same students reported that their research experiences and mentorship were key to their retention (Markle et al., 2022). Additionally, Latinx college students who could access scholarships and multiple opportunities to engage in undergraduate research experiences reported both professional and psychosocial benefits (Frederick et al., 2021). The professional benefits included improved skills in writing and publishing papers and presenting at conferences, opportunities to network with other individuals, strengthened applications for graduate school, and a solidified commitment to pursuing research careers (Frederick et al., 2021). Also, the professional benefits for Latina engineering students in a research-focused program at an HSI consisted of improvements in their learning process through research involvement, increased confidence in their abilities, and positive perceptions of themselves as researchers (Contreras Aguirre & García Carillo, 2024). In addition to UREs supporting Latinx students, students have also reported that organizations centered both around their Latinx identity and their STEM major have supported them (Rodriguez & Blaney, 2021). Due to this, UREs that focus explicitly on and integrate student Latinx identity may be helpful. Therefore, this study looked to determine the influence of mentors on the experiences of Latinx students in engineering.

2.3. Mentors’ Role and Importance

Mentorship has been an effective strategy to improve degree completion and broaden participation of marginalized and underrepresented students in STEM (Crisp et al., 2017). Additionally, mentorship has been associated with students having a smoother adjustment to the laboratory climate and a better understanding of research dynamics (Crane et al., 2022; Stelter et al., 2021). In addition to supporting mentees, mentorship is also helpful for those acting as mentors (Gunn et al., 2017). The importance of creating spaces for senior undergraduate students and graduate students as peer mentors to lead, guide, and teach other students is a unique opportunity to prepare them for a future career and improve leadership skills (Gunn et al., 2017). Furthermore, mentors from minority backgrounds often help mentees deal with issues related to stereotypes, impostor syndrome, and social connections (Markle et al., 2022). The mentoring approach in the ROLE program resonates with prior research and contributes to broadening the knowledge of the positive changes that peer mentors experience after mentoring others. In addition to how mentors support the students they mentor, mentorship also has the potential to improve the experiences of mentors themselves (Johnston et al., 2021; Robnett et al., 2015). STEM mentors have reported being motivated to mentor in part due to extrinsic motivations, including bolstering their resumes and developing or improving their skills as engineers and increasing their self-efficacy (Markle et al., 2022). Mentors reportedly wanted to share their passion for research with minority students and serve as good role models (Contreras Aguirre et al., 2025b). Likewise, mentors reported feeling as though they had improved their skills both in teaching and in math-related skills related to numeracy (Robnett et al., 2015).

Some of the experiences of mentors and how they mentor have also been associated with the cultural experiences of mentors (Markle et al., 2022; Morales-Chicas et al., 2022). Having a shared race/ethnicity and cultural identity was salient in the mentoring relationship of those sharing a Hispanic identity (Contreras Aguirre et al., 2025a). This allowed mentors and mentees to share their common struggles as well as cultural aspects (Contreras Aguirre et al., 2025a). Likewise, Latinx mentors reported that they attempted to build bonds and relationships with their mentees and that their mentorship approaches were informed by their own experiences as mentees (Morales-Chicas et al., 2022). Mentors transferred familial capital that had occurred in their own former mentoring experiences into their acting as mentors (Morales-Chicas et al., 2022). This suggests that prior experiences of mentorship influence how students act as mentors and that culture influences how students mentor others (Markle et al., 2022; Morales-Chicas et al., 2022).

3. Theoretical Framework

A model that represents the important role of mentors for minority students framed this study. Crisp and colleagues’ conceptual framework integrates critical components to understand the effectiveness of mentoring in educational settings, see Figure 1 (Crisp et al., 2017). The framework describes the mentoring process with inputs, the process itself, and outcomes. First, inputs include the academic context and mentor, as well as student characteristics, highlighting the importance of all three elements in the quality of mentorship. Second, the process consists of the relationship structure, cultural relevance, discipline culture, and forms of support, which emphasize the dynamics of the mentoring relationship. Lastly, outcomes are composed of expected outcomes and intermediate as well as long-term outcomes, underscoring the learning and implications from a meaningful mentoring relationship (Crisp et al., 2017). In a prior publication, the authors integrated the components in orange (see Figure 1) into the framework, due to the importance that these elements have for achieving a successful and positive mentoring relationship. The importance of the mentors’ role and laboratory climate for students who participate in undergraduate research programs is critical. A recent study found that undergraduate students in a research-oriented program changed their perspectives about graduate school, showing more curiosity and interest, and even some students applied to master’s and doctoral degrees by interacting with graduate students as mentors (Contreras Aguirre et al., 2025b). Another study using peer mentors for first-year students underscored the importance of program design and mentors by defining clear expectations and mentors’ ability to develop in students a sense of involvement and belongingness (Flores & Estudillo, 2018).

