Table 1-1 Proposed relationship between pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy (adapted from Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011) Table 2-1 Proposed relationship between pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy (adapted from (Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011).
Table 2-3 Demographic information of interview participants.
Table 2-4 Means and standard deviations of GTAs' reported autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and self-efficacy for each subconstruct Table 2-5 Proposed relationships between pedagogical discontentment, self-efficacy, and autonomy Table 3-1 Table indicating the search terms for the original search Table 3-2 Search terms to identify articles relevant to Self-Determination Theory Table 3-3 Description of included articles Table 3-4 Codebook Table 3-5 Number of articles used to address each research question Table 4-1 Comparison of the psychological needs at the individual and department levels Table 4-2 Example of deductive codes applied to transcripts Table 4-3 Biology department's survey responses for relatedness in reflection xii Table 4-4 Cultural integration and dissonance for the biology department's relatedness in reflection Table 4-5 Biology department's survey responses for competence in reflection Table 4-6 Cultural integration and dissonance for the biology department's competence in reflection Table 4-7 Biology department's survey responses for autonomy in reflection Table 4-8 Cultural integration and dissonance for the biology department's competence in reflection Table 4-9 Chemistry department's survey responses for relatedness in reflection Table 4-10 Cultural integration and dissonance for the chemistry department's relatedness in reflection Table 4-11 Chemistry department's survey responses for competence in reflection Table 4-12 Cultural integration and dissonance for the chemistry department's competence in reflection Table 4-13 Chemistry department's survey responses for autonomy in reflection Table 4-14 Cultural integration and dissonance for the chemistry department's autonomy in reflection Table 4-15 The geosciences department's survey responses for relatedness in reflection Table 4-16 Cultural integration and dissonance for the geosciences department's relatedness in reflection Table 4-17 Geoscience department's survey responses for competence in reflection Table 4-18 Cultural integration and dissonance for the geosciences department's competence in reflection xiii Table 4-19 The geoscience department's survey responses for autonomy in reflection Table 4-20 Cultural integration and dissonance for the geosciences department's autonomy in reflection Table 4-21 Mathematical sciences department's survey responses for relatedness in reflection Table 4-22 Cultural integration and dissonance for the mathematics department's relatedness in reflection Table 4-23 Mathematical science department's survey responses for competence in reflection Table 4-24 Cultural integration and dissonance for the mathematics department's competence in reflection Table 4-25 Mathematical science department's survey responses for autonomy in reflection Table 4-26 Cultural integration and dissonance for the mathematics department's autonomy in reflection Table 4-27 Summary of the survey findings for each department's value and cultural integration of the three psychological needs efficacy Figure 3-1 Connection among the psychological needs to lead to well-being, adapted from Legault (2017) and Deci and colleagues (2017) Figure 3-2 Study selection flow chart Figure 3-3 Findings from this study that generally describe GTAs' psychological needs (Research Question 1, in dark blue), the supports and thwarts of their psychological needs (Research Question 2, in light blue), and the impact of TPD programs (Research Question 3, in orange) Figure 4-1 Scales to describe department teaching cultures Figure 4-2 The connection among the psychological needs to lead to well-being, adapted from Legault (2017) and Deci and colleagues (2017) Figure 4-3 Ecological systems theory adapted from Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Reid and Gardner (2020) Connection across the department culture scales and the psychological needs of self-
determination theory Figure 4-5 Example survey items for the relatedness in reflection psychological need for participants A.) individual current state, B.) individual desired state, C.) department current state, and D.) department desired state xv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Advancing the Culture of Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (ACT-STEM) Evidence-Based Instructional Practices (EBIPs) Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) Self-Determination Theory (SDT) Science, Technological Engineering and Math (STEM) Teaching Professional Development (TPD)
limited or short-term pedagogical training for their role (Gardner & Jones, 2011;Schussler et al., 2015). The TPD programs that are offered are often voluntary (Schussler et al., 2015), which necessarily limits the number of GTAs who participate. This lack of engagement is concerning because there can be positive impacts on GTAs' use of evidence-based teaching practices (EBIPs) after engaging in TPD programs (Becker et al., 2017;Freeman et al., 2025;Grinath & Southerland, 2019;Miller et al., 2014). Thus, careful thinking about how to support GTAs in teaching is needed to impact the quality of undergraduate instruction and support retention efforts. This dissertation used two lenses to explore GTAs' motivation to use EBIPs and engage in TPD: 1) pedagogical discontentment and 2) the psychological needs of self-determination theory (SDT).
We know very little about what motivates STEM GTAs to voluntarily engage in TPD to support the teaching, learning, and retention of undergraduate STEM students.
Lenses of motivation are used in this proposal because an instructor's motivation can help explain why they do (or do not) perform an activity (Han & Yin, 2016), such as using EBIPs and engaging in TPD. Two lenses, or theoretical frameworks, were used in this dissertation because lenses influence what can be interpreted and learned from the study (Spangler & Williams, 2019). By using multiple theoretical frameworks to examine the same phenomenon, the findings can be triangulated. Thus, pedagogical discontentment and SDT can illuminate different findings to support the field's understanding of how to support GTAs in teaching. Both lenses have been used in prior research with GTAs (Freeman et al., 2025, in press;Goodwin et al., 2021;Kajfez et al., 2016;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017, 2020), which can lead to a "cumulative effect" of research to support links between research and GTAs' teaching practices (Spangler & Williams, 2019). I will briefly discuss each of these lenses and then describe how they were used in each chapter of this dissertation.
Pedagogical discontentment refers to instructors' dissatisfaction with an aspect