ABSTRACT
Investigation into the Learning Assistant Experience and Related Considerations for
Learning Assistant Model Implementation
Ifeoma Ikedionwu
Directors: Dr. Karon LeCompte, PhD Dr. Dena Quigley, PhD
Classroom dynamics that incorporate undergraduates have existed for decades and have proven beneficial in increasing students’ retention and overall class grades. In 2003, the University of Colorado, Boulder, created the Learning Assistant (LA) Program to utilize undergraduates beyond the professor and the students to foster higher-order cognitive thinking in the classroom. Many studies have investigated the benefits of LAs in the classroom. Some show that LAs help students conceptualize and apply material more so than in traditional instruction classes. In other studies, implementing the LA program has cut down on professor instruction time and increased peer-to-peer collaboration which has shown to foster more positive learning spaces. However, there has not been substantial research done on how the LA program affects and benefits the undergraduate Learning Assistants themselves. This thesis aims to investigate the Learning Assistant experience through LA-supported faculty, and undergraduates who are or were LAs to provide insight into their experience as well as provide consideration for ways to best implement LA programs to optimally benefit the professors, students, and undergraduate LAs.
APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS:
______
Dr. Karon LeCompte, Department of Curriculum and Instruction
APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM:
______
Dr. Andrew Wisely, Interim Director
DATE:______
INVESTIGATION INTO THE LEARNING ASSISTANT EXPERIENCE AND
RELATED CONSIDERATION FOR LEARNING ASSISTANT MODEL
IMPLEMENTATION
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
Baylor University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Honors Program
By
Ifeoma Ikedionwu
Waco, Texas
May 2021 TABLE OF CONTENT
List of Figures ...... iii
List of Tables ...... v
Acknowledgements ...... vii
Chapter One ...... 1
Overview Of The Study ...... 1
Evolution Of Classroom Science Education ...... 1
Higher Order Cognitive Skills And Bloom’s Taxonomy ...... 4
Introduction To The Learning Assistant Model ...... 7
Introduction And Importance Of This Study ...... 11
Research Questions And Null Hypothesis ...... 13
Chapter Two ...... 14
Evolution And Summary Of Academic Support Personnel ...... 15
Teaching Assistants ...... 15
Supplemental Instructors ...... 16
Learning Assistants ...... 18
Learning Assistant Model Exemplars ...... 21
The University of Colorado at Boulder...... 22
Other universities...... 23
Baylor University...... 24
Summary Of Current LA Model Research And Gaps In Research ...... 26
ii
Chapter Three ...... 30
Purpose ...... 30
Setting ...... 31
Method ...... 31
Data Collection ...... 34
Data Analysis ...... 35
Chapter Four ...... 37
General Information About LA Program Involvement ...... 37
Respondent Distribution ...... 37
Demographics ...... 38
Learning Assistant Involvement...... 39
LA Program Participation Motivation and Logistics ...... 40
Pedagogy class, Learning Assistants, and LA Program Perceptions ...... 44
Pedagogy Class Perceptions ...... 44
Role of Learning Assistant Perceptions ...... 45
LA Program Perceptions ...... 52
Chapter Five ...... 57
Key Findings ...... 58
Limitations ...... 75
Conclusion and Future Directions ...... 77
Bibliography ...... 80
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Summary of Modifications in Survey…………………………………………………………33
Figure 2. Surveyed LA’s School Year Classification and Academic Status……………………39
Figure 3. FRQ: “How have you benefited academically from being a LA”……………………48
Figure 4. FRQ: “How have you benefited professionally from being an LA?”………………50
Figure 5. FRQ: “How have you benefited personally from being a LA?”………………………51
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Original and Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy………………………………………………………6
Table 2. Comparing and Contrasting Academic Personnel…………………………………………21
Table 3. List of the Free-Response Questions in Both Surveys…………………………………..34
Table 4. Learning Assistant’s Self-identified Ethnicity and Gender…………………………….39
Table 5. FRQ: “Why did you incorporate Learning Assistants into your class?”……………41
Table 6. FRQ: “Why did you become a Learning Assistant?”……………………………………..42
Table 7a. MCQ: “How were Learning Assistants utilized outside of the classroom?”…….42
Table 7b. MCQ: “How were Learning Assistants utilized inside of the classroom?”……..43
Table 8. MCQ: “In what ways do you currently provide support for LAs?”………………….43
Table 9. MCQ: Responsibilities you (the faculty member) and the department have?....44
Table 10. MCQ: Pedagogy course effectiveness in building your top 3 characteristics?...45
Table 11. MCQ: How effective Learning Assistants are being utilized………………………….46
Table 12. MCQ: Top three characteristics of a successful Learning Assistant?”……………46
Table 13. FRQ: Benefits with using Learning Assistants in your classroom?...... 47
Table 14. FRQ: Perceived benefits faculty role has on Learning Assistant Experience….48
Table 15. FRQ: “How have you benefited academically from being a LA”……………………49
Table 16. FRQ: “How have you benefited professionally from being a LA?”………………..50
Table 17. FRQ: “How have you benefited personally from being a LA?”………………………51
Table 18. FRQ: Why did you continue to be a Learning Assistant?”……………………………52
Table 19. FRQ: “If you are no longer a LA, what made you stop?”………………………………53
Table 20. What is your understanding of the role of being a LA?...... 53
Table 21. MCQ: Professor-learning assistant relationship effectiveness………………………54
v
Table 22. MCQ: Baylor Learning Assistant program effectiveness……………………………..54
Table 23. FRQ: Anything Else You Would Like to Share……………………………………………55
Table 24. Summary of Key Findings………………………………………………………………………..74
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis would not be possible without a small village of people. I would like to thank
Dr. Erika Abel and Dr. Michael E Moore for taking the initiative to launch the LA
program at Baylor University. I also could not have done the work within the LA program nor have developed the passion for this project without the current LA Program
Director, Dr. Mojgan Parizi-Robinson. They planted the seed that developed into my passion for active learning and the learning assistant program. I would also like to thank my thesis co-directors --Dr. Karon LeCompte and Dr. Dena Quigley-- for their assistance
across state lines and multiple semesters in working to complete my thesis. Finally, I
would like to thank my family and friends who encouraged me throughout the entire
process and provided support along the way.
vii
CHAPTER ONE
Overview of the Study
Ever since the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) published Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform in 1983, there has been a greater emphasis on the federal, state, and local levels to address educational deficiencies. The report was a landmark event in American education because it not only highlighted the American public education system’s deficiencies but also asserted that it was significantly failing (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983).
America now had an ever-increased focus on improving the population’s scientific literacy along with public and higher education systems. Since then, policymakers, educators and the like have sought ways to bridge these gaps through reform and program developments. In doing so, science education has and still is fundamentally evolving.
Evolution of Classroom Science Education
While state and local levels attempted to address the scientific literacy problem,
President Clinton worked with other government officials at the federal level. Their work culminated in the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994. Its mission to improve the quality of learning and teaching in classrooms as well as increase college graduates’ ability to critically think and solve problems echoed the Nations at Risk report (US
Department of Education, 1994). These were steps in the right direction as the emphasis on evaluating and improving education continued to grow on all levels.
1
Many of these initiatives focused on curricula reform, most notably Project 2061
(AAAS, 1994; Koppal & Caldwell, 2004; Roseman, 1997). Alternatively, the National
Science Foundation (NSF) poured funding to investigate how people learn instead of focusing on curricula changes. Cognitive science consequently emerged as an important field in contemporary discussions surrounding education reform (National Research
Council, 1999a, 1999b; R. Yager, 2000). These goals informed by cognitive science shifted the focus towards how teachers were teaching and how students should be learning. Education reform was now focused on getting students to actively learn in hopes of bettering their academic outcomes. After four years of research and investigation, the NSF came out with a unified report covering places of improvement based on these findings. The National Science Foundation Standards of 1996 appropriately summarized and delineated this marked shift in science education. Unlike previous reports, this one had a greater focus on teacher and student reform compared to redesigning science content (AAAS, 1991, 1994; Hurd, 1991; Vosniadou & Ioannides,
1998; R. Yager, 2000). Some notable points mentioned geared towards teacher reform included:
• A greater emphasis on active and extended scientific inquiry instead of focusing on lecture, text, and demonstration to teach material,
• Creating more opportunities for students to discuss the material rather than only recite material,
• Implementing continuous student understanding assessments to offset singular testing at the end of unit, and
• Fostering a more collaborative learning environment where students are also responsible for learning. (National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment et al., 1996; R. Yager, 2000).
With these considerations, the academic community pushed for laboratories to be better integrated into science curricula. Lab settings provide hands-on opportunities for students to actively engage the material and critically think about the scientific topics as they relate outside of the textbook (McGuiness et al., 2002; NGSS Lead States, 2013).
2 This sentiment is present throughout Nations at Risk, Goals 2000, and the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Case in point, NSTA affirmed that
“developmentally appropriate laboratory investigations are essential for students of all ages and ability levels…. for science to be taught properly and effectively, labs must be an integral part of the science curriculum”, (NSTA, 2007). Traditional robotic learning is being replaced so that students cannot merely attend instructional time and leave without thinking deeper about how the material connects elsewhere (McGuiness et al.,
2002; Sunal et al., 2008). Inquiry-based learning (IBL) explains and applies the intentions of laboratories. The National Research Council’s position on IBL highlights such emphasis: “An inquiry strategy involves students in constructing their own meaning for science ideas they encounter, taking control of their own learning to get to the goal of a lesson through guidance from their teacher.” (Ernst et al., 2017; National Research
Council, 1999a; Sundberg et al., 2005).
More broadly speaking, the constructivist approach underscored IBL and the push for laboratories in science curricula. Constructivism creates a student-centered approach to education where the students must place meaning and connections with the material and the teacher facilitates this engagement and development (Cooperstein &
Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004; Ramsey, 1993; R. Yager, 1996, 2000). Many of the goals mentioned previously such as increasing student responsibility in learning and implementing more critically thinking into curricula stem from this approach as well.
Inquiry-based learning is constructivism in action. Other researchers have applied constructivism in different ways. For example, the science/technology/social --or STS approach-- pushes for integration of social issues into science curricula through the use of technology; this integration being determined by students and guided by teachers. The
STS approach has been adopted in various ways throughout education reform efforts
3 (Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004; Hurd, 1991; Mansour, 2009; R. E. Yager &
Tamir, 1993).
Contemporary science education has evolved from the traditional structure where teachers taught straight from the book and students’ only role was to listen. The science literacy agenda now focused on getting the students to participate in the learning process through initiatives such as mandatory laboratory sessions with inquiry-based learning.
Active learning is the crux of these approaches for education reform efforts. As such, active learning is not only remedying the issue of science literacy but also addressing the government's original quantitative goals of improving academic performance and retention rates of K-12 to undergraduate students.
High Order Cognitive Skills and Bloom’s Taxonomy
The constructivist approach was a shift to a more student-focused learning environment. Within constructivism, teachers employed various ways for students to be active participants in the classroom i.e. active learning activities. For example, (IBL) and
(STS) are two popular forms of employing active learning. While federal academic reform has placed a greater emphasis on active learning, the underlying development of higher order cognitive skills is of specific importance.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education’s (NCEE) Nations at Risk report noted that many 17-year-olds lacked “higher order” intellectual skills that they were expected to have, many could not draw inferences nor complete multi-step math problems (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Even further, national reports have called for undergraduate’s science classes to emphasize conceptualization and analyses over computation and recollection (AAAS, 1991, 2009;
National Research Council et al., 2003). With this call to action, researchers have worked
4 to better understand, assess, and implement higher order cognitive skills in the classroom.
Bloom’s taxonomy is one of the most popular and widely used tools to classify and define cognitive skills (Flinders & Uhrmacher, 2012). It explains the intended ways students are meant to think, act, or behave in response to whichever way the teacher decided to structure their class (Bloom, 1956). Organized from least to most complex, each hierarchical level builds on the levels below it and proficiency in each level is expected to be able to advance. In the original Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain, in sequential order, the cognitive abilities were listed as the following: Knowledge,
Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Bloom, 1956).
Although Bloom did not personally delineate lower and higher order cognitive skills, these categories arose. The top three – Analysis, Synthesis, and evaluation—are considered higher order cognitive skills (HOCS) and the lower three lower order cognitive skills –Knowledge, Comprehension, and Application.
A half century later, a revised Bloom’s taxonomy was released (Table 1). This newer version was better informed by cognitive science and addressed the criticism the first one received. There were three important changes:
1. Each level got different names to explain the learning objective more accurately
and less ambiguously at each stage: remember, understand, apply, analyze,
evaluate, and create.
2. The revised tool specified the four types of knowledge that might be addressed by
a learning activity: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive.
3. And, finally, the two uppermost levels got switched; synthesis/Create was now
the highest level (Adams, 2015; Anderson et al., 2001)
5
Table 1. Original and Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy
Although primarily developed for science classes, Bloom’s taxonomy has been adapted for different subjects such as music (Hanna, 2007), computer science
(Thompson et al., 2008), business ethics (Reeves, 1990), and writing (Granello, 2001).
Even further, there has been work done to better apply Bloom’s taxonomy into class assessments. The Blooming Biology Tool and other guides help educators synthesize
HOCS questions to achieve Bloom’s learning objectives (Bissell & Lemons, 2006; Crowe et al., 2008; Lemons & Lemons, 2013). Classrooms continued to change as researchers discovered HOCS could not adequately be developed in traditional classrooms (Jensen et al., 2014; Knight & Wood, 2005; Miri et al., 2007; Palmer & Devitt, 2007; Zoller, 1993).
Teaching straight from the textbook was not compatible with getting students to think deeply and critically about what they were learning.
6 Introduction to the Learning Assistant Model
This discussion now shifts to highlight a burgeoning educational reform effort that connects the previous examination of science education’s evolution to the main purpose of this research study. Numerous call-to-actions and subsequent efforts to adequately address the issues facing K-16 education today such as low science literacy, low retention rates, and stagnation in classroom instruction were discussed (Cleveland et al., 2017;
Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004; Crowe et al., 2008; Institute of Medicine et al.,
2009; R. Yager, 1996). The Learning Assistant Model is a relatively nascent educational reform initiative that is proving successful in all three areas.
Developed in 2003 at the University of Colorado Boulder, the Learning Assistant
Model transforms the classroom, content being taught, and ideally the department with the utilization of Learning Assistants. The LA model has four main objectives (Learning
Assistant Alliance, n.d.). Because the goals inform the structure, we will look at the four main objectives of the LA program and then interweave how those objectives are seen in the LA model.
1. Discipline-based education research
Discipline-based education research has been discussed at length
throughout this chapter regarding active learning and cognitive skills research.
Nonetheless, the LA model introduces another focal point for education research
as it necessitates classroom and teacher practice reform for successful LA model
implementation. Learning assistant related research can range from analyzing
the efficacy of active learning practices being utilized (Knight & Wood, 2005) to
investigate the cognitive implications for students in active-learning classrooms
(Cleveland et al., 2017) to the LA model’s effects on academic racial inequities
7 (Theobald et al., 2020; Van Dusen & Nissen, 2018). Additionally, there can be
continued research on the general utilization of the LA model in different
academic institutions (Batz et al., 2015; Robertson et al., 2014).