4. Materials and Methods

This study employed a mixed methods design pulling from both qualitative and quantitative data to understand the experience of students involved in the ROLE program. Data were collected from 2022 to 2025 and from four student cohorts of six to nine students each. Some student demographics are shown in Table 1. Each cohort consisted of different students, and most cohorts had unique mentors. By comparing cohorts and examining the qualitative aspects of this study, one can see how specific relationships vary and influence students’ experiences. As such, participants completed a pre- and post-survey about their experiences in the ROLE program. Before beginning the program, students completed a pre-experience survey. Then, after an academic year in the program, students completed a post-experience survey. Students were invited to complete the surveys after reading and signing a consent form. Luchini-Colbry and her colleagues developed these surveys, which address undergraduate researchers’ expectations and experiences (Luchini-Colbry et al., 2013). The post-survey was divided into three main sections. The research understanding in the engineering section consisted of statements about understanding the research process, research literature, and research skills and/or lab techniques in a specific area. The research skills section focused on the ability to write research abstracts, give a research presentation, interpret, and apply research data. Lastly, professional and social skills included diverse statements on having leadership and interpersonal skills, as well as the ability to develop a professional network, work with others, manage time, overcome challenges, and communicate effectively. For these statements, students answered using a scale ranging from 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree). After the surveys were completed, the data were analyzed to determine whether the data were normally distributed. The researcher completed an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine whether students’ scores for each of these variables differed based on the cohort they were involved in, in the post survey.

The qualitative component included one-on-one interviews with students. The program coordinator, who is also a researcher, developed the interview protocol to complement the data collected through the surveys. The interview protocol consisted of different sections concerning research involvement, laboratory climate, including the relationship with the mentors, learning outcomes, influence on graduate studies, and engineering identity development. For the purpose and scope of this study, only the section on laboratory climate as it relates to the influence of the mentor in students’ personal, cultural, academic, and professional development was included. Each interview lasted on average 45 min and was conducted at the university facilities. The interviews were recorded, and the audio was transcribed for analysis. The researchers used Dedoose, a software to assist in qualitative data analysis. The transcripts were uploaded into Dedoose, and the researcher performed the analysis by reading the information several times and finding commonalities among student experiences. The analysis consisted of using comparative techniques to find meaning in the data and identify categories and themes that helped address the research question (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

To ensure the study’s trustworthiness, the researchers triangulated the data collected from different sources, such as interviews and observations. Additionally, the sample can be identified as a homogenous group of participants, making it easy to replicate in other academic contexts. Such techniques prove the study’s credibility and transferability.

Participants

Most student participants self-identified as Latinx, except one Native American and one White woman who also participated in the program. In terms of declared gender, cohorts one, two, and four were composed of half males and half females; cohort three had 6 males and 3 females. The majority were junior and senior students. Table 1 shows other characteristics of student participants.

Table 1. Other student demographics.

	Cohort 1 6 Students	Cohort 2 8 Students	Cohort 3 9 Students	Cohort 4 8 Students
First Generation
Yes	17%	25%	33%	18%
No	83%	75%	67%	82%
First Research Experience
Yes	83%	75%	89%	90%
No	17%	25%	11%	10%

Table 1. Other student demographics.

	Cohort 1 6 Students	Cohort 2 8 Students	Cohort 3 9 Students	Cohort 4 8 Students
First Generation
Yes	17%	25%	33%	18%
No	83%	75%	67%	82%
First Research Experience
Yes	83%	75%	89%	90%
No	17%	25%	11%	10%

