Modeling Sources of Teaching Self-Efficacy for Science,Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics Graduate Teaching Assistants |
| |
| Authors: | Sue Ellen DeChenne Natalie Koziol Mark Needham Larry Enochs |
| |
| Institution: | *School of Biological Sciences, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639;†Department of Educational Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588;‡Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331;§College of Education, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331 |
| |
| Abstract: | Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have a large impact on undergraduate instruction but are often poorly prepared to teach. Teaching self-efficacy, an instructor’s belief in his or her ability to teach specific student populations a specific subject, is an important predictor of teaching skill and student achievement. A model of sources of teaching self-efficacy is developed from the GTA literature. This model indicates that teaching experience, departmental teaching climate (including peer and supervisor relationships), and GTA professional development (PD) can act as sources of teaching self-efficacy. The model is pilot tested with 128 GTAs from nine different STEM departments at a midsized research university. Structural equation modeling reveals that K–12 teaching experience, hours and perceived quality of GTA PD, and perception of the departmental facilitating environment are significant factors that explain 32% of the variance in the teaching self-efficacy of STEM GTAs. This model highlights the important contributions of the departmental environment and GTA PD in the development of teaching self-efficacy for STEM GTAs.Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) play a significant role in the learning environment of undergraduate students. They are heavily involved in the instruction of undergraduate students at master’s- and doctoral-granting universities (Nyquist et al., 1991 ; Johnson and McCarthy, 2000 ; Sundberg et al., 2005 ; Gardner and Jones, 2011 ). GTAs are commonly in charge of laboratory or recitation sections, in which they often have more contact and interaction with the students than the professor who is teaching the course (Abraham et al., 1997 ; Sundberg et al., 2005 ; Prieto and Scheel, 2008 ; Gardner and Jones, 2011 ).Despite the heavy reliance on GTAs for instruction and the large potential for them to influence student learning, there is evidence that many GTAs are completely unprepared or at best poorly prepared for their role as instructors (Abraham et al., 1997 ; Rushin et al., 1997 ; Shannon et al., 1998 ; Golde and Dore, 2001 ; Fagen and Wells, 2004 ; Luft et al., 2004 ; Sundberg et al., 2005 ; Prieto and Scheel, 2008 ). For example, in molecular biology, 71% of doctoral students are GTAs, but only 30% have had an opportunity to take a GTA professional development (PD) course that lasted at least one semester (Golde and Dore, 2001 ). GTAs often teach in a primarily directive manner and have intuitive notions about student learning, motivation, and abilities (Luft et al., 2004 ). For those who experience PD, university-wide PD is often too general (e.g., covering university policies and procedures, resources for students), and departmental PD does not address GTAs’ specific teaching needs; instead departmental PD repeats the university PD (Jones, 1993 ; Golde and Dore, 2001 ; Luft et al., 2004 ). Nor do graduate experiences prepare GTAs to become faculty and teach lecture courses (Golde and Dore, 2001 ).While there is ample evidence that many GTAs are poorly prepared, as well as studies of effective GTA PD programs (biology examples include Schussler et al., 2008 ; Miller et al., 2014 ; Wyse et al., 2014 ), the preparation of a graduate student as an instructor does not occur in a vacuum. GTAs are also integral members of their departments and are interacting with faculty and other GTAs in many different ways, including around teaching (Bomotti, 1994 ; Notarianni-Girard, 1999 ; Belnap, 2005 ; Calkins and Kelly, 2005 ). It is important to build good working relationships among the GTAs and between the GTAs and their supervisors (Gardner and Jones, 2011 ). However, there are few studies that examine the development of GTAs as integral members of their departments and determine how departmental teaching climate, GTA PD, and prior teaching experiences can impact GTAs.To guide our understanding of the development of GTAs as instructors, a theoretical framework is important. Social cognitive theory is a well-developed theoretical framework for describing behavior and can be applied specifically to teaching (Bandura, 1977 , 1986 , 1997 , 2001 ). A key concept in social cognitive theory is self-efficacy, which is a person’s belief in his or her ability to perform a specific task in a specific context (Bandura, 1997 ). High self-efficacy correlates with strong performance in a task such teaching (Bandura, 1997 ; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2007 ). Teaching self-efficacy focuses on teachers’ perceptions of their ability to “organize and execute courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998 , p. 233). High teaching self-efficacy has been shown to predict a variety of types of student achievement among K–12 teachers (Ashton and Webb, 1986 ; Anderson et al., 1988 ; Ross, 1992 ; Dellinger et al., 2008 ; Klassen et al., 2011 ). In GTAs, teaching self-efficacy has been shown to be related to persistence in academia (Elkins, 2005 ) and student achievement in mathematics (Johnson, 1998 ). High teaching self-efficacy is evidenced by classroom behaviors such as efficient classroom management, organization and planning, and enthusiasm (Guskey, 1984 ; Allinder, 1994 ; Dellinger et al., 2008 ). Instructors with high teaching self-efficacy work continually with students to help them in learning the material (Gibson and Dembo, 1984 ). These instructors are also willing to try a variety of teaching methods to improve their teaching (Stein and Wang, 1988 ; Allinder, 1994 ). Instructors with high teaching self-efficacy perform better as teachers, are persistent in difficult teaching tasks, and can positively affect their student’s achievement.These behaviors of successful instructors, which can contribute to student success, are important to foster in STEM GTAs. Understanding of what influences the development of teaching self-efficacy in STEM GTAs can be used to improve their teaching self-efficacy and ultimately their teaching. Therefore, it is important to understand what impacts teaching self-efficacy in STEM GTAs. Current research into factors that influence GTA teaching self-efficacy are generally limited to one or two factors in a study (Heppner, 1994 ; Prieto and Altmaier, 1994 ; Prieto and Meyers, 1999 ; Prieto et al., 2007 ; Liaw, 2004 ; Meyers et al., 2007 ). Studying these factors in isolation does not allow us to understand how they work together to influence GTA teaching self-efficacy. Additionally, most studies of GTA teaching self-efficacy are not conducted with STEM GTAs. STEM instructors teach in a different environment and with different responsibilities than instructors in the social sciences and liberal arts (Lindbloom-Ylanne et al., 2006 ). These differences could impact the development of teaching self-efficacy of STEM GTAs compared with social science and liberal arts GTAs. To further our understanding of the development of STEM GTA teaching self-efficacy, this paper aims to 1) describe a model of factors that could influence GTA teaching self-efficacy, and 2) pilot test the model using structural equation modeling (SEM) on data gathered from STEM GTAs. The model is developed from social cognitive theory and GTA teaching literature, with support from the K–12 teaching self-efficacy literature. This study is an essential first step in improving our understanding of the important factors impacting STEM GTA teaching self-efficacy, which can then be used to inform and support the preparation of effective STEM GTAs. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