2. Teacher recruitment and preparation
Effective teacher recruitment and preparedness is a unique feature the LA
model has that similar academic support personnel, e.g. supplemental instructors
or graduate student teaching assistants, lack. CU Boulder created the LA model,
in part, to address the shortage of STEM teachers stated in national reports
(Aragon, 2016; Granovskiy, 2018; National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983; US Department of Education, 1994). Undergraduates who opt
to be Learning Assistants participate in a pedagogy class where they learn about
education theory, teaching best practices, and education-related metacognition.
This course not only gets Learning Assistants to think about the backend of
teaching such as curriculum and assessment design but also provides
opportunities for the students to develop their teaching abilities.
Additionally, the LA program is advertised as an experiential learning
experience for the upperclassmen. Through exposure to teaching as profession,
many LAs gain a positive association with teachership as they build faculty
mentorship relationships and assist curriculum development during weekly
planning sessions (E. Close et al., 2012, 2016; Otero et al., 2010; Rassouli & Ríos,
2020). The increased interactions with peers, faculty, and students support
Learning Assistants’ identity of being both knowledgeable in their respective
subject and capable of assuming a teacher role (Nadelson & Finnegan, 2014;
Schick, 2018). Learning assistants also learn transferable skills that prepare them
8 to be good professionals such as improved public speaking, better
communication with people, teamwork skills, and handling complex social
situations (Cao et al., 2018) In these ways, upperclassmen are more likely to see
themselves as teachers and view teaching as a possible career option. LA
supported universities have increased teaching certificate enrollment and
teaching related postgraduate plans (Etkina, 2010; Lee & Nason, 2013; Otero et
al., 2010; Thorne, 2010).
3. Curriculum & course transformation
LA-supported classes must change the classroom structure. Metacognitions is a
key component in active learning and the LA model that developed through cognitive
science research. As mentioned previously, higher-order cognitive skills and
assessments can not be successful in traditional lecture-only classes (Jensen et al.,
2014; Miri et al., 2007). Not only does class time have to incorporate active learning
activities and other undergraduates to help lead those sessions, teachers must also
design assessments to be more formative and frequent (Top et al., 2018). These three
modifications transform the classroom to increase conceptualization of content,
strengthen a sense of community and confidence for the students, and encourage
teachers to permanently rethink their curriculum design.
Active learning has been shown to improve students' grades, and more
importantly increase their conceptualization of material (Freeman et al., 2014;
National Science Foundation, 2014). When students are forced to synthesize real-
world solutions or engage in dialogue to defend their position, the students transcend
comprehension and begin utilizing higher order cognitive skills. LA supported
classes have also been shown to decrease the number of Ds and Fs in classrooms
9 (Alzen et al., 2018; Batz et al., 2015). Additionally, students in Learning Assistant
supported classrooms note a stronger sense of community within their universities
through the inclusion of peers in the active learning process (Dori & Belcher, 2005;
Kurz et al., 2018; Shaw et al., 2019). In most instances, the undergraduate Learning
Assistants are leading these active learning opportunities which develop a sense of
trust during the learning process for students. Similarly, there is increased retention
rates and STEM degree completions in departments that utilize Learning Assistants
and the LA model (Alzen et al., 2018; Talbot et al., 2015).
4. Institutional change
Financial and logistical support is the most obvious institutional change that
occurs. Different universities support an LA program in different ways: some LAs get
monetary compensation for the classes that they support, some receive course credit,
and some receive both. When monetary compensation is provided, the funding is
sometimes provided by federal grants or by institutional funding (Sellami et al.,
2017). The universities and related faculty must adapt their budgets to incorporate
the LA program. Although this may be an issue up front, the institutions will save
money long term due to decreased attrition rates and increased numbers of freshmen
who graduate after four years (Campbell et al., 2019). Additionally, professors
experience decreased labor and work associated with building their curriculum in the
long-run. This is possible due to the added support of Learning Assistants and a
diversified curriculum where time is spread between professors lecturing and the LAs
helping students with active learning exercises. Finally, integration of the LA model
requires support from the department and fellow faculty members. The changes
made must go beyond the singular course as multiple teachers often teach the same
10 subject. Finally, the LA model created a deeper sense of community and belonging
within students and between students and faculty. As previously mentioned, the
institution’s faculty, staff, and students have increased retention rates, decreased
failure rates, decreased disparities between ethnic minority and majority groups, and
improved self-efficacy (Dori & Belcher, 2005; Kurz et al., 2018; Shaw et al., 2019).
Introduction and Importance of this Study
The LA model has been around for approximately three decades, and it continues to be adapted and applied to different institutions with different needs. For example, at
Baylor University, the LA program began in 2017 with the purpose to transform and advance biology education and how it is taught. Since then, the program has continued to grow and incorporate different ways to utilize undergraduate Learning Assistants in both laboratories and lecture courses. This thesis aims to investigate the experiences of undergraduates who took on the role of Learning Assistant and the professors who have utilized Learning Assistants to support active learning. I hope to provide insight into the undergraduate LA experience which is not geared for teacher recruitment. Additionally, this study will provide recommendations for ways to implement and structure LA programs that take into consideration undergraduate LAs and their relationship to LA- supported faculty, students in class, and the overall LA Program. Through the evaluation of Learning Assistants and faculty perceptions and perspectives, the Learning Assistant model can be modified in university settings to maximize the longitudinal benefits beyond the classroom students. This study is of specific importance for the following reasons:
11 • The research on the LA model in STEM courses beyond physics and
mathematics is limited. While biology, physics, mathematics and the like fall
under the STEM umbrella, they each have unique components that affect how
active learning may be implemented in each given discipline. This study can
help build information on how active learning is achieved in not only biology
courses, but also biology laboratory sessions and course-based undergraduate
research experiences.
• Most LA related research investigates the students in the LA supported
classes or the professors. Research that focuses on the undergraduates’
Learning Assistant experience mainly highlights how the LA program relates
to teacher identity/recruitment or self-efficacy. This study aims to pivot the
discussion and focus on the alignment of expectation vs reality for Learning
Assistants in an LA program not geared for teacher recruitment. Hopefully,
doing so will reveal other factors that play into undergraduates pursuing
Learning Assistant positions and continual enrollment in the program.
Additionally, provide perspective for other institutions without a teacher
recruitment focus LA program.
• Because the majority of LA programs are at public Universities, the Baylor
University LA program provides a unique perspective (Learning Assistant
Alliance, n.d.). Baylor University is both a private institution and has a mid-
sized student population. Regardless, it still faces similar issues that larger
institutions grapple with such as large class classes as well as issues smaller
institutions may deal with such as financial constraints. Therefore, this
study’s findings may provide insight for schools facing similar obstacles or
with similar institutional structures.
12 Research Questions and Null Hypothesis
Q1: What are the experiences of Learning Assistants and how does that experience shape their time in the classroom and professional development?
H01= The way Baylor University structures its LA program and pedagogy course will affect how Learning Assistants feel they are developing professionally and as academic support personnel.
Q2: How can LAs be effectively and optimally implemented in the classroom to more benefit professors and undergraduate Learning Assistants without hindering student retention of information?
H02= Modifying the expectations laid out for upperclassmen and faculty who join the Learning Assistant program will ensure those participants reap benefits from the LA model in conjunction with the students.
This chapter has outlined the evolution of classroom science education that has led to this present study. Additionally, it has outlined an overview and general significance of this research endeavor. The following chapter will focus on providing a literature review surrounding academic support personnel such as LAs, information about the LA model since its inception, highlighting institutional examples of the LA model in action, and will finish with a discussion surrounding the current research being done on Learning Assistants and present gaps in this specific research field. Chapter three will lay out the purpose and methodology related to the creation and data collection of the surveys used for this study. The subsequent chapter will showcase an overview of the results gathered. Finally, chapter five will conclude this project with a discussion on key findings as it relates to the results and previous research, limitations, and future directions.
13 CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
This study evaluates the evolution of academic support personnel with a focus on the Learning Assistant (LA) model to best implement and utilize it at Baylor University and other higher education academic institutions. The first section of the literature review focuses on the evolution of academic support personnel from graduate Teaching
Assistants (gTA) to Supplemental Instructors (SI) to Learning Assistants. There can be a better understanding of where Learning Assistants fit into the broader classroom teaching dynamic by dissecting these models. Additionally, by considering the other personnel who may also interact with undergraduate students, Learning Assistants can be implemented to maximally fulfill their respective niche. The following section looks at the implementation and general experiences of undergraduate institutions that have utilized the LA model. While there are over 50 schools that utilize the LA model, the discussion highlights the University of Colorado at Boulder because the program originated there, Baylor University as that is the setting of this study and other institutions that have unique components to the LA model (Learning Assistant Alliance, n.d.). The final section addresses the gaps and limitations in current LA research. This approach will elucidate the gaps in research solely focused on the undergraduate
Learning Assistant experience and provide a framework for this specific study.
14 Evolution and Summary of Academic Support Personnel
Teaching Assistants
Teaching Assistants have been around the longest out of the three primary academic student support models being looked at. Often referred to as de facto instructors, Teaching Assistants are most commonly graduate students who teach the lecture or laboratory portion of a class. Undergraduate students are solely taught by these gTAs as professors are absent in such situations. Graduate students pursue TA roles primarily for external reasons such as salary and convenience; some institutions even require teaching assistantships to cover their graduate school expenses (Alhija &
Fresko, 2020). However, they reap indirect benefits such as increased readiness for faculty teaching positions and higher self-efficacy (Doe, 2015; Kranzow & Hyland, 2016).
The experiences, benefits, and perceptions of graduate Teaching Assistants in the classroom have been investigated for numerous decades (Alhija & Fresko, 2020;
Marincovich et al., 1998; Muzaka, 2009; Park, 2002; Shannon et al., 1998). Graduate students successfully provide more personalized teaching for students compared to professors. Muzaka (2009) investigated students’ perception of graduate students. The undergraduates described graduate TAs as understanding, flexible, informal, enthusiastic, approachable, and less intimidating. However, undergraduates rarely indicated that graduate TAs were as knowledgeable, confident, or reliable in conveying information as professors were. While graduate TAs were implemented to address high student:professor ratios, increased time with graduate TAs were interpreted as less time with the perceived experts on the material for the undergraduates (Rowley, 1993).
Furthermore, graduate students did not perceive themselves as teachers but rather connections between students and professors despite their autonomy and position
(Zotos et al., 2020). There is often tension between committing time to teaching courses
15 and conducting the necessary research for their graduate schooling (Ethington & Pisani,
1993; White & Nonnamaker, 2011). While graduate TAs are a step in the right direction to bridge classroom deficiencies, there are limitations because gTAs are first and foremost graduate students.
In response, universities incorporated undergraduate Teaching Assistants
(uTAs). While these students do not take on as much autonomy within the classroom as traditional graduate TAs do, these undergraduates do assist and support students as they complete course projects and develop ideas surrounding the class material. Both forms of Teaching Assistants improve students’ outcomes and grades (Chapin et al., 2014;
Philipp et al., 2016). However, undergraduate TAs developed personal relationships quicker and often served as role models because the students were closer in age to those they were teaching (Luckie et al., 2019; Reges, 2003). The result: more productive and comfortable learning environments. Moving forward, another academic support system that focused specifically on difficult course subjects and utilized after hours was developed.
Supplemental Instructors
SIs were created in 1973 at the University of Missouri- Kansas City to improve student retention and specifically improve class performance in courses that were notoriously difficult. The Supplemental Instructors’ work is done entirely outside of the classroom during voluntary, regularly-scheduled session times. Their session times differ from Teaching Assistants’ recitation sessions as SI leaders not only review the material taught in class but also incorporate better ways to learn the given material (University of
Missouri-Kansas City, 2020). They often emphasize students taking responsibility for the material and learning it through repetition and testing oneself. During this second pass of the material, the SI Leader is supposed to also provide new frameworks for students to
16 approach the difficult topics that incorporate cognitive development theories (Hurley et al., 2006). While this is a structural goal, A. Ribera et al.( 2012) found that supplemental instruction sessions often focused more on examination preparation and material review
(p. 12).
Benefits of supplemental instruction can be seen for the students, university, and
SI Leaders. For the students taking the course, numerous studies have shown that attending SI sessions improves test scores, retention, and graduation (Blanc et al., 1983;
Malm et al., 2018; Stone & Jacobs, 2008). Additionally, students who attend
Supplemental Instruction sessions are less likely to earn grades of D, F, or Withdrawal, earn significantly higher mean final grades and grade point averages than their non-SI classmates and demonstrate increased persistence towards graduation (Hurley &
Gilbert, 2008; Price & Rust, 1995; Skoglund et al., 2018). SI sessions have shown to specifically benefit underprepared and underrepresented students in both performance and retention beyond the general benefits (Ramirez, 1997). Even further, SI experiences shape the students’ attitudes surrounding the material. A. Ribera et al. (2012) found that students who had attended SI sessions had higher levels of engagements, reported self- gain, and more positive perception of the institution’s support for students (p.10).
Additionally, those who regularly attended SI sessions reported greater self-esteem, self- efficacy and more frequently had an internal locus of control (Hurley & Gilbert, 2008).
The universities that utilize SIs primarily benefited from the program through reduced attrition rates and increased persistence towards graduation. Furthermore, SI programs are less expensive than traditional tutoring programs (University of Missouri-
Kansas City, 2020). Multiple studies found that the SI leaders benefitted from leading sessions in numerous ways: increased self-confidence, stronger grasp of the course material, more personal relationships with faculty and other students, and improved communication skills (Hurley & Gilbert, 2008; Stout & McDaniel, 2006; Wallace, 1992).
17 SIs also benefit long-term with reports of changes in their perception of self in social environments and ability to fulfill their internal passion for civic engagement (Lozada,
2017; Lozada & Johnson, 2019). Educators continued to develop programs that engaged students through peer academic support personnel. Given the benefits of both TAs and
SIs, the education community shifted focus away from solely increasing student- educator engagement and academic metrics to investigate ways to transform and improve the broader classroom learning experience.
Learning Assistants
Learning Assistants have only been around for nearing two decades but have made significant strides in reshaping the undergraduate learning experience. Developed in 2003 at the University of Colorado at Boulder, the LA program “is a model of social and structural organization that induces and supports the adoption of existing (or creation of new) research-based instructional strategies that require increased teacher- student ratio.” (Close et al., 2018). Through its implementation, the LA model is an opt- in program that leads to value and practice changes throughout the classroom (Alzen et al., 2018). While Supplemental Instructors aim to encourage higher-order cognitive thinking in participatory after-hour class sessions, Learning Assistants are stationed in the classroom during class time. They do not teach the primary material like graduate
TAs as professors are still present in the room. Rather, Learning Assistants facilitate activities and discussions geared towards higher-order cognitive skills that require a deeper conceptual understanding of the material. This approach differs from traditional classroom objectives that focus on lower-order cognitive thinking skills that rely on memorization or recollection.