5. Results

5.1. Quantitative Results

The quantitative results assessed the role of the mentor in the students’ research learning process. In order to complete an ANOVA, several assumptions must be met. First, the dependent variable must be one continuous variable, and the independent variable must be categorical with two or more levels/groups within it (Flinn & Kalkbrenner, 2021). Because the independent variable, cohort, was categorical with more than two groups, and the dependent variables were all continuous, this assumption was met. To complete an ANOVA, the data must also be normally distributed. The skewness for the subscale scores ranged from −0.777 to 0.381, and the kurtosis values for the subscale scores ranged from −1.34 to 0.273, within the range of normality. To complete an ANOVA, there must also be a homogeneity of variance. In order to determine if this assumption was met, Levene’s statistic was calculated. The assumption of homogeneity of variance was met for the professional and social skills subscale (p = 0.137) and the research skills subscale (p = 0.079). However, the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met for the research understanding subscale (p = 0.049), and thus, those results should be considered more cautiously. To complete an ANOVA, there must be no univariate outliers, which are those with z-scores greater than 3.29 (Field, 2018). Through calculating and analyzing z-scores for each of the dependent variables, there were no univariate outliers. An ANOVA was thus considered appropriate for this study.

Both Cronbach’s coefficient alpha and McDonald’s omega were calculated to assess the reliability of research understanding, professional and social skills, and research skills subscales. The interpretive guidelines of Kalkbrenner (2024) were used with satisfactory reliability set at α ≥ 0.70 for alpha and ω ≥ 0.70 for omega. Research understanding internal consistency reliability estimates were acceptable (α = 0.785, ω = 0.793). Professional and social skills internal consistency reliability estimates were strong (α = 0.842, ω = 0.831). Finally, research skills internal consistency reliability estimates were also strong (α = 0.816, ω = 0.809). Thus, a one-way ANOVA was completed to determine if there was a significant difference in research understanding in engineering, professional, and social skills, and research skills between the different cohorts. Tukey’s post hoc analysis was completed for the variables for which the ANOVA results were significant to determine which groups were responsible for the difference. See

Table 2. Summary of Results.

	Cohort 1		Cohort 2		Cohort 3		Cohort 4		Significance
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Research Understanding in Engineering	4.92	0.17	4.61	0.49	3.80	0.45	4.50	0.50	p = 0.008
Professional and Social Skills	4.36	0.43	4.46	0.49	3.78	0.52	4.67	0.28	p = 0.021
Research Skills	4.20	0.92	4.26	0.64	3.88	0.46	4.30	0.57	p = 0.67

for a summary of results. An explanation of the analysis is provided below:

• A statistically significant main effect appeared for all cohorts for research understanding in engineering. Students who were members of the third cohort (M = 3.80, SD = 0.45) scored significantly lower on research understanding compared to students who were in the first (M = 4.92, SD = 0.17) and second cohort (M = 4.61, SD = 0.49), F(3,20) = 5.22, (p = 0.008). Students in the third cohort did not score significantly lower than students in the fourth cohort (M = 4.5, SD = 0.50). Students in the first and second cohorts did not score significantly differently from students in the fourth cohort.
• A statistically significant main effect also appeared for all cohorts for students’ professional and social skills F(3,20) = 4.07, p = 0.021). Students in the third cohort also scored significantly lower (M = 3.78, SD = 0.52) than students in the fourth cohort (M = 4.67, SD = 0.28). Students in the third cohort did not score significantly lower than students in the first (M = 4.36, SD = 0.43) and second cohort (M = 4.46, SD = 0.49). Students in the fourth cohort did not score significantly differently from students in the first and second cohorts.
• There was no statistically significant difference in students’ scores on research skills by cohort F (2, 30) = 0.50, p = 0.67). Despite being of no statistical significance, the third cohort scored lower (M = 3.38, SD = 0.46) than the other three cohorts.

The survey analysis assessed differences between cohorts in research understanding in engineering, professional, and social skills, and research skills. In particular, cohort three scored lower in all three sections than the other three cohorts. These results are further explained by the qualitative findings concerning the mentor’s role and influence in the experiences of students by cohort.

5.2. Qualitative Results

The interview data revealed the influence of the mentors on different aspects related to students’ personal, cultural, academic, and professional development. An important component of the mentoring relationships is that each student cohort had a different main mentor supported by other mentors. The first cohort had a faculty member; the second and third cohorts had a master’s student; and the fourth cohort had a PhD student. In all cohorts, student participants mentioned other secondary mentors, mostly other graduate students or students who stayed in the program from a prior cohort, who also supported and guided them. The following themes explain the role of the mentors in the research experience:

5.2.1. Admiration and Trustful Relationships

Student participants of the first cohort expressed positive perceptions of the mentor using words such as respect, admiration, knowledge, trust, and inspiration. This cohort included a mix of students in terms of race and gender; however, the students who related to the mentor concerning race mentioned,

He’s a good mentor. He’s easy to talk to and he also helps us a lot and gives us advices as well … I think he did a good job in guiding us, but also letting us do trial and error and figure it out as well … So I think it did help, his knowledge and he shared with us his background as well.