The implementation of the LA model possesses many of the same benefits other academic peer support models have such as decreased failure, improved overall grades,
18 and increased learning of material in introductory courses (Alzen et al., 2018; R. Talbot et al., 2016; R. M. Talbot et al., 2015; Wendell et al., 2019). When looking at the students, those in active learning classrooms are not only grasping the material on a deeper level but are more able to apply and connect it to real-world situations (Cleveland et al., 2017; Schunk & Mullen, 2012). Students in active-learning environments with
Learning Assistants have higher instances of motivation and are more comfortable asking questions in the small group settings (Boeding & Vattano, 1976; Bonney, 2015;
Shaw et al., 2019). For the undergraduates who are Learning Assistants, there is increased interest in teaching as a career. Albeit that some institutions did not implement the LA model to address professor deficits, the institutions that did found an increased number of students who participated as Learning Assistants changing to
STEM majors, enrolling in teaching certificate programs, and/or then being hired as
STEM teaching faculty in universities (Chini et al., 2016; Lee & Nason, 2013; Otero et al.,
2010; Thorne, 2010). Such gains were not seen within Supplemental Instruction model implementation.
The unique benefits of LA programs can also be found when looking at the perception and mindset of faculty. Course redesign typically accompanies LA model implementation. Faculty transition away from the traditional lecture style class and structure classroom time to active learning spaces where there are more collaboration and peer-to-peer discussions. LA-supported classrooms have incorporated supplementary tools such as clickers, Google docs, Survey Monkey, computer simulations, and the like to increase student engagement (George et al., 2013; Martyn,
2007; Nirmalakhandan et al., 2007; Oigara & Keengwe, 2013). Hybrid or flipped lectures, where the students do the bulk of initial learning outside of the classroom and come to class with questions and activities, are popular in LA supported courses (Meyers
& Jones, 1993; Pavlacic et al., 2018; Welder, 2019). Even further, faculty changed their
19 perspective on the responsibilities associated with teaching and learning by having
Learning Assistants and using the LA model (McHenry et al., 2009). Specifically, many professors familiarized themselves with course design development, reiterative assessment tools, and curriculum objectives (Goertzen et al., 2011; Gray et al., 2016). The
LA-professor relationship garners added benefits. The undergraduate Learning
Assistants function as co-creators, consultants, co-instructors, and fellow students simultaneously. As such, Learning Assistants show professors a new angle to view their teaching practices (Cook-Sather & Motz-Storey, 2016). The LA-professor partnership also creates a formative feedback loop between the professor, student, and LA wherein the LAs offer suggestions, reports, and assessments on course and instructional materials. With LAs positioned as peers to the students, the Learning Assistants also provide information about the student’s perceptions, behaviors, and understanding more so than the professor could on their own (Jardine, 2019, 2020; Sabella et al., 2016). In general, the LA model creates space for a more collaborative classroom and departmental environment (Top, 2019).
Undergraduate students interested in being Learning Assistants must enroll in a one semester pedagogy course the first semester of being an LA. This is different from both SIs and TAs as this is a semester long curriculum aimed to prepare students on active learning, cognitive skills theories, and proper ways to support student’s engagement with the material. Because LAs are not there to work one-on-one with students or troubleshoot singular questions, Learning Assistants can work in large and small groups to tackle difficult concepts and challenge students to think and learn differently in college overall and not just in specific courses (Alzen et al., 2018).
While TAs, SIs, and LAs, all function to service the students and institutions, they all do so in different ways. Table 2 summarizes their similarities and differences.
Therefore, we can see that Learning Assistants serve a nuanced function within the
20 classroom as peer academic support personnel who do more than review material but reshape how students and faculty think about the curriculum.
Table 2. Comparing and Contrasting Academic Support Personnel
Learning Assistant Model Exemplars
Dissecting the various ways Learning Assistants have already been implemented is crucial in progressing forward with considerations and recommendations after understanding Learning Assistants’ niche within the teaching environment for college students. To date, the LA program has been implemented in over 200 programs worldwide (Learning Assistant Alliance, n.d.). This section will begin by looking at CU
Boulder, the inaugural institution for the LA model and exemplar for LA model implementation. Next, the discussion will center on evaluating the benefits and perceptions of the LA model in other institutions. This will highlight the variability and applicability of the LA model and provide insight into components Baylor and other institutions can adopt to improve future implementations. Focusing on Baylor’s
University’s Learning Assistant Program will close out this section. This section is
21 essential not only because this project’s sample population are Baylor students but also because future modifications will likely be informed by this study’s findings.
The University of Colorado at Boulder. The University of Colorado Boulder founded the LA program in 2003 with four main goals: 1) improve the education of all science and mathematics students through transformed undergraduate education and improved K-12 teacher education; 2) recruit more future science and math teachers; 3) engage science faculty more in the preparation of future teachers and discipline-based educational research; and 4) transform science departmental cultures to value research- based teaching as a legitimate activity for professors and our students (Learning
Assistant Alliance, n.d.). CU Boulder has accomplished its goal with a now robust LA program that spans dozens of courses and affects hundreds of students. This program originated in physics courses but is now used in multiple science and math courses such as introductory biology, calculus 1 and 2. Undergraduates apply and a select few are picked to become Learning Assistants for a given class.
As Learning Assistants, the undergraduates work with both the professor and graduate Teaching Assistants to implement research-based approaches and incorporate active learning activities into class time. During their first semester, new LAs spend time each week doing three activities: attending the pedagogy course on science education theory, meeting with their respective professors and graduate TAs to plan lessons, and leading allotted active learning initiatives during class for students. The pedagogy course incorporates School of Education seminars on Mathematics and Science Education.
Some CU Boulder departments have gone so far as to use Learning Assistants outside of the class to continue content engagement during ‘recitation’ sessions. Additionally,
Learning Assistants are compensated monetarily for their work with a monthly stipend; the payment of Learning Assistants, the pedagogy course, and other periphery fees are
85% covered by the administration and private donors as of 2010 (Otero et al., 2010).
22 The University of Colorado Denver implemented the LA model in 2012 and has been utilizing LAs in a more accessory role. During class, they assist in discussions and answering questions when the professor proffers clicker questions or breakout sessions for problem-solving. Additionally, Learning Assistants hold office hours outside of class, answer emails, and moderate discussion board questions. LAs are utilized in classes that also have graduate Teaching Assistants at both CU campuses. In this way, gTAs can support the instructor in teaching while LAs can assist students in the learning process.
Other universities. Other universities have implemented the LA model and utilized Learning Assistants in unique ways in different institutional environments.
Montgomery College applied the LA model to a community college environment, the
University of North Carolina Greensboro (UNC Greensboro) and Seattle Pacific
University modified the Learning Assistants’ scope of responsibilities, and the University of Connecticut transformed the LA model for non-STEM instruction.
Schick (2018) investigated how Montgomery College was able to adapt the LA model, traditionally designed for four-year institutions, successfully into a two-year college framework. Two-year colleges require different consideration for numerous reasons: large classes --which are a typical driving force for utilizing Learning
Assistants—is not a concern, recruiting upper-level students to function as LAs is not possible, and credit-based pedagogy courses are typically a barrier due to funding and course credit transfers. Two-year colleges utilize LAs for their attitudinal benefits: increased engagement, success rates, and interest in teaching as a profession.
Montgomery College has broken down the semester pedagogy course into multi-hour gatherings and sessions three to four times throughout the semester, expanded the role of LAs to assist in laboratory spaces as an extra set of spare hands, and was able to provide a stipend for Learning Assistants. Notably, Learning Assistants receive a certificate of completion after their first semester, and if they wish to return, must be
23 placed in a different course with a different professor with new hires being given priority
(Schick, 2018).
While most LA programs reside in the STEM department, the University of
Connecticut became the first reported institution to employ Learning Assistants in a business class. Dean (2020) was able to implement a flipped classroom model with
Learning Assistants to assist business majors in better understanding and becoming more confident with the material. He found that the LA model showed promise in helping students understand the material better (Dean, 2020).
UNC Greensboro increased Learning Assistant’s responsibilities by having their
LAs serve as the primary instructors for lab sections of two introductory calculus-based physics courses. Learning Assistants co-designed the lab curriculum with the lecture professor, conducted all lab classes, and graded all student work (Grabow et al., 2014;
Harris et al., 2014). This study was important in demonstrating the scope in which LAs can be implemented while still maintaining that the students were generally satisfied with the quality of instruction they were receiving. Seattle Pacific University also strays from the CU Boulder framework by requiring LAs to be enrolled in a pedagogy course every subsequent semester after the first one (Robertson et al., 2014). Each quarterly pedagogy curriculum’s content changes while maintaining the overarching themes related to engaging and interacting with students as a Learning Assistant. UNC
Greensboro and Seattle Pacific University are two examples amongst the dozens of institutions that have adopted and adapted the LA model.
Baylor University. Baylor University implemented the LA model in 2017 to primarily serve introductory biology courses. Through the years, the program has expanded to Genetics and laboratory sections. In all cases, Learning Assistants receive course credit for at least the first 2 semesters that they are functioning as Learning
Assistants. A less common feature in other institutions that is emphasized at Baylor
24 University is the robust use of Learning Assistant (LA) Mentors. CU Boulder incorporates LA Mentors to support, advocate, and mentor first-semester Learning
Assistants (CU Boulder, 2018). These are students who have been Learning Assistants for at least one semester before and function as mentors for students going through the pedagogy course. LA Mentors observe the Learning Assistants in their respective classes and give feedback on ways to improve multiple times throughout the semester. LA
Mentors also do not receive any form of financial compensation or course credit.
However, Baylor University’s LA Mentors go beyond this role and shape the broader LA
Program. For example, Baylor University LA Mentors contribute to syllabi development, professor recruitment for utilizing the LA model, and advocate for departmental modifications to how Learning Assistants are recruited, assessed, and retained. In more recent years, the Learning Assistant Program incorporated the LA model into classes beyond traditional lecture and laboratory sections, such as experiential learning courses.
For example, Baylor’s Laparoscopy Lab Skills class is a hands-on independent research learning opportunity where students are exposed to the field of laparoscopy and have the option to earn a Certificate of Undergraduate Laparoscopy (Damschen, 2017). Their research mentors go through the pedagogy curriculum and integrate active learning activities during their sessions. Similarly, Baylor University’s course-based undergraduate research experience (CURES) class sections are facilitated by undergraduate laboratory assistants who go through the semester-long pedagogy class, get observed by LA Mentors, and incorporate active learning components into their lab sessions. While the LA program has had various structural changes and complications, its continued implementation in numerous classes and ever-growing expansion for usage by other professors shows its potential to thrive.
25 Summary of Current LA Model Research and Gaps in Research
There have been numerous studies that investigate the benefits of Learning
Assistants programs for the student and for the professor. Beyond improved academics and graduation retention, the LA program and peer mentorship generally have been shown to remove or reverse the typical learning gaps between students from minority and majority population demographics (Kressler & Kressler, 2020; Sellami et al., 2017;
Van Dusen et al., 2016) and build stronger connections to the university and with the department (Colvin & Ashman, 2010). With the professors, the LA model was designed to set the stage for departmental value and practice changes. Professors who implemented LAs increased satisfaction in course design strategies and the development of academically collaborative culture (McHenry et al., 2009; Welder, 2019).
Furthermore, faculty were shown to have renewed attention to the student learning compared to focusing on the execution of instruction or delivery of material this was especially significant for professors who had been teaching for many years before adopting the LA model (Gray et al., 2016; Otero et al., 2010; Welder, 2019). Such benefits highlight the importance and impact the LA program has on both the students and the professors. However, much of the research fails to focus on the experiences, benefits, and considerations of the Learning Assistants themselves. Fortunately, there has been growing research attempting to bridge this gap over the last several years.
In most discussions of Learning Assistants, the research emphasizes the LAs themselves in relation to increasing affinity to pursue a teaching career. Teacher recruitment is one of the primary four goals of CU Boulder’s LA program (Learning
Assistant Alliance, n.d.). Many studies have shown that the LA program increases the completion of teaching certification and thereafter hiring of professors in their respective institution’s departments (Chini et al., 2016; Fineus & Fernandez, 2012; Kwon, 2010;
26 Otero et al., 2006, 2010; Thorne, 2010). Further, studies have shown that being a
Learning Assistant strengthens self-identity attitudes relating to being an effective teacher and self-efficacy (Close et al., 2013, 2016; Harris et al., 2014; Nadelson &
Finnegan, 2014). In some spaces, Learning Assistants are reported to gain a deeper understanding of the material in a similar fashion to the undergraduates (Campbell et al., 2019). The research focused on the Learning Assistant experience beyond this is limited but has become of greater importance.
There is little research on the experiences of the undergraduates who become
Learning Assistants beyond what has already been mentioned. However, Seattle Pacific
University did an article highlighting the experiences several of their undergraduates had as Learning Assistants. For them, the LA experience was transformational as they experienced (1) being heard and hearing others in authentic dialogue with peers and (2) learning to listen to and build on student ideas in our own teaching practice (Robertson et al., 2014). For them, a defining feature of the program rested in their shared authority in shaping the course, group discussions, and scientific dialogue. Many of these benefits fostered a sense of agency and openness that they could take beyond the classroom
(Robertson et al., 2014). A study at George Mason University found that Learning
Assistants benefitted from their experience by improving conceptual understanding, metacognition, time management, confidence about public speaking and working with fellow students, and relationships with professors (Dreyfus et al., 2020). This aspect of
Learning Assistant programs continues to be researched and is proving to be of growing importance for the sustainability of Learning Assistant program implementation.
Some research has shifted to address the limitations and longevity of the LA programs being implemented. While the benefits of successful implementation of department-wide LA model usage have been discussed, there has not been as deep of an investigation into the effects that a lack of widespread support has on the success or
27 failure of LA Programs in universities. A key feature in the scaling and persistence of LA programs is departmental and faculty buy-in (Otero et al., 2010; Quan et al., 2019).
Furthermore, Campbell et al (2019) researched some of the major areas of improvement for future LA model considerations and found deficient professional development components. Faculty did not focus on professional development yet Learning Assistants perceived that as a benefit of the position. Researchers also found a lack of continued feedback for Learning Assistants in the work that they do as a common complaint. Other complaints ranged from not receiving enough compensation to not incorporating more forms of recruitment and training for both faculty and prospective LAs that did not relate to future hopes of becoming teachers (Campbell et al., 2019). Davenport et al (2018) investigated the disconnect in faculty-student relationships in Learning Assistant
Programs. The dynamic partnerships that may develop throughout an LA experience were complex and warranted the creation of the Preparation Session Observation Tool
(PSOT), a tool that helps explain and maximize these faculty-student partnerships to create an effective classroom environment (Davenport et al., 2018). These studies show that there is room for investigation and assessment of ways the LA model can be implemented to better address the needs and concerns of the Learning Assistant as well as the professor while maintaining the overall goal of helping introductory students get a deeper grasp of the material.
In this chapter, I unpacked key components of academic support personnel and the Learning Assistant program as it relates and informs this research project:
1. Provided an overview of the evolution of academic support personnel to
highlight the different purposes and expectations of those related to a
student’s learning experience beyond the professor.
2. Discussed various ways the LA model has been implemented and
modified in various institutions to provide context for this study as well
28 as showcase possible avenues to be adopted more universally in the
future.
3. Finally, I touched on the current research state surrounding the Learning
Assistant experience to not only emphasize the need for further
investigation but to also acknowledge the relevance of this research
project in filling such gaps.
With the background information about the state of Learning Assistant education and academic personnel covered, the next chapter will delve into the methodology surrounding the surveys created and data collected on professors and undergraduates who had been or currently are Learning Assistants.
29 CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
Purpose
The purpose of this study is two-fold: to investigate the experiences of undergraduate Learning Assistants in the context of the LA program and thereafter to provide commentary and recommendations based on their responses, in conjunction with the LA-supported faculty’s perspectives. There is minimal previous research on the experiences, attitudes, and opinions of the Learning Assistants within the LA model
(Robertson 2014, Dreyfus 2020). LA-centered research often narrows in on the benefits related to teacher recruitment, or teaching, leadership, and associated professional development skills, or their utility as it relates to benefitting the professor (Close 2013 and 2016, Nadelson & Finnegan 2014, Thompson 2019, Campbell 2019). Specifically, this study looks at why undergraduates students become Learning Assistants, continue or stop being Learning Assistants, their perceived academic, professional, and personal benefits from being a Learning Assistant, in addition to their understanding of and experiences in the LA program as it relates to their role. Additionally, faculty who utilize
LAs were surveyed to assess their understanding of the LA program and LAs, their perception of their role with the Learning Assistants, as well as their experiences and opinions of the Learning Assistants and LA program. This study uses their quantitative and free-response survey answers to glean overall perspectives which will lay the foundation for proffering recommendations and considerations both for Baylor
30 University and other LA-supported universities. In doing so, create a more mutually beneficial LA program for faculty, students, and Learning Assistant.
Setting
This research took place within Baylor University’s Learning Assistant Program which is housed in the Biology department. All professors who had used LAs since its conception at Baylor were invited to complete the professor-specific survey. This encompassed 13 professors: nine actively involved in the LA program, two who have since left Baylor but continue to utilize the LA model, and 2 retirees. Additionally, all 192 students who had been enrolled in the pedagogy class at some point since the program began were sent the student-specific survey. Two students could not be reached as their roster emails were undeliverable.
Method
Two surveys were developed: one for the professors and one for the students.
Each consisted of both quantitative and free-response questions. Quantitative questions were considered all multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and their variants such as “select- all-that-apply” and Yes/No. Qualitative questions referred to free-response questions
(FRQs) where respondents were given an empty box with no word count restrictions to answer the question provided. These questions covered three main areas of information for the data collection:
1. General background information about themselves and their involvement in
the LA program,
31 2. Information about how and why they have been involved in the LA program,
and
3. Perceptions and opinions about their role, the pedagogy class, and the LA
program at large.
Six of the quantitative questions were taken and adapted from Campbell et al’s
(2019) survey on LA and Faculty member perceptions (Figure 1). While the multi-select question about how LAs are utilized outside the classroom was not modified for the professor nor student, only professors were asked how they utilize LAs outside of the classroom. This survey also removed answer options related to recitations; Baylor
University does not utilize the recitation method but rather endorses Supplemental
Instruction. As discussed in chapter 2, SIs and their sessions are distinct and, in this context, mutually exclusive from Learning Assistants, therefore those options were removed. The Campbell et al (2019) survey asked LAs and faculty to rank their top two characteristics to be successful, and this survey asked for respondents to rank three.
Given the exploratory nature of this study, expanding to the top three characteristics may yield unique patterns otherwise missed. Both faculty and LAs were asked to assess the effectiveness on a 4-point Likert scale (1=extremely effective/useful/important, 2= moderately effective/useful/important, 3=moderately ineffective/useless/unimportant etc) whereas the Campbell et al (2019) survey asked only students and used a 5-point
Likert scale. Additionally, only faculty members were asked to select the ways in which they support students compared to asking both LAs and faculty members. Finally, the question focused on who faculty believes is responsible for various components of the LA program --such as training, recruitment, assessment, and monetary compensation-- was restructured. Instead of having faculty assign whether the college, department, or faculty member was responsible for a given task, this questionnaire asked faculty members to select all responsibilities they believed faculty members and the department had. Making
32 this modification was intended to turn the question inward between the department and faculty, especially because the LA program is only within Baylor’s Biology department.
Figure 1. Summary of the modifications made to previously utilized survey questions.
In total, the professor survey had 21 questions and five were free-response questions while the student survey had 32 questions and eight free-response questions.
The students’ free-response questions focused on why they became an LA, why they continued or did not continue with the program in addition to their perceived academic, professional, and personal benefits from being an LA. Professors provided free responses to questions about why they incorporated the LA model, their understanding of the role of an LA, and what benefits they personally have experienced as well as their perception of how their role benefits the learning Assistants (Table 3). In both cases, the final free- response question was an open invitation for participants to add any other relevant information they felt like sharing.
33 Table 3. List of all the free response questions asked to the faculty and students.
Data Collection
The surveys were built and distributed through Qualtrics, an online survey program. The survey was initially sent out December 2020. Following, all participants who had not filled out the survey were sent reminder emails in January 2021 and consequently in February 2021 before closing the form on March 1st, 2021. All student
Learning Assistants who completed the survey were put into a drawing where ten participants won $10 virtual gift cards. In total, 11 out of the 13 professors and 69 out of the 192 students completed the survey.
34
Data Analysis
The quantitative components were examined through Qualtrics’s built-in analysis software and SPSS v26. Qualtrics’s built-in analysis software was used to determine means and percent distributions for given questions. SPSS was used to complete Chi
Square Goodness of Fit tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Pearson correlations. The Chi
Square Goodness of Fit was used to see if the sample population of LAs who responded to the survey were representative of the greater LA program based on the semester that they started being an LA and took the pedagogy class. The Mann-Whitney U tests (α=
.05) were used to compare the faculty and LAs responses on the multiple-choice questions related to effectiveness of various LA program components. This test was used due to the small faculty size (n < 30) and non-normally distributed data. Pearson correlations were done to determine underlying relationships within the various effectiveness-related questions, between when the pedagogy class was taken and effectiveness-related questions, and between faculty responses to effectiveness questions. Pearson correlations were used because the Likert scale was classified as interval and because the data was not normally distributed. The qualitative components were done manually in three steps. First, an initial assessment of responses to exclude faulty or incomplete responses was done. Secondly, I categorized and labeled responses into overarching themes within a given free-response question. The categorization was informed by general associations of common phrases and the use of previous research.
Finally, I had a second external person verify and validate my categorizations.
Additionally, qualitative responses were run through Qualtrics’ ‘Data & Analysis’ software to determine any correlations between multiple-choice questions. Chapter three
35 outlined the purpose and methodology around the data collected for this study, and the results of these analyses will be discussed in the following chapter.
36 CHAPTER FOUR
Results
This study aims to summarize the experiences of Learning Assistants through their eyes and the eyes of LA-supported faculty. To do this, professor and student- specific surveys were distributed to cover three main areas: general information about their demographics and involvement in the LA program, why and how they have been involved in the LA program, and their perceptions and opinions about their role, the pedagogy class, and the LA program at large. These areas contained a mix of quantitative and qualitative survey questions. The survey results will be summarized in this chapter.
General information about LA program involvement
Respondent Distribution
Out of the 13 professors who received the survey, 11 responded. This sample was representative of Baylor’s LA-supported faculty population as 100% of Baylor professors who currently use LAs responded and 50% (Two of Four) of the professors who no longer work at Baylor responded. Notably, the two professors who did not respond were professors who were retired or no longer teaching. The remaining 11 fell into two categories: professors currently at Baylor who used the LA model (9) and professors who no longer worked at Baylor but continued to use the LA model at their respective institutions (2). The entire LA Program at Baylor University is within the Department of
Biology, therefore all professors worked within the Baylor’s Department of Biology.
37 There were 6 female and 5 male professors who completed this survey. All professors were White.
The survey was sent out to 192 past and current learning assistants. There were
69 recorded responses: 12 (17%) of them did not finish the entirety of the survey and 57
(83%) did. A Chi-Square Goodness of Fit test was done to ensure the sample population was representative of the greater LA population in regards to when they first became an
LA and took the pedagogy class. There were no significant differences between our sample population’s distribution of students and the general LA program’s: χ2 (6,
N=56)= 6.34, p-value = .386. Therefore, our sample is representative.
Despite 57 respondents going through the whole survey, the free response questions typically had 55 or 56 responses. Of the 12 that did not reach the end of the survey, 9 of them completed up to the first half of the survey. The first half primarily consisted of multiple-choice questions related to their demographics and general information about their involvement in the LA program such as what year they started, how many semesters they had been an LA, and which classes they worked in. Conversely, the latter half of the survey primarily consisted of free response questions that asked participants to share their motivations, opinions, and perspective.
Demographics
The majority of the respondents were seniors (28), with an equal number of juniors and sophomores (15). 12 Learning Assistants who had graduated also completed the survey. This data is summarized in Figure 2 and Table 4.
38
Figure 2. Surveyed Learning Assistant’s School Year Classification and Academic Status.
Table 4. Descriptive summary of Learning Assistant’s ethnicity and gender.
Learning Assistant Involvement
The LA program was created in Fall 2017 at Baylor University, and this study collected information from students and faculty who had been involved at some point between Fall 2017 and Fall 2020. There were professors represented who began using the LA model in six out of the seven semesters since its conception, excluding Spring
2019. There were professors from laboratory, lecture, and experiential learning courses.
39 From the Learning Assistant-specific survey, 27 respondents were current LAs, and 39 were not. While there were at least two Learning Assistants who began in each of the given seven semesters, 53.9% of responses came from students who had joined the program in Spring 2020 or Fall 2020. Of those who began as a Learning Assistant before
Spring 2020, the average person was an LA for 2.23 semesters. We had participants from every class type --laboratory, lecture, and experiential learning-- and from almost every class that has utilized Learning Assistants: Human Physiology lab, Animal Nutrition,
Human Anatomy lecture, Biology 1 lab, Genetics Lab and lecture, and Surgical Skills.
However, we did not have any participants who had been Learning Assistants for
Immunology, an upper-level Biology class. The majority of respondents came from
Genetics and Biology 1 lecture courses. Finally, 12 respondents (18.2%) had been or are currently LA Mentors. Given these parameters, this sample does not represent the LA student population at Baylor regarding the expected distribution of LAs from experiential learning, laboratory, and lecture class. Nonetheless, there is at least some representation from various valuable perspectives: current and past LAs, graduated and current students, lab, lecture, or experiential learning class sections, regular LAs and those who continued on as LA mentors, as well as seasoned Learning Assistants who have been doing this for 5+ semesters and brand new Learning assistants who had just completed their first LA semester and accompanying pedagogy course.
LA Program Participation Motivation and Logistics
There were three main reasons professors incorporated Learning Assistants: addressing large class sizes/ encouraging peer-to-peer assistance (five professors), integrating active learning and metacognition (three professors), and situational circumstances (three professors). Table 5 paraphrases their answers.
40
Table 5. FRQ: “Why did you incorporate Learning Assistants into your class?”
Conversely, undergraduates became Learning Assistants for four overarching reasons: interest in teaching/pedagogy/mentorship (25 responses), situational circumstances (18 responses), interest in leadership, professional development or resume building (10 responses), and personal experiences related to the class or having
Learning Assistants themselves (10 responses) (Table 6).
41 Table 6. FRQ: “Why did you become a Learning Assistant?”
Next, professors were asked how they utilize Learning Assistants inside and outside of the classroom, while students were asked how they were utilized outside of the classroom (Table 7a and 7b). This multiple-choice question showed a discrepancy in what faculty believe LAs do outside of the classroom and what Learning Assistants report doing outside of the classroom. For example, none of the faculty mentioned Learning
Assistants grading exams while 5% of the LAs selected that as one of their roles.
Table 7a. MCQ: “How were Learning Assistants utilized outside of the classroom?”
42 Table 7b. MCQ: “How were Learning Assistants utilized inside of the classroom?”
While the utilization of LAs is important, how professors support Learning
Assistants in their role specifically is also relevant to the professor-Learning Assistant relationship. Professors had to note in which ways they support Learning Assistants
(Table 8). 82% of professors mentioned holding weekly meetings with their Learning
Assistants and providing open communication with them. Additionally, 72% of professors spend time discussing best teaching practices with their Learning Assistants.
Only 6 out of the 11 professors review the course material with the Learning Assistants.
Table 8. MCQ: “In what ways do you currently provide support for LAs?”
43 To conclude questions related to faculty’s involvement in the LA program, professors selected what responsibilities they believed faculty members and the department have (Table 9). The majority of professors believed it was their and the department’s responsibility to train and recruit Learning Assistants. Additionally, 63% believed assessing the effectiveness of Learning Assistants is their responsibility. Only 1 faculty member mentioned writing Letters of Recommendation as a faculty or department’s responsibility.
Table 9. MCQ: “What is your understanding you and the department’s responsibilities?”
Pedagogy class, Learning Assistants, and LA Program Perceptions
Pedagogy Class Perceptions
The final category of information collected focused on the faculty and student’s perception about various components of being a Learning Assistant, such as the pedagogy class, the overall program, and the role itself. First, faculty and students were asked how effectively they believed the Baylor LA program’s pedagogy course was at building their perceived top three characteristics of a Learning Assistant (Table 10a).
Faculty and students identified the same three characteristics; however, over double the percentage of students believed the pedagogy class and Baylor LA program were
44 moderately or extremely ineffective at developing the top three characteristics when compared to the percentage of faculty who believed they were ineffective.
Table 10. MCQ: “how effectively do you feel that the pedagogy course (BIO 3100) helped build your top three characteristics?”
Role of Learning Assistant Perceptions
There were various components related to the Learning Assistant role itself that was looked at. They could be broken down into three main angles: the effectiveness of and qualities in LAs that were being utilized, the perceived benefits and motivations of being an LA, and the perceived benefits of having LAs for the professors and learners.
Both faculty and students were asked to note the effectiveness of LAs are being utilized (Table 11). While none of the faculty members believed Learning Assistants were being utilized extremely or moderately ineffectively, 13% of the students who responded did.
45 Table 11. MCQ: “How effectively do you feel you are/were being utilized as a LA?”
Next, faculty and students were asked to rank the top 3 characteristics of successful Learning Assistants (Table 12). While both groups noted the same three characteristics --reliability/commitment, strong content knowledge, and strong communication skills --, faculty and students ranked their relative importance differently. While faculty believed reliability/commitment was of the highest relevance to being a successful Learning Assistant, students ranked strong content knowledge as first importance and reliability as third importance. Additionally, faculty ranked strong communication skills as third importance while students ranked it second.
Table 12. MCQ: “…what would be the top three characteristics of a successful LA?”
46 To look at the benefits of being and having Learning Assistants, faculty were asked what benefits they believed the Learning Assistants had in their classroom (Table
13) and what benefits their role as a professor has for the Learning Assistants (Table 14).
Faculty identified both learner-based benefits such as reaching students more effectively inside and outside of the classroom and overall classroom benefits such as creating more dynamic classroom lectures and assisting the professor in managing the class size.
Faculty also recognized their role benefit students in three main categories; academically by giving LAs the opportunity to go through the material another time, through mentorship by the professor, and as a resource to improving teaching practices and capabilities.
Table 13. FRQ: “What are some of the benefits with using LA in your classroom?”
47 Table 14. FRQ: “What benefits your role has for the Learning Assistant experience?”
To provide a comprehensive picture of how undergraduates benefit from being in an LA role, respondents were asked to describe their academic, professional, and personal benefits from being a Learning Assistant. For academic benefits, 53% noted the content knowledge as a major benefit, 36% said improved study skills, and 11% noted not having any perceived academic benefits (Figure 3, Table 15).
Figure 3. FRQ: “How have you benefited academically from being a Learning Assistant?”
48
Table 15. FRQ: “ How have you benefited academically from being a LA?”