(Jaylen)

I think we had a wonderful relationship. My mentor was always there 100% with me through it all. Anytime I had questions or issues or problems, he would always help me out and whenever I had any problems, he would always guide me to be able to solve anything or any issues that I had …, he did a wonderful job and he was there and he helped to relieve that.

(Jose)

Both student quotes refer to the deep connection they made with their mentor, which went beyond discussing technical aspects. Students found in their mentor a trustworthy person whom they could talk to, and, in particular, they felt supported and guided in their research learning process.

5.2.2. Academic and Professional Influence

The second student cohort was larger than the first cohort, and all of them were either born and raised in Mexico or of Mexican heritage. Most of them were bilingual, and a few had basic knowledge of Spanish. The main mentor was not fully bilingual but understood Spanish. Given this context, student participants mentioned aspects such as increasing their confidence and developing strong connections with their mentor. For example, two students vented, “By knowing from my mentor, I can be a leader depending on how much like I know and then I can teach others. So basically, the confidence in knowing what I’m doing” (Leo). And another student added, “My mentor is amazing. He’s really funny. I know that I can go to him and like, um, he’s helped me with other things…he’ll come and sit by us and he’ll talk to us as well, like normal day-to-day stuff” (Xiomara). Due to the relationship with the mentor, students identified their strengths and ability to communicate effectively. In addition, another student said

I think I have really positive experience with my mentor. He is someone that is really knowledgeable and he’s able to teach you about it in a way that you learn, he wasn’t just telling you about it… He motivated us to investigate and research rather than just like asking for a straight up answer to it. So we have to do some research skills and to look it up, implement it, see what works, see what doesn’t.

(Pepito)

All these quotes show a good student–mentor relationship, where students realized the mentor’s accessibility and willingness to help. The mentor also empowered students and showed them that they could be leaders, and learn new skills needed to be a strong and skillful researcher. Lastly, students also expressed a good rapport with the mentor, where they could discuss more than technical aspects.

5.2.3. Knowledge Sharing

Student participants of the third cohort had the same mentor as the second cohort; however, students shared slightly different experiences with the graduate student in the role of mentor. While there were students who still thought the relationship with the mentor was helpful and had a positive impact on their learning and professional aspirations, other students felt that more engagement and additional mentoring skills were needed. On the positive side, a student revealed,

I’ve had a really good relationship with my main mentor. I think he’s really approachable. Uh, that’s my personal opinion. I feel like I can make more in the sense of personal life than technical … So for me, even though we might not have the same career, we might not have the same skills. I can connect really easily based on the personality of the person.

(Kiera)

This student perceived the mentor as someone who can talk to any topic and share information, showing connection and good rapport. Likewise, another student also provided her opinion on the benefits of this relationship. She added, “I really like my mentors right now. I think I developed a pretty good relationship with them. It’s people that I now admire for, like, the job they’re doing, the knowledge they have or the experience they do have” (Ginger). On the contrary, a few students mentioned aspects that the mentor could improve, and a couple of students shared,

I think that it would have been helpful to share a little bit of more knowledge and their experience when they went to the conferences, when they had to present or any advice they could give us. But when I would talk to my mentor, it was mainly about how to develop code. But not so much in a professional aspect.

(Luna)

Another student also expressed some sort of frustration in needing more teaching to better understand the topics related to the research projects, he vented, “My mentor, he didn’t like teaching stuff like there were not regular classes or lectures. It was just asking him questions which I believe it’s okay, because this program is research oriented” (Seus). Both quotes illustrate gaps identified by students, showing the importance of sharing more than technical knowledge with students and establishing teaching as a practice in students’ research learning process.

5.2.4. Collaboration and Interpersonal Relationships

The last student cohort could benefit from the lessons learned and experience of having three prior cohorts. Additionally, one new main mentor and secondary mentors supported the students’ research activities. As a result, students shared highly positive outcomes from their mentoring relationships. This was the first cohort where students expressed a sense of collaboration, community, and professional influence. The following quotes reflect these perceptions:

Mentors there, I think it’s a very welcoming community. The main mentor is a very nice person, he’s always looking out for, if we need anything and we’re doing our work, he is there to help… Other grad students as mentors, they all have their different experiences and stuff. So, it’s like a nice thing to be able to get different opinions.

(Roy)

In the actual lab room, it feels a lot more collaborative. I’m able to just kind of walk up to them and ask for help… be in the same room with them and see them work on stuff. So it kind of encourages the environment to keep working…our conversations aren’t just about projects or just about the research that we’re doing. It’s about anything and everything that’s happening, which is really nice. So we’re getting to build, like, actual relationships with everyone in the group.

(Elle)

Because of my mentors, that kind of gives me a new purpose to even go for a master’s and then for a PhD, which I think has helped me to change my perspective, because at the beginning I was only thinking of my bachelor’s, but now everything changed.

(Kylie)

These three examples show how students connected with the mentors who created a welcoming, collaborative, and supportive laboratory space. In this cohort, students perceived the mentors as highly accessible, easy to talk to and trust, willing to share more than technical knowledge and information, and inspiring in terms of their academic journey. Students also mentioned the ability of the main mentor in developing interpersonal relationships with each student, helping in areas such as their emotional well-being.

6. Discussion

The first research question investigated differences in different cohorts within the ROLE program concerning students’ social and professional skills, understanding of research in engineering, and research skills. The analysis of surveys indicated statistical significance for all cohorts in two areas: research understanding in engineering and professional and social skills. These results could be directly related to the mentor’s role in achieving that students developed the appropriate skills to better understand what was needed to perform research in engineering. In addition, the structure of the ROLE program should have contributed to acquiring professional and interpersonal skills, which are important in college and beyond. A similar study also showed the importance of creating awareness among college students regarding the ability to communicate technical information and strengthen their professional network (Contreras Aguirre et al., 2025b). The fact that the third cohort scored lower than the other cohorts in all three areas: research understanding in engineering, professional and social skills, and research skills, could be linked to the relationship and perception of the mentor. Participating in the ROLE program represented a unique opportunity for most students who experienced research for the first time. This opportunity allowed students to access mentorship, learn about scientific practices, belong to a research group, and understand what research was (Morales-Chicas et al., 2022; Crisp et al., 2017; Crane et al., 2022). The qualitative findings explained at a deeper level the quantitative results and helped to understand students’ thoughts and perceptions about their mentors.

The second research question focused on how students per cohort differed in the perceptions of their main peer mentor. In each cohort, student participants showed differences and highlighted aspects that characterized their relationship with their mentor. In the first cohort, students developed admiration and trust with the mentor, helping them feel supported and validating the new role as researchers. The student–mentor relationship was beneficial, and the mentor provided more than technical information, making the students feel a deeper connection. Several scholars have highlighted the important function of mentors as role models and helpful for students in understanding research dynamics in laboratories, in particular for students experiencing research involvement for the first time (Contreras Aguirre et al., 2025a; Crane et al., 2022). The second cohort was larger, and student participants had similar cultural backgrounds that helped with feelings of belonging to the group. Most students were bilingual; therefore, they spoke English, Spanish, or a combination of both. This trend continued in cohorts three and four. Given this context, finding a mentor who shares race/ethnicity and cultural identity matters for students (Contreras Aguirre et al., 2025a). Students from the second cohort felt a strong mentor’s academic and professional influence. The mentor was able to instill in students a sense of empowerment and leadership that they could apply to other life experiences. Students recognized the mentor’s ability to feel accessible and easy to talk to about their research projects and other topics. Students also found a knowledgeable mentor who could guide them and clarify their questions. Other research studies have found the benefit of creating cultural connections between mentors and mentees to achieve a deeper connection and better understanding (Markle et al., 2022; Morales-Chicas et al., 2022). Crisp et al. (2017) mentoring model highlighted important elements in the mentoring relationship, including mentors’ characteristics, the type of relationship, and cultural relevance. In the first and second cohorts, students easily identified with mentors due to their accessibility, ease of talking, and cultural similarities.