The previous and current Learning Assistants had a larger range of professional benefits from being Learning Assistants (Figure 4, Table 16). 36% noted leadership, communication, or professional skill improvement, 22% mentioned teaching skills and opportunities being the main benefit, 9% noted resumes and professional school applications, 9% considered the relationships and networking opportunities as the professional benefit, and 5% mentioned no professional benefits. Additionally, 14% of professors mentioned significant benefits in both teaching and leadership/ communication/professional development skills, and 5% mentioned both networking and resume/professional application gains as equally beneficial. Those were the only two groups where respondent’s answers could not be accurately noted in exclusively one category.
49
Figure 4. FRQ: “How have you benefited professionally from being a LA?”
Table 16. FRQ: “How have you benefited professionally from being a LA?”
50 Previous and current Learning Assistant found five main personal benefits from being a Learning Assistant: meaningful relationships and friendship (35%), improved confidence and leadership (32%), personal growth and deeper introspection about oneself (15%), social and professional skill improvement (9%), and graduate school application perks (7%). 2% of respondents had no personal benefits from being an LA.
Figure 5. FRQ: “How have you benefited personally from being a Learning Assistant?”
Table 17. FRQ: “How have you benefited personally from being a Learning Assistant?”
51 LA Program Perceptions
The final component looked at opinions about Learning Assistants focused on their motivations for continuing or ceasing to be a Learning Assistant. Of the 32
Learning Assistants who continued and inputted reasons, the #1 reason was the impact they were having on the students. Following that, the overall experience was the second most common reason, then professor impact in conjunction with the impact they had on students, then love of the content in conjunction with the professor, and finally continued being an LA for external circumstances (Table 18).
Table 18. FRQ: “If you were a Learning Assistant for multiple semesters, why did you continue to be a Learning Assistant?”
The main reason students stopped being Learning Assistants was due to time commitment issues (50% of respondents). Following, 36% stopped due to external circumstances such as the professor no longer teaching the course or the course only being taught in alternating semesters. Finally, 13% of those who stopped being an LA and responded stopped because it was not enjoyable, they were not being compensated or they were not having the impact expected (Table 19).
52 Table 19. FRQ: “If you are no longer a Learning Assistant, what made you stop?”
Now that the pedagogy class and LA role itself had been dissected, I looked at their perspectives and opinions about the LA program. Faculty and students were asked their understanding of Learning Assistants’ roles (Table 20). There were 5 overarching themes amongst faculty and students: connecting students, learners, and teachers, student engagement, mentorship, resource, and guidance for students, active learning, and assisting teachers in classroom logistics. While no professor noted mentorship and guidance nor LA’s role in assisting teachers in lecture logistics, 36% of students did. Both faculty and students believed LAs play a role in connecting students, learners, and teachers as well as implementing active learning. Only professors believed student engagement encompassed the role of being a Learning Assistant.
Table 20. FRQ: “What is your understanding of the role of being a Learning Assistant?”
53 Additionally, students were asked how effective their professor-student relationships were at fostering the LA’s personal, professional, and academic benefits/goals (Table 21). 13% of students found those relationships extremely or moderately ineffective building their top three characteristics of being a successful
Learning Assistant. 88% found those relationships in some way effective. The students went on to rate how effectively Baylor’s LA Program was at fostering the LA’s personal, professional, and academic benefits (Table 22). 5% of students found the LA program to be ineffective at fostering those previously mentioned benefits while 95% said that the
LA program did.
Table 21. MCQ: “How effectively do you feel that your professor-learning assistant relationship fostered those academic, professional, and personal benefits?”
Table 22. MCQ: “how effectively do you feel that the Baylor Learning Assistant program fostered those academic, professional, and personal benefits?”
54
The final question offered space for both faculty and students to share any relevant information about their experience being in the LA program. Out of the seven professors who provided relevant information, two provided constructive comments on how the learners and Learning Assistants could improve, three provided suggestions for improving the pedagogy class and professor relationships, and the final two provided information about their future plans on using Learning Assistants and the LA model
(Table 23).
Table 23. FRQ: “ Is there anything else you would like to share that is relevant to your experience as a Learning Assistant at Baylor University?”
While only two participants for the Learning Assistant-specific survey provided new, relevant information, their insight was extensive. The first respondent highlighted the draw-in for being a Learning Assistant goes beyond teaching but also growing within yourself. The second respondent provided constructive criticism in various areas:
55 highlighting the variable experiences Learning Assistants will have depending on how their professor incorporates their role, acknowledging the ineffectiveness of some of these circumstances, and suggesting ways to bridge the gap between a Learning
Assistant’s impact, quality of work, and objective.
In this chapter, the results from the faculty and student-specific Learning
Assistant surveys were presented. The results were broken into three categories to assess the broad makeup of faculty and students who have been part of the LA program, general involvement in and motivation to participate in the LA program, and finally their opinions and perspectives and various components related to being an LA like the pedagogy class and the broader LA program. These results showed discrepancies between professors and students in the role of being a Learning Assistant, the perceived top three ranked characteristics needed to be a successful Learning Assistant, and how effectively LAs are being utilized. Additionally, there were differences in perceived benefits professors had for the role of being a Learning Assistant and those the actual
Learning Assistant felt. And finally, the results reflect points of improvement with retention of Learning Assistants and addressing concerns about the training both
Learning Assistants and professors receive. Given this robust information, the next chapter will delve into the implications of these results and discuss recommendations and insights based on the information gathered.
56 CHAPTER FIVE
Implications and Conclusion
This study looked at the experience of being a Learning Assistant from the student and faculty perspective. In the first chapter, I gave a brief history of classroom science education, active learning, and the LA model before providing an overview of this study. Chapter Two was a literature review around various academic support personnel, the LA program at various institutions and, specifically, Baylor University, then delved into the current research being done about Learning Assistants and the gap in that specific research field. Chapter Three laid out the methodology surrounding data collection and chapter four laid out the results from the aforementioned data collection.
Chapter four showed various points of discussion surrounding how professors and
Learning Assistants answered the same questions differently and room for dialogue about their responses to group-specific questions. In this final chapter, I will interweave key findings and accompanying commentary on recommendations with the implications of these results (Table 24). Limitations will then be discussed before providing concluding thoughts on these results and how it relates to the current body of knowledge. Finally, there will be a discussion on the next steps and future implications of this research endeavor.
57 Key Findings
1. National Goals of the Original Learning Assistant Model vs Campus Goals
The original goals of the LA Program do not relate to, emphasize, nor
explicitly aim to benefit the undergraduates being Learning Assistants beyond
teacher recruitment. The four goals of the LA model are: to improve
undergraduate courses and curricula, facilitate teacher recruitment and
preparation, encourage faculty to study discipline-based education research, and
promote departmental and institutional change (Learning Assistant Alliance,
n.d.). This can be problematic for institutions that want to reap the benefits of
implementing the LA model -- such as improved grades and graduate retention
(Alzen et al 2018), higher teacher satisfaction (McHenry et al, 2009), and overall
better material conceptualization (Talbot et al, 2016)-- without focusing on
recruitment for teaching as a profession. Baylor University is one of those
institutions. For such cases, it is on the individual programs to best identify the
goals for the LA model and ensure the nuanced implementation of the respective
programs aligns with that. For example, the largest portion of students became
Learning Assistants for the teaching and mentorship opportunities which were
also some of the most significant professional and personal benefits from being in
this role.
While these Learning Assistants are not seeking to become future
teachers, there is still interest in learning how to convey information effectively to
other people and serve as role models for the learners within these classes.
However, the faculty did not consider mentorship a primary role of Learning
Assistants and 28% of faculty do not support Learning Assistants through
discussing best teaching practices. Furthermore, multiple professors made
58 additional final comments such as needing time to figure out how to best use
Learning Assistants, lack of learners fully understanding and appreciating the mentorship role of LAs, and self-creating syllabi to better layout Learning
Assistant’s expectations in the final question. These reservations and criticisms speak to the need for research and consensus on how to approach and structure
LA models and programs that do not aim to recruit teachers as a profession. Until this is done, it is important for institutions interested in utilizing the LA model outside of its original parameters to spend time during campus inception to determine the additional goals of the LA program and which components --the pedagogy class, the campus LA program, or the department -- and which participants -- campus LA program team, LA-supported faculty, or undergraduates as LAs-- will fulfill these endeavors.
In such conversations, it is also imperative to contrast other support academic personnel that undergraduate students can possess such as being an undergraduate Teaching Assistant or a Supplemental Instructor with the distinct role of being a Learning Assistant. As outlined in Chapter Two, these three roles have overlapping end goals in helping the students in class but take on distinct frameworks when executed and serve nuance differences in reaching these goals.
Undergraduate Teaching Assistants serve as more logistical aids to professors within the classroom while Supplemental Instructors are often thought of as structured recitation leaders after hours (A Ribera et al, 2012; Chapin et al,
2014). In contrast, Learning Assistants function in the classroom to elevate critical thinking and conceptualization of previously taught information in the classroom in real-time. When teacher recruitment is taken out of the LA model objective, leaves room for programs to turn the LA role into a uTA-SI hybrid within the classroom. Not only because those are two well-established and
59 familiar roles faculty are used to undergraduates being in but also because the LA
model does not give specific guidance on which ways Learning Assistants can be
utilized to actionably help students learn better. This faulty direction in
conjunction with the previous ambiguity surrounding how LAs should be
implemented may be a valid explanation for Learning Assistants who found they
were being utilized ineffectively or the Learning Assistants who stopped because
the student impact was not as significant as anticipated. Mismatched
expectations and unclear implementation of their role would be a reasonable
culprit. Further investigation into best practices and directions for the LA model
beyond teacher recruitment and aiding teachers in logistically managing larger
classes would be beneficial to address this concern.
2. Effectiveness of Learning Assistants
Learning Assistants and the usage of active learning activities have proven
to be effective in bridging racial inequity educational gaps (Van Dusen et al,
2016), and improving the learner’s conceptualization and general understanding
of the material in a collaborative environment (Top, 2019). However, this study
found 9% of faculty and 23% of student respondents considered the current
utilization of Learning Assistants as moderately or extremely ineffective. Other
components of this study proffer suggestions for reasons why this may be the
case and possible solutions.
First, there was a discrepancy between how professors perceived the
scope of the LA role regarding mentorship and the undergraduates who were
Learning Assistants. For example, mentoring students in class is not seen as a job
of Learning Assistants for any of the professors but 27% of past and current
Learning Assistants did. 40% of respondents noted that teaching experience or
60 opportunity to mentor lowerclassmen were main reasons to become an LA in the first place. Additionally, 46% of professors believed the LA role was meant to increase student engagement yet none of the past or future Learning Assistants saw that as part of the purpose of their role. As mentioned previously, one faculty mentioned the insufficient understanding and appreciation of LAs as mentors for students in introductory Biology courses as an additional final comment.
These observations may suggest that because professors do not explicitly view the LA role as a mentorship one, they do not encourage nor facilitate the LA- professor or LA-student relationships to be one of mentor-mentee. Interestingly, eight out of the nine students who worked in Laparoscopy, the experiential- learning course, found LAs to be utilized extremely or moderately effectively and the one respondent who did not believe they were utilized moderately ineffectively had mentorship and guidance as a critical component of being a
Learning Assistant. Similarly, in other instances where undergraduates served as co-teachers in the classroom, such as uTAs, they were seen as role models and served a mentorship purpose (Luckie et al, 2019). This is significant because through the responses from the faculty and associated LAs, mentorship throughout the semester is a foundational component of how LAs are utilized in their classroom. Advertising, considering, and incorporating mentorship into the expected role of being an LA to the undergraduates interested in being an LA, students in the classroom, and professors supporting LAs may be a way to increase perceived effective utilization of LAs.
Secondly, the few LAs who went on to become Supplemental Instructors gave distinct comments related to the ineffective or deficient interaction and impact LAs were having with students, especially in comparison to their role as an SI. There was no statistical correlation between those who went on to become
61 other forms of teachers or academic support personnel and scoring LA effectiveness more poorly (p=.908). Nonetheless, there is a pattern supported by the 13% of respondents who did not continue to be an LA that stated it was due to lack of appropriate compensation and/or student impact compared to the work being put in. Additionally, the singular student who provided in-depth additional thoughts at the end of the LA-specific survey provided a possible further explanation on this issue. They mentioned unsatisfactory office hour attendance and sporadic attendance to lectures when not facilitating active learning. This respondent brought up the important note of consistent accountability in LAs not being as stringent and explicit compared to their role as an SI.
These concerns lend themselves to inconsistent standards for what and how the LA can be utilized and utilized effectively. Their perspective as someone who was an SI before and after being an LA who is now at a professional school provides a unique insight as most respondents who were SIs or academic tutors did so only after their experience as an LA. Therefore, the portion of Learning
Assistants who did not believe they were being utilized effectively may be due to their comparison of a seasoned program such as the SI program at Baylor
University with the relatively newer LA program in conjunction with the previous concerns about role and expectations of Learning Assistants who are not being recruited for future teachers. While the goal is not to make LAs a variant of
Supplemental Instructors, it may be worthwhile to investigate the frameworks specific institutions have put in place to ensure the perceived relatively consistent quality and student engagement associated with SIs but has not yet been solidified with Learning Assistants.
Thirdly, the discrepancy between how professors utilize LAs and what the
Learning Assistants go through may explain the noted ineffectiveness. None of
62 the faculty mentioned that LAs help with grading any kind of exams when discussing how they are utilized outside of the classroom. However, 5% of the student respondents said grading exams was one of the ways that they were utilized outside of the classroom. Additionally, one faculty mentioned that LAs do nothing outside of the classroom while no student noted that they did nothing outside of the classroom. Interestingly, the professor who does not utilize LAs outside of the classroom still found them to be utilized effectively overall. There were no significant differences between how faculty and students rated the effectiveness of the LA program in developing their top three characteristics, U=
278.5, p value=.560. While these are just two examples from the relatively small pool of all past and current LAs, the notion that faculty and students are not aligned in how the LAs are being utilized within a specific course may be associated with other forms of miscommunication or inconsistent jobs to take on that lead some students to see their role as ineffective.
Finally, LA utilization rankings were correlated with professor- relationship effectiveness scores (r=.465, p value <.001) and LA program effectiveness (r=.393, p value= .003). Interestingly, no respondent ranked all four LA effectiveness questions --LA utilization, professor-student relationships and the LA program in developing the academic/professional/personal benefits, or LA program’s pedagogy class at fostering the top three characteristics-- as extremely or moderately ineffective. Information noted in the first key finding mentioned that the respondents who asserted that LAs were being utilized ineffectively were the same respondents whose reasons for no longer continuing to be an LA were the following: “not as enjoyable as hoped”, “impact was not as lasting as I expected”, and “lack of monetary compensation”. These observations show that there may be multiple components of the LA program such as the
63 professor-relationship and the pedagogy class that interplay and positively affect
an LAs perception of their role’s benefit which have not been investigated beyond
this study.
These observations may speak to an underlying opinion that their time
and energy being put into the pedagogy course and being an LA is not
comparable to the compensation and impact students are seeking. While this
notion requires further research to effectively delve into this proposition, the
association between ineffective LA utilization and the LA program’s pedagogy
class may be remedied by better synchronization of the pedagogy course in
equipping students with the necessary skills and preparing them for what their
role truly entails. Two faculty members mentioned a re-examination of the
efficacy and applicability of the pedagogy course to the actual tasks LAs do in the
final additional comments. There were significant relationships between the year
a student joined the LA program and professor relationship ratings (r=.366,
p=.006) and pedagogy class effectiveness ratings (r=.319, p=.016), meaning those
who joined the LA program earlier (e.g. joining in Fall 2017 vs Fall 2020), their
ratings were correlated with less favorable scores such as moderately effective,
moderately ineffective, and extremely ineffective. The improvement and
expansion of the LA program may speak to this positive trend and may be hinting
at the same conclusions previously mentioned.
3. Role of LA-Supported Faculty
The relationship between faculty and undergraduates who are Learning
Assistants is complex. This dynamic partnership has mentor-mentee, co-creators,
consultants, co-instructors, and fellow students components (Davenport et al,
64 2019; Cook-Sather & Motz-Storey, 2016). However, LA-supported faculty may not know how important their role is for the Learning Assistant experience. 88% of respondents noted that their student-faculty relationships effectively related to the LA’s academic, professional, and personal benefits. Professor-student relationships (mean=1. 66) had the highest average effectiveness ranking compared to the LA program (mean=1.79) and the pedagogy course (mean
=1.96) in developing the top three characteristics of successful LAs. Further, 35% of LAs who responded to why they continued in that role mentioned relationships to professors as one of those reasons and 36% of the students who did not continue being an LA stopped for situational reasons such as professor retiring or the class no longer being offered. How students ranked their LA role utilization was significantly correlated with their rankings of professor-student relationship effectiveness (r=.465, p value <.001). These results reflect the impact faculty have on the trajectory of an LA’s experience that does not seem as apparent to the professors. When asked how they believe their role benefits Learning Assistants, only three out of the eleven faculty members mentioned mentorship or relationships with the LAs as being a benefit.
The mismatch between the actual impact faculty have compared to their perceived effect may relate to their disengagement with components of the LA program that relate to the LA: 45% did not believe it was their responsibility to develop professional development in the LAs and 36% did not believe assessing
LA effectiveness was their responsibility. The lack of LA-relevant goals in this overarching LA model only compounds this issue. While there are few researched methods to better instill the sense of importance faculty have on the experiences of the LAs, simple interventions related to how professors are recruited, how the
LA model is advertised, and further research on this dynamic may bring this
65 benefit to the forefront faculty’s per view and thereby create more intrinsic
motivation to play a central role in development and sustenance of the LA
program with respect to the LAs themselves.
4. Effectiveness of the Pedagogy Class
As previously mentioned, the pedagogy class is a core component of being
an LA where students learn about science education theory and related topics
that apply being a Learning Assistant such as metacognition and study skills
(Otero 2010). While this class is critical in differentiating SIs and uTA because of
its focus on active learning, several survey responses bring concern to its overall
effectiveness. 1 faculty and 23% of LA respondents believed the pedagogy class
was extremely or moderately ineffective. Interestingly, the professor respondent
who believed the pedagogy course was moderately ineffective was not the same
professor respondent that noted that the pedagogy course may not be aligned
with what the students are learning and may not be functioning properly.
Turning to other collected data may provide clarity on this reason. The pedagogy
class has evolved since its inception; this is reflected in the significant correlation
previously mentioned between the pedagogy course effectiveness and when the
pedagogy course was taken. This is notable because the first approximately four
semesters of the pedagogy class were heavy on the research and theoretical
framework requiring each Learning Assistant to conduct a small research project
on their respective classes. This component is no longer seen in the current
model where students primarily work through science education theory journal
articles and complete reflections on their LA experience.
66 When looking at solutions, one faculty member’s additional comments may provide a solution to consider. Specifically, the faculty member showed concern over the lack of communication and productive dialogue between LA- supported faculty and those running the pedagogy course. While the pedagogy course has changed over the years, none of the changes have been done to increase LA-supported faculty’s contributions or input into how the class is run.
This concern in conjunction with another faculty member’s view that current faculty who use LAs may be doing so incorrectly because they did not receive the original summer institute teaching methods training may speak to better integration of the pedagogy curriculum and associated professors to be mutually beneficial. For the students to be learning more applicable skills and for the professors to get a better grasp of the teaching practices the LA model is supposed to use. This solution appears to also be supported by answers from other questions. There were positive correlations between pedagogy effectiveness ratings both with professor relationship effectiveness ratings (r=.302 ,p=.028) and LA program effectiveness ratings (r=.392, p=.004). This was true even when controlling for year of joining the LA program compared to its launch and whether or not the students were currently an undergraduate. This furthers the need for more collaboration and integration between various components of the
LA experience. In this way, LAs may find the pedagogy class more effective as well as opening dialogue between science faculty which is one of the LA
Program’s goals.
Chapter Two also mentioned iterations of the pedagogy curriculum that may provide formats that mediate these concerns. Montgomery College replaces the semester pedagogy course with multi-hour gatherings and sessions three to four times throughout the semester (Schick 2018). This format may be helpful for
67 students who feel like the weekly hour-long sessions are too much of a time
commitment for the work being done. Another consideration is curriculum
modifications to better align with the tasks being done. The pedagogy course
inherently has a theoretical framework because students are often learning what
active learning and Bloom’s taxonomy are; however, there could be a more
integral component that better prepares students to be successful in their class.
This could mean having allotted time during class to brainstorm, create, and peer
review LA activities, framing assignments to better relate to what the students are
doing in their class compared to focusing on the theory, among other options.
5. Professor vs LA’s Top Characteristics of Successful Learning Assistants
When faculty and students were asked to rank the top three
characteristics successful Learning Assistants had, professors and students
ranked them differently. These results may speak to a disconnect between
professors and students. Both groups ranked the same three characteristics as
their top three: reliability and commitment, strong content knowledge, and
strong communication skills. Yet, professors ranked reliability and commitment
as the #1 most important characteristic while LAs ranked that #3. Considering
the previously mentioned concerns surrounding accountability and consistent
work LAs have, this appears to be a valid explanation: professors and students
value reliability and commitment differently in how it relates to being a
successful Learning Assistant. Additionally, Learning Assistants ranked strong
communication skills as the second most important characteristic while
professors ranked this as third importance. Not only were these ranked
differently, but the consensus on their relevance also differed: content knowledge
68 had an average place at 3.18 and strong communication skills were ranked on
average at 2.93 while they were both the second most important characteristics.
The varying degree to which each group views certain characteristics as
important provides a point of discussion for institutions to consider what the
most important characteristics are needed to be a successful Learning Assistant
and better integrate and train Learning Assistant to expect and possess them.
6. Goal and Functioning of the LA Program
LA Programs that do not utilize the LA model for teacher recruitment or
to directly address the student: professor ratio should modify the goal and
functioning of their campus’ LA program to ensure its effectiveness. This study
found positive effects of the LA program not often researched. 95% of students
found the LA program moderately or extremely effective at developing their
perceived benefits. Furthermore, professor-student relationships in developing
academic/professional/personal benefits had the highest numerical instance of
being ineffective, yet none of those individuals simultaneously rated the LA
program at being ineffective at doing this. Interestingly, the three participants
who rated three out of the four questions related to effectiveness never had
ineffectiveness of the LA program as one of them. Both faculty and students
found that the LA program and pedagogy class were extremely to moderately
effective at developing their top three characteristics of a successful LA (mean
score=1.8). There were no significant differences between the rankings faculty
gave and those students gave , U=220.0, p value=.105. It appears that the
broader LA program, especially when compared to the pedagogy course and
69 professor-student relationships, is not perceived as being ineffective as other components of the LA experiences.
Despite such positive reception, this study revealed three points of discussion related to the functioning and goal of the LA program. First, compensation and time commitment. As mentioned in Chapter Two, Campbell et al’s (2019) study on perceptions of Learning Assistants to grow programs highlighted that not receiving enough compensation was a common complaint.
The number one reason people stop being Learning Assistants is due to time commitment. 50% of those who quit stopped because of that and 7% stopped due to no monetary or academic compensation. Students only receive upper level
Biology credit for the first two semesters of being an LA and there are no other forms of compensation for the work they are putting in. The cost-benefit analysis of continuing to be an LA in any form without a tangible return is a highly probable reason students stop. With this being considered, it is unclear whether
Baylor’s LA program is geared to encourage students to be LAs beyond their second semester or whether the program is structured to have LAs for two semesters before moving on to other students. Other institutions structure their
LA program to accommodate one of these goals. For example, Montgomery
College focuses on the latter where students who complete one semester of being an LA are allowed to return but must be placed in a different course with a different instructor, and new LAs are given priority (Schick, 2018).
Regarding compensation, many LAs at other institutions get monetary compensation for their work, and for those that do not, receive academic credit compensation (Otero, 2010, Campbell et al, 2019). However, it should be noted that those that receive monetary compensation do approximately 10 hours of work in this scenario and are often tasked with more autonomy and larger time
70 commitments. Conversely, at Baylor University, Learning Assistants are expected to commit 3-5 hours of work a week related to their role: one hour for pedagogy, one hour for the regular meeting with professors, and two to three hours preparing and executing active learning in the classroom. UNC Greensboro’s LA program, for example, has students conducting lab classes, grading all student assignments, and co-designing the curriculum (Grabow et al., 2014; Harris et al.,
2014). The average student at Baylor University was an LA for 2.23 semesters which aligns with the two-semester cutoff for receiving class credit. Given these considerations, Baylor’s LA Program may not need to worry about the retention rates of LAs if their goal is not to have LAs continue after two semesters.
However, if that is a goal which they establish, discussions around proper compensation for their work would be essential.
Secondly, this study found a need for the LA program to better define and require a certain level of accountability and commitment from students. One professor and one graduated student both made commentary surrounding the need for more structured expectations and feedback for students to be used as
LAs both effectively and properly. Specifically, the student noted that as an SI, they regularly received discussion questions and worksheets done by LAs that did not align with the quality of work beneficial for students. The student also found that as an LA, they did not feel the expectations and requirements of being an LA aligned with results that yielded consistent accountability and accuracy but rather formulated being an LA as means for students to earn an easy A and work with professors more personally. This is not an uncommon sentiment informally seen through students who have been LAs. Furthermore, 36% of the faculty did not believe assessing the effectiveness of LAs was the responsibility of faculty members nor the department.
71 One solution could be in requiring a formal class similar to pedagogy every semester you are an LA. Seattle Pacific requires their LAs to be in a pedagogy course every semester where the content rotates each quarter and there is a stronger emphasis on curriculum design (Schick, 2018). In this proactive way, students have continued support and feedback on the activities they are doing in class while also being reminded of the purpose and expectation of being an LA. Baylor University has also begun to address this concern in a reactive way.
They have incorporated assessments for fellow LAs and professors to refer to when assigning grades for the class credit based on the behavior LAs have already been doing. A top-down approach may also be beneficial. Full departmental and faculty buy-in for the program is necessary for the success LA program (Campbell et al, 2019). This study found that 82% of faculty believed it was their job and the department’s job to train and assess LAs. Therefore, departmental-level initiatives to unite professors and assert clear expectations and feedback pathways may be a fruitful avenue to take.
Finally, the LA program may need to modify how it recruits students to be
LAs and trains professors to use LAs as there appears to be some inconsistencies.
This is a common complaint in newer LA programs especially for those programs that do not have a teaching as a profession recruitment component (Campbell et al, 2019). As previously mentioned, 82% of faculty consider recruitment and training of LAs the job of faculty members and the department. Professors recruit students in various ways that may not align with what the LA program expects.
For example, some professors hand-pick their students while some professors wait for students to approach them. This expectation is rarely communicated to the prospective students and is not often incorporated into the LA programs’ recruitment efforts. Providing a clear way to properly recruit new Learning
72 Assistants that both expand the program and ensures professors are receiving their needed aid is essential. This notion is supported by the fact that the second most common reason students become Learning Assistants was situational such as professors recommending it or professors asking for help. Moreover, professors believe there still needs to be some fine-tuning in how classrooms are being transformed as mentioned in the additional comments of the professor- specific survey. This is essential not only to ensure the LAs and professors are using best teaching practices but also so that the learners can be taking full advantage of the LAs in class. Other professor’s comments about newer professors not being specifically trained in this active learning teaching methodology and needing to fine-tune how LAs are being used in class speaks to this concern faculty are having. Solutions for this point have already been discussed in the aforementioned key findings such as incorporating teachers into the pedagogy course or borrowing from SI structures but other remedies should also be considered. A summary of these key findings and recommendations can be found in Table 24.
73 Table 24. Summary of Key findings and recommended solutions.
Key Finding Recommendations 1. National LA goals may not align with individual > conduct more research and reach a consensus on campus goals how to structure LA models without a teacher recruitment focus > dedicate time to establish additional LA goals without overlapping with other academic personnel
2. Ineffectiveness within the LA role > advertise mentorship as an expected role for prospective LAs and LA-support faculty > discover novel ways to ensure consistent quality and student engagement through SI-LA research > better communicate the job requirements between faculty and LAs > integrate the pedagogy class and LA program into the LA experience more
3. Discrepancies in LA-Supported Faculty Role > develop initiatives to better emphasize the mentorship impact faculty have on the LA experience > conduct further research on the professor-LA relationship dynamic
4. Ineffectiveness within the Pedagogy class > collaborate and integrate faculty, LA, and the pedagogy class more > restructure the pedagogy class to be applicable to what the LAs do on a daily basis
5. Differences in Professor and Student Top > conduct further research to come to a consensus on Characteristics for Successful LAs the top characteristics of being an LA on an institutional level > incorporate methods to develop these characteristics throughout the LA experience
6. Ambiguity in the goal and function of the LA > clarify whether the LA program is geared towards program long-term retention or a year-long experience
> better define expectations and accountability for students and convey such to faculty
> build in initiatives to ensure satisfactory participation and quality from veteran LAs
> coordinate between LA program and faculty to achieve these new expectations
> restructure recruitment to better accommodate the program's goals and the faculty's preferences
74 Limitations
This chapter thus far has been an in-depth discussion about the implications and findings from the professor-specific and student-specific LA surveys. However, this study did have limitations which will now be unpacked.
First and foremost, there were low response rates from the students who were sent the Learning-Assistant specific survey. Out of the 192 students who received the survey, only 69 filled out a significant portion of the survey. A 35% representation of the broader pool is not necessarily indicative of the opinions of all of the Learning Assistants at Baylor University. This small sample size may amplify perspectives and opinions that might be less common in the broader population. Regardless, further research needs to be done that focus on Learning Assistants, specifically, and providing stronger incentives to complete such studies may mediate this limitation for future researchers.
On a similar note, the substantial variety in the backgrounds of respondents could have been more varied. From the 35% that did complete the survey, 54% of them had completed their first semester of being an LA that Fall of 2020 or the previous
Spring 2020 semesters. While the current perceptions of LAs who are the closest in experiencing what the LA program and pedagogy courses is currently like, their short- term in the program may prevent insight into the long-term perceptions that may develop through having more experiences, progressing through college, or even general maturity in viewpoint. If more veteran Learning Assistants had completed the survey, it would have been interesting to analyze the possible similarities and differences between their perceptions and opinions. Future studies can also overlay this form of diversity when doing future studies on LAs to include groups with a more equal distribution of current, past, and graduated Learning Assistants. With that being said, there were no correlations between those who became SIs, academic tutors or received teacher’s
75 certificates and those who did not with their responses to the effectiveness of LAs. This may have been due to the limited number of participants who went on to pursue these endeavors (22 respondents). In either case, future studies should further investigate if and how those who went on to pursue future teaching related experiences view the LA experience.