The third cohort has the same main mentor as the second cohort. Despite some students considering their mentor as a valuable resource, someone who could share knowledge and connect with students by being approachable, other students opined differently. In the third cohort, some students mentioned that their mentor missed aspects or needed to make changes to improve their mentor’s role. Such comments were related to the inability to share more technical content and discuss with students more about what it means to be a graduate student and how graduate students disseminate their research in professional meetings. Another comment was concerning the need to have more lectures about the research technical aspects that students were learning. Students perceived that a more instructional approach was required to help them better understand the new topics and activities. The differences in student participants’ perceptions of their mentor from the second to the third cohort, given that this was the same mentor, may vary. Students in the third cohort may need more academic support or a detailed explanation of activities and tasks. The mentor could also behave differently due to changes in their personal life or a heavier academic workload. Prior research has emphasized the importance of high-quality mentorship in research experiences to improve students’ scientific self-efficacy and identity (Estrada et al., 2018; Robnett et al., 2015). Therefore, students in cohort three’s dissatisfaction could have a long-lasting impact on their feeling capable as researchers and seeking other research opportunities. Also, when students feel a lack of support and that their needs are not met, these experiences can generate feelings of isolation and a competitive climate (Rodriguez et al., 2022).

The last student cohort experienced a strong collaboration climate in the laboratory, and more interpersonal relationships were established, resulting in professional and psychological gains that could benefit students’ research and technical skills as well as scientific identity and self-confidence (Frederick et al., 2021). The mentor seemed to have developed a deeper connection with students by being accessible, supportive, helpful, and inspirational. Students also felt a higher sense of community, mentioning their peers and mentors as key elements in feeling that communal support. The perceptions shared by students in the last cohort aligned with other research that highlights the critical role of mentors in helping mentees to boost their social connections and influence in their college persistence (Crisp et al., 2017; Markle et al., 2022).

The qualitative analysis helped understand students’ feelings and thoughts about their mentors. It indicated that students from cohorts one, two, and four reached higher levels of connection, trust, admiration, and encouragement from their mentor than students from cohort three. For students in cohort three, the mentor missed important elements, such as sharing professional experiences and preparing lectures on the research topics, which could result in better mentoring and overall research experience. The ROLE program context, through their mentors, made students feel part of the engineering research community by providing emotional, academic, and career development support. As a result, students found motivation and learned new skills that would better prepare them for the next step, either another research opportunity, graduate school, or the workforce (Crisp et al., 2017). This study emphasizes the crucial role of mentors in helping undergraduate students develop specific skills, knowledge, and motivation as they enter the research environment. A mentor’s presence is essential for creating a positive, welcoming, and trustworthy learning space where students can feel a sense of belonging within the research community. Furthermore, mentor training is important not only for teaching technical skills but also for providing psychological support that enhances students’ scientific identity and self-confidence.

7. Conclusions

The results of this study suggest differences in students’ learning and experiences after they participate in the ROLE program. The mixed-methods approach indicated differences by cohort in the following three areas: research understanding in engineering, professional and social skills, and research skills. Students from cohort three scored lower than the other cohorts in all three sections. The quantitative results could be explained by analyzing the interviews and finding gaps and limitations in the mentoring according to students’ experiences from the third cohort. The students’ reflections indicated a need for additional support in sharing professional information and lecturing on topics related to their research projects. Overall, students from all cohorts reported benefits and gains due to the mentoring relationships, which went beyond transferring technical knowledge by sharing personal, academic, and professional experiences. Students felt a stronger connection with their mentor when the mentor showed accessibility, availability, knowledge, and willingness to support students. Lastly, students described good mentoring relationships when they could trust, admire, talk to, and share life experiences with their mentors.

8. Limitations

This study focused on a specific research program at an HSI, where all students came from minority backgrounds. These students are considered minorities due to their ethnic, sociocultural, economic, and gender characteristics, as well as, in some cases, their underrepresentation in engineering. These factors significantly influence their experiences. One limitation of the study is that replicating a similar program may be challenging in academic settings with different student demographics. Additionally, the sample size is small and drawn from a single program, which means that generalizations cannot be made.

9. Implications

The following practical implications offer guidance for continuing to support minority undergraduate students in engineering through effective mentoring:

• Formalize mentoring training. Programs such as UREs should provide formal training for mentors. This training should focus on enhancing mentoring practices, which include setting clear expectations, demonstrating empathy, and identifying specific student needs.
• Promote continuous feedback. URE directors and program coordinators should establish clear guidelines and polices that ensure that both students and mentors offer ongoing feedback throughout the program. Reflexive journals can help document participant experiences and identify areas of improvement.
• Assess student needs. It is crucial for UREs to understand students’ needs in terms of knowledge and support from the beginning of the program. Conducting an initial assessment can yield valuable insights into areas such as understanding technical concepts, developing research skills, and boosting professional motivation.