Finally, the survey did not adequately differentiate the LA program and a subject’s department at certain times. When deciphering who is responsible for determining efficacy, recruiting, and compensation for LAs, the survey did not effectively differentiate the faculty, the general department, and the LA program specifically. For some institutions, the LA program is distinct from any given department because it extends to chemistry, physics, calculus and others (Otero et al, 2010). Given that Baylor’s
LA program is only within the biology department, it is unclear whether the endeavors mentioned should rest on the Chair of the department --as they hold the departmental responsibilities and budgeting of time and resources--, or that of the LA Program
Director. This distinction may be important for nascent institutions that are implementing the LA model to consider because understanding the key stakeholders in this endeavor is crucial in the success of implementing LA programs (Campbell et al,
2019). A second step in addressing this limitation could be weighing the efficacy of departments versus the broader LA program carrying the brunt of the previously mentioned tasks. In doing this, best practices for other institutions interested in joining the Learning Assistant Alliance could be more widely incorporated. Moreover, a collaboration between both entities is essential but clarity on which group should be held responsible still needs to be further analyzed at respective institutions.
76 Conclusion and Future Directions
Because this study is unique in its focus on Learning Assistants’ experiences, there is not many direct data to compare to. However, the results that do overlap with previous studies are promising and congruent. This study’s results affirm the previous findings that being a Learning Assistant improved leadership, teaching, and communication skills (Close et al., 2013, Dreyfus et al., 2020). Past research on the content retention Learning Assistants experience was only seen in this study; 70% of the
55 respondents said that being a Learning Assistant was extremely or moderately useful for future classes, professional schools, and/or entrance exams (Campbell et al., 2019).
Our results related to the benefits professors see with having Learning Assistants also coincides with previous studies' discovery that LAs allow professors to have a better grasp of the students’ state of mind than the professor could on their own (Jardine 2019,
2020). The benefits LAs saw within their student-faculty relationships also align with
Cook-Sather & Motz-Storey’s investigation into the positive effects LA-faculty relationships have (2016). More broadly, some of the obstacles and concerns found within Baylor’s LA program have also been mentioned in the minimal previous studies on general LA program efficacy (Campbell et al., 2019; Otero et al., 2010; Quan et al.,
2019). Interestingly, the primary study that solely looked at the Learning Assistant’s experience yielded results different from this study’s. Many of the Seattle Pacific
University LAs found benefits in being an LA tied to openness and autonomy in having the shared authority to shape the scientific dialogue and their respective courses
(Robertson et al, 2014). Baylor University’s cohort did not mention autonomy or agency at any point when asked about the benefits of their experiences. This discrepancy may be due to the format in which data was gathered in these two scenarios, but an investigation
77 into a sense of agency and autonomy within LAs being utilized in different ways may reveal an untapped aspect of the LA model that could be maximized in the future.
Given the groundwork that has been laid out before this study and the added information this study provides into the inner perceptions of the Learning Assistant
Experience, there are numerous future implications of this work. First, how this research relates to real-world application. The observations and commentary mentioned in this study should not be seen as a testament to the inefficacy of the LA model but rather the natural obstacles that come with new programs and unique implementations of different iterations. The concerns and possible solutions in this project should be taken as encouraging steps to improve such programs both locally and afar as well as serve as points of considerations for future institutions that wish to implement LAs programs on their campuses.
Secondly, there are various directions future researchers can take. Most generally, researchers can continue exploring the experiences and benefits of specifically
LAs in various institutional environments. This would increase the breadth of knowledge surrounding the usage of LAs outside of teacher recruitment. Within this endeavor, looking into the various degrees of autonomy, structure, and compensation LAs are receiving to therefore discover if and how that relates to effectiveness and general satisfaction with this role would be of particular interest. Future research could also narrow down on a particular aspect of the Learning Assistant Experience mentioned here. For example, some faculty noted the mere usage of Learning Assistants instills an implicit motivation to create quality material consistently. Or, discerning what are the top characteristics needed to be a successful Learning Assistant and how those traits can be fostered. Other suggestions for future directions have been discussed throughout this chapter which revealed the myriad of information this blooming field in scientific education is yearning to learn more about.
78 This study explored the Learning Assistant role and how that experience shapes their time in the classroom and professional development. As a result, revealed new benefits not previously researched, emphasized the importance of Learning Assistants as people with their relationship to faculty and students in the class, and bolstered the current branch of science education research that specifically focuses on the undergraduates serving as academic support personnel in active-learning transformed classes. The investigation into the Learning Assistant experience through the eyes of LA- supported faculty along with current and past Learning Assistants provided beneficial commentary on the limitations, triumphs, and areas of improvement that other institutions may experience as they embark on this journey to more critically engaged science classes.
79 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1991). Science for All Americans. Oxford University Press. AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Oxford University Press. AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009). Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Call to Action. Oxford University Press. Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of research on science education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 103(3), 152–153. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536- 5050.103.3.010 Alhija, F. N.-A., & Fresko, B. (2020). Graduate teaching assistants: Motives, difficulties and professional interactions and their relationship to perceived benefits. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1681374 Alzen, J. L., Langdon, L. S., & Otero, V. K. (2018). A logistic regression investigation of the relationship between the Learning Assistant model and failure rates in introductory STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0152-1 Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. r, & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives /. Longman,. https://eduq.info/xmlui/handle/11515/18345 Aragon, S. (2016). Teacher Shortages: What We Know. Teacher Shortage Series. In Education Commission of the States. Education Commission of the States. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565893 Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2015). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (Ninth edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Barrasso, A. P., & Spilios, K. E. (2021). A scoping review of literature assessing the impact of the learning assistant model. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00267-8 Batz, Z., Olsen, B. J., Dumont, J., Dastoor, F., & Smith, M. K. (2015). Helping Struggling Students in Introductory Biology: A Peer-Tutoring Approach That Improves
80 Performance, Perception, and Retention. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(2), ar16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0120 Baylor University. (n.d.-a). Baylor Laparoscopy: Being in the Lab. Science and Health Living Learning Center | Baylor University. Retrieved February 24, 2021, from https://www.baylor.edu/shllc/index.php?id=964649 Baylor University. (n.d.-b). Baylor Teaching Faculty. Department of Biology | Baylor University. Retrieved April 4, 2021, from https://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=961205 Bissell, A. N., & Lemons, P. P. (2006). A New Method for Assessing Critical Thinking in the Classroom. BioScience, 56(1), 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006- 3568(2006)056[0066:ANMFAC]2.0.CO;2 Blanc, R. A., DeBuhr, L. E., & Martin, D. C. (1983). Breaking the Attrition Cycle. The Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1983.11778153 Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain (2nd edition Edition). Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd. Boeding, C. H., & Vattano, F. J. (1976). Undergraduates as Teaching Assistants: A Comparison of Two Discussion Methods. Teaching of Psychology, 3(2), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top0302_2 Bonney, K. M. (2015). Case Study Teaching Method Improves Student Performance and Perceptions of Learning Gains†. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 16(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v16i1.846 Campbell, J., Malcos, J., & Bortiatynski, J. (2019). Growing a Learning Assistant Program: Using Perceptions to Inform Improvement. Journal of College Science Teaching, 48(3), 67–73. Cao, Y., Smith, C., Lutz, B. D., & Koretsky, M. (2018). Cultivating the Next Generation: Outcomes from a Learning Assistant Program in Engineering. ArXiv:1807.04838 [Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.04838 Chapin, H., Wiggins, B., & Martin-Morris, L. (2014). Research and Teaching: Undergraduate Science Learners Show Comparable Outcomes Whether Taught by Undergraduate or Graduate Teaching Assistants. Journal of College Science Teaching, 044(02). https://doi.org/10.2505/4/jcst14_044_02_90 Chini, J., Yang, Y., LaMee, A., & Rahman, T. (2016). Teacher Recruitment and UCF’s LA Program. Bulletin of the American Physical Society, Volume 61, Number 1. http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/PHYSTC16/Session/POSTER.17 Cleveland, L. M., Olimpo, J. T., & DeChenne-Peters, S. E. (2017). Investigating the Relationship between Instructors’ Use of Active-Learning Strategies and Students’ Conceptual Understanding and Affective Changes in Introductory Biology: A Comparison of Two Active-Learning Environments. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), ar19. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-06-0181
81 Close, E., Close, H., & Donnelly, D. (2012). Understanding the Learning Assistant experience with Physics Identity and Community of Practice. L3.005. Close, E., Close, H. G., & Donnelly, D. (2013). Understanding the learning assistant experience with physics identity. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1513(1), 106–109. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4789663 Close, E., Conn, J., & Close, H. G. (2016). Becoming physics people: Development of integrated physics identity through the Learning Assistant experience. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010109 Close, E., Mailloux-Huberdeau, J., Close, H., & Donnelly, D. (2017, July 26-27). Characterization of time scale for detecting impacts of reforms in an undergraduate physics program. Paper presented at Physics Education Research Conference 2017, Cincinnati, OH. Retrieved April 12, 2021, from https://www.compadre.org/Repository/document/ServeFile.cfm?ID=14575&DocID=475 2 Colvin, J. W., & Ashman, M. (2010). Roles, Risks, and Benefits of Peer Mentoring Relationships in Higher Education. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 18(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611261003678879 Cook-Sather, A., & Motz-Storey, D. (2016). Viewing Teaching and Learning from a New Angle: Student Consultants’ Perspectives on Classroom Practice. College Teaching, 64(4), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2015.1126802 Cooperstein, S. E., & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: A constructivist approach to learning. Reference Services Review, 32(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00907320410537658 Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008a). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to Enhance Student Learning in Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008b). Biology in Bloom: Implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to Enhance Student Learning in Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7(4), 368–381. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0024 CU Boulder. (2018, February 9). CU Boulder Learning Assistant Mentors. Learning Assistant Program. https://www.colorado.edu/program/learningassistant/student-resources Damschen, K. (2017, March 22). Baylor Class Provides Opportunities for Hands-On Learning with Laparoscopic Training Boxes. Media and Public Relations | Baylor University. https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=178613 Davenport, F., Amezcua, F., Sabella, M. S., & Van Duzor, A. G. (2018). Exploring the Underlying Factors in Learning Assistant—Faculty Partnerships. 2017 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.021
82 Dean, M. D. (2020). Using the Learning Assistant Model in an Undergraduate Business Analytics Course. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 20(3), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2019.0221 Doe, R. (2015). Work Readiness among Graduate Students. LSU Doctoral Dissertations. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/1008 Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How Does Technology-Enabled Active Learning Affect Undergraduate Students’ Understanding of Electromagnetism Concepts? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1402_3 Dreyfus, B., Cake, B., & Schultz, N. (2020). How the Learning Assistant Experience Impacts Learning Assistants as Students. Bulletin of the American Physical Society, Volume 65, Number 2. https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR20/Session/D21.47 Ernst, D. C., Hodge, A., & Yoshinobu, S. (2017). What Is Inquiry-Based Learning? Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(06), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1536 Ethington, C. A., & Pisani, A. (1993). The RA and TA experience: Impediments and benefits to graduate study. Research in Higher Education, 34(3), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991848 Etkina, E. (2010). Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 6(2), 020110. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.020110 Fineus, E., & Fernandez, M. L. (2012). An Investigation of Participants’ Perspectives About a Learning Assistant Program and Their Thinking about Becoming a Mathematics Teacher. Proceedings of the 11th Annual College of Education & GSN Research Conference, 8. Flinders, D. J., & Uhrmacher, P. B. (2012). Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue: Vol. 13 # 1 & 2. IAP. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 George, D. R., Dreibelbis, T. D., & Aumiller, B. (2013). How we used two social media tools to enhance aspects of active learning during lectures. Medical Teacher, 35(12), 985–988. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2013.818631 Goertzen, R. M., Brewe, E., Kramer, L. H., Wells, L., & Jones, D. (2011). Moving toward change: Institutionalizing reform through implementation of the Learning Assistant model and Open Source Tutorials. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 7(2), 020105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.7.020105 Grabow, A. J., Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2014). Extreme Learning Assistants: Students’ Perceptions of Their Undergraduate Laboratory Instructors. 2013 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 161–164. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2013.pr.028
83 Granello, D. H. (2001). Promoting Cognitive Complexity in Graduate Written Work: Using Bloom’s Taxonomy as a Pedagogical Tool to Improve Literature Reviews. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40(4), 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556- 6978.2001.tb01261.x Granovskiy, B. (2018). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: An Overview. 34. Gray, K. E., Webb, D. C., & Otero, V. K. (2016). Effects of the learning assistant model on teacher practice. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020126. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020126 Hanna, W. (2007). The New Bloom’s Taxonomy: Implications for Music Education. Arts Education Policy Review, 108(4), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.3200/AEPR.108.4.7-16 Harris, L. A., Beatty, I. D., & Gerace, W. J. (2014). Extreme Learning Assistants: The Impact of an Authentic Teaching Experience on Undergraduate Physics Majors. 2013 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2013.pr.031 Heim, A. B., & Holt, E. A. (2019). Benefits and Challenges of Instructing Introductory Biology Course-Based Undergraduate Research Experiences (CUREs) as Perceived by Graduate Teaching Assistants. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(3), ar43. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-09-0193 Heise, M. (1994). Goals 2000: Educate America Act: The Federalization and Legislation of Educational Policy. Fordham Law Review, 63(2), 345–382. Hines, S. M. (Ed.). (2003). Multicultural science education: Theory, practice, and promise. Peter Lang. Hurd, P. D. (1991). Why We Must Transform Science Education. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 33–35. Hurley, M., & Gilbert, M. (2008). Research on the Effectiveness of Supplemental Instruction. In Supplemental instruction: Improving first-year student success in high-risk courses (3rd ed., Vol. 7). Hurley, M., Jacobs, G., & Gilbert, M. (2006). The Basic SI model. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2006(106), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.229 Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Engineering, National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, & Planning Committee for the Convocation on Rising Above the Gathering Storm Two Years Later. (2009). Rising Above the Gathering Storm Two Years Later: Accelerating Progress Toward a Brighter Economic Future: Summary of a Convocation. National Academies Press. Iowa State University. (n.d.-a). SI Leaders vs. Teaching Assistants: What’s the Difference? https://www.asc.dso.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/supplemental/LeaderTA.pdf
84 Iowa State University. (n.d.-b). SI Leaders vs. Tutors: What’s the Difference? https://www.asc.dso.iastate.edu/sites/default/files/supplemental/SI%20Leaders%20vs%2 0Tutors.pdf Jardine, H. E. (2019). Instructional Partnerships Between Science Faculty and Undergraduate Teaching and Learning Assistants: Implications for Formative Assessment. https://doi.org/10.13016/rcov-wzvj Jardine, H. E. (2020). Positioning undergraduate teaching and learning assistants as instructional partners. International Journal for Students as Partners, 4(1), 48–65. https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v4i1.4032 Jensen, J. L., McDaniel, M. A., Woodard, S. M., & Kummer, T. A. (2014). Teaching to the Test…or Testing to Teach: Exams Requiring Higher Order Thinking Skills Encourage Greater Conceptual Understanding. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 307–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9248-9 Kalpazidou Schmidt, E., & Faber, S. T. (2016). Benefits of Peer Mentoring to Mentors, Female Mentees and Higher Education Institutions. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 24(2), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2016.1170560 Knight, J. K., Wise, S. B., Rentsch, J., & Furtak, E. M. (2015). Cues Matter: Learning Assistants Influence Introductory Biology Student Interactions during Clicker-Question Discussions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar41. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15- 04-0093 Knight, J. K., & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching More by Lecturing Less. Cell Biology Education, 4(4), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.1187/05-06-0082 Koppal, M., & Caldwell, A. (2004). Meeting the Challenge of Science Literacy: Project 2061 Efforts To Improve Science Education. Cell Biology Education, 3(1), 28–30. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-10-0016 Kranzow, J., & Hyland, N. (2016). SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING: DEVELOPING READINESS IN GRADUATE STUDENTS. 13(2), 14. Kressler, B., & Kressler, J. (2020). Diverse Student Perceptions of Active Learning in a Large Enrollment STEM Course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 20(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v20i1.24688 Kurz, K. B., Listman, J., Maffia, D., & Carrillo, M. (2018). What is the Learning Assistant Model? Transforming Your Course into an LA-Supported Course. 6. Kwon, C. (2010). The CSULB PhysTEC Project. 53–54. https://www.phystec.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=10652 Learning Assistant Alliance. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.learningassistantalliance.org/ Lee, K.-T., & Nason, R. (2013). The Recruitment of STEM-Talented Students into Teacher Education Programs. 6.
85 Lemons, P. P., & Lemons, J. D. (2013). Questions for Assessing Higher-Order Cognitive Skills: It’s Not Just Bloom’s. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 12(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-03-0024 Levin, M. E., & Levin, J. R. (1991). A Critical Examination of Academic Retention Programs for At-Risk Minority College Students. Journal of College Student Development, 32(4), 323–334. Lozada, N. (2017). The Benefits of Supplemental Instruction (SI) for the SI Leader. Supplemental Instruction Journal, 3(1), 64–79. Lozada, N., & Johnson, A. T. (2019). Perspective Transformation in the Supplemental Instruction (SI) Leader. Journal of Transformative Education, 17(2), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344618774544 Luckie, D. B., Mancini, B. W., Abdallah, N., Kadouh, A. K., Ungkuldee, A. C. P., & Hare, A. A. (2019). Undergraduate teaching assistants can provide support for reformed practices to raise student learning. Advances in Physiology Education, 44(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00090.2019 Lund, T. J., & Stains, M. (2015). The importance of context: An exploration of factors influencing the adoption of student-centered teaching among chemistry, biology, and physics faculty. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0026-8 Malm, J., Bryngfors, L., & Fredriksson, J. (2018). Impact of Supplemental Instruction on dropout and graduation rates: An example from 5-year engineering programs. Journal of Peer Learning, 11(1), 76–88. Mansour, N. (2009). Science-Technology-Society (STS): A New Paradigm in Science Education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29(4), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467609336307 Marincovich, M., Prostko, J., & Stout, F. (1998). The Professional Development of Graduate Teaching Assistants. Anker Publishing Co. Martyn, M. (2007). Clickers in the Classroom: An Active Learning Approach. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 30(2), 71. McGuiness, B., Roth, W., & Gilmer, P. (2002). Laboratories. In John Wallace & W. Louden (Eds.), Dilemmas of science teaching: Perspectives on problems of practice (pp. 36–55). Routledge. McHenry, N., Martin, A., Castaldo, A., & Ziegenfuss, D. (2009). Learning Assistants Program: Faculty Development for Conceptual Change. 22(3), 258–286. Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting Active Learning. Strategies for the College Classroom. Jossey-Bass Inc. Miri, B., David, B.-C., & Uri, Z. (2007). Purposely Teaching for the Promotion of Higher- order Thinking Skills: A Case of Critical Thinking. Research in Science Education, 37(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9029-2
86 Nadelson, L., & Finnegan, J. (2014). A Path Less Traveled: Fostering STEM Majors’ Professional Identity Development through Engagement as STEM Learning Assistants. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 14(5), 29–41. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk:The Imperative for Educational Reform (p. 48) [A Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education United States Department of Education]. https://edreform.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/A_Nation_At_Risk_1983.pdf National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, & National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards (p. 4962). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962 National Research Council. (1999a). How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.17226/9457 National Research Council. (1999b). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. https://doi.org/10.17226/9853 National Research Council, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Life Sciences, & Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century. (2003). BIO2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. National Academies Press. National Science Foundation. (2014). Enough with the Lecturing. News Release 14-064. https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=131403 NGSS Lead States (Ed.). (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. Nirmalakhandan, N., Ricketts, C., McShannon, J., & Barrett, S. (2007). Teaching Tools to Promote Active Learning: Case Study. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 133(1), 31–37. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052- 3928(2007)133:1(31) NSTA, N. S. T. A. (2007). Integral role of laboratory investigations in science instruction. https://www.nsta.org/nstas-official-positions/integral-role-laboratory-investigations- science-instruction Oigara, J., & Keengwe, J. (2013). Students’ perceptions of clickers as an instructional tool to promote active learning. Education and Information Technologies, 18(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-011-9173-9 Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2006, Fall /Spring 2007). Teaching to Learn: The Colorado Learning Assistant program’s impact on learning content. American Physical Society Forum on Education. https://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/fall06- spring07/finkelstein.html Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model. American Journal of Physics, 78(11), 1218–1224. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.3471291
87 Otero, V., Pollock, S., McCray, R., & Finkelstein, N. (2006). Who Is Responsible for Preparing Science Teachers? Science, 313(5786), 445–446. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1129648 Palmer, E. J., & Devitt, P. G. (2007). Assessment of higher order cognitive skills in undergraduate education: Modified essay or multiple choice questions? Research paper. BMC Medical Education, 7(1), 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-7-49 Park, C. (2002). Neither fish nor fowl? The perceived benefits and problems of using Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) to teach undergraduate students. Higher Education Review, 35(1), 50–62. Park, C. (2004). The graduate teaching assistant (GTA): Lessons from North American experience. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000216660 Pavlacic, J., Culp, M., Harvey, S., Cathey, C., & Buchanan, E. (2018). Using Undergraduate Learning Assistants to Aid in Course Redesign. Modern Psychological Studies, 23(2). https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol23/iss2/2 Philipp, S. B., Tretter, T. R., & Rich, C. V. (2016). Undergraduate Teaching Assistant Impact on Student Academic Achievement. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 20(2). https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/15784 Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Prentice Hall. Price, M., & Rust, C. (1995). Laying Firm Foundations: The Long‐term Benefits of Supplemental Instruction for Students on Large Introductory Courses. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800950320206 Quan, G. M., Corbo, J. C., Finkelstein, N. D., Pawlak, A., Falkenberg, K., Geanious, C., Ngai, C., Smith, C., Wise, S., Pilgrim, M. E., & Reinholz, D. L. (2019). Designing for institutional transformation: Six principles for department-level interventions. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(1), 010141. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010141 Quigley, D. B. B. (2016). A dual case study: Students’ perceptions, self-efficacy, and understanding of the nature of science in varied introductory biology laboratories. [Thesis]. https://baylor-ir.tdl.org/handle/2104/9895 Raizen, S. (n.d.). National Institute for Science Education (NISE) Publications. 49. Ramirez, M. (1997). Supplemental Instruction: The Long-Term Impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(1), 2–8. Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reform movement: Implications for social responsibility. Science Education, 77(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770210
88 Rassouli, J., & Ríos, L. (2020). Learning Assistant and Instructor Communication: Impacts on Perceived Efficacy. Physics. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/physsp/186 Reeves, M. F. (1990). An application of Bloom’s taxonomy to the teaching of business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 9(7), 609–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00383217 Reges, S. (2003). Using undergraduates as teaching assistants at a state university. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1145/792548.611943 Ribera, A., Brckalorenz, A., & Ribera, T. (2012). Exploring the Fringe Benefits of Supplemental Instruction. Robertson, A., Eppard, E., Goodhew, L., Maaske, E., Sabo, H., Stewart, F., Tuell, D., & Wenzinger, S. (2014). Being a Seattle Pacific University Learning Assistant: A Transformative Experience of Listening and Being Heard. Americal Physical Society Forum on Education Newsletter. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amy_Robertson4/publication/264347469_Being_a_ Seattle_Pacific_University_Learning_Assistant_A_Transformative_Experience_of_Liste ning_and_Being_Heard/links/53d95e0b0cf2e38c63346404.pdf Roseman, J. E. (1997). Lessons from project 2061. The Science Teacher, 64(1), 26–29. Rowley, E. N. (1993). Keeping the Faith: Teaching Assistants and the Pursuit of Teaching Excellence. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED360656 Sabella, M. S., Van Duzor, A. G., & Davenport, F. (2016). Leveraging the expertise of the urban STEM student in developing an effective LA Program: LA and Instructor Partnerships. 2016 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2016.pr.067 Schick, C. P. (2018). Trying on Teaching: Transforming STEM Classrooms with a Learning Assistant Program. In L. J. Anna, T. B. Higgins, A. Palmer, & K. S. Owens (Eds.), ACS Symposium Series (Vol. 1280, pp. 3–27). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2018-1280.ch001 Schunk, D. H., & Mullen, C. A. (2012). Self-Efficacy as an Engaged Learner. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Student Engagement (pp. 219–235). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10 Sellami, N., Sanders, E. R., & Shaked, S. (2018). Introducing & Institutionalizing Learning Assistant Program Helped Transform Gateway STEM Series. RC 20/20. Reinvention Collaborative 2018 National Conference. https://www.rc-2020.org/shakedsellamisanders Sellami, N., Shaked, S., Laski, F. A., Eagan, K. M., & Sanders, E. R. (2017). Implementation of a Learning Assistant Program Improves Student Performance on Higher-Order Assessments. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(4). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12- 0341 Shannon, D. M., Twale, D. J., & Moore, M. S. (1998). TA Teaching Effectiveness: The Impact of Training and Teaching Experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 69(4), 440–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1998.11775144
89 Shaw, T. J., Yang, S., Nash, T. R., Pigg, R. M., & Grim, J. M. (2019). Knowing is half the battle: Assessments of both student perception and performance are necessary to successfully evaluate curricular transformation. PLOS ONE, 14(1), e0210030. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210030 Shekhar, P., Borrego, M., DeMonbrun, M., Finelli, C., Crockett, C., & Nguyen, K. (2020). Negative Student Response to Active Learning in STEM Classrooms: A Systematic Review of Underlying Reasons. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(6),45-54. Skoglund, K., Wall, T. J., & Kiene, D. (2018). Impact of Supplemental Instruction Participation on College Freshman Retention. Learning Assistance Review, 23(1), 115– 135. Stone, M. E., & Jacobs, G. (Eds.). (2008). Supplemental instruction: Improving first-year student success in high-risk courses (3rd ed). National Resource Center for The First- Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina. Stout, M. L., & McDaniel, A. J. (2006). Benefits to Supplemental Instruction leaders. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2006(106), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.233 Sunal, D. W., Wright, E., & Sundberg, C. (2008). The Impact of the Laboratory and Technology on Learning and Teaching Science K-16. IAP/Information Age Pub. Sundberg, M. D., Armstrong, J. E., & Wischusen, E. W. (2005). A Reappraisal of the Status of Introductory Biology Laboratory Education in U.S. Colleges & Universities. The American Biology Teacher, 67(9), 525–529. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002- 7685(2005)067[0525:AROTSO]2.0.CO;2 Talbot, R., Doughty, L., Nasim, A., Hartley, L., Le, P., Kramer, L. H., Kornreich-Leshem, H., & Boyer, J. (2016). Theoretically Framing a Complex Phenomenon: Student Success in Large Enrollment Active Learning Courses. 2016 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 344–347. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2016.pr.081 Talbot, R., Hartley, L. M., Marzetta, K., & Wee, B. S. (2015). Transforming Undergraduate Science Education With Learning Assistants: Student Satisfaction in Large-Enrollment Courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 24–30. Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., Chambwe, N., Cintrón, D. L., Cooper, J. D., Dunster, G., Grummer, J. A., Hennessey, K., Hsiao, J., Iranon, N., Jones, L., Jordt, H., Keller, M., Lacey, M. E., Littlefield, C. E., … Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(12), 6476–6483. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916903117 Thompson, A. N. (2019). Learning Assistants’ Actions in the Classroom and How These Relate to Their Professional Visions, Noticing Behaviors, and Perceived Roles. In ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. Thompson, E., Hu, M., Luxton-Reilly, A., Whalley, J. L., & Robbins, P. (2008). Bloom’s Taxonomy for CS Assessment. 8.
90 Thorne, R. (2010). PhysTEC at Cornell: A Progress Report. 24–25. https://www.phystec.org/items/detail.cfm?ID=9978 Top, L. M. (2019). From invitation to integration: A model for why learning assistants are valued by members of communities within institutions (Order No. 27549373). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2335256909). Top, L. M., Schoonraad, S. A., & Otero, V. K. (2018). Development of pedagogical knowledge among learning assistants. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0097-9 University of Missouri-Kansas City. (2020). Supplemental Instructor Frequently Asked Question Page. The International Center for SI. https://info.umkc.edu/si/faq/ US Department of Education. (1994). GOALS 2000: Educate America Act (US Dept of Education) [Indexes; Laws]. US Department of Education (ED). Van Dusen, B., & Nissen, J. (2018). Serving Marginalized Physics Students: An HLM Investigation of Collaborative Learning Environments. Van Dusen, B., White, J.-S. S., & Roualdes, E. A. (2016). The Impact of Learning Assistants on Inequities in Physics Student Outcomes. 2016 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 360–363. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2016.pr.085 Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1213– 1230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980201004 Wallace, J. (1992). Students helping students to learn. The New Academic, 1(2), 8–9. Welder, C. O. (2019). An All-In Approach to Flipping the Organic Chemistry Classroom Using Elements of Peer-Led Team Learning with Undergraduate Learning Assistants. In Active Learning in Organic Chemistry: Implementation and Analysis (Vol. 1336, pp. 119–148). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2019-1336.ch008 Wendell, K. B., Matson, D., Gallegos, H., & Chiesa, L. (2019, June 15). Work in Progress: Learning Assistant “Noticing” in Undergraduate Engineering Science Courses. 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. White, J., & Nonnamaker, J. (2011). Supervising Graudate Assistants. In Supporting and Supervising Mid-Level Professionals: New Directions for Student Services, Number 136. John Wiley & Sons. Wieman, C. E. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319–8320. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1407304111 Yager, R. (1991). The Constructivist Learning Model. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52. Yager, R. (Ed.). (1996). Science/technology/society as reform in science education. State University of New York Press.
91 Yager, R. (2000). The History and Future of Science Education Reform. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 74(1), 51–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2000.11478641 Yager, R. E., & Tamir, P. (1993). Sts approach: Reasons, intentions, accomplishments, and outcomes. Science Education, 77(6), 637–658. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730770607 Zoller, Uri. (1993). Are lecture and learning compatible? Maybe for LOCS: Unlikely for HOCS. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(3), 195. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed070p195 Zotos, E. K., Moon, A. C., & Shultz, G. V. (2020). Investigation of chemistry graduate teaching assistants’ teacher knowledge and teacher identity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(6), 943–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21618
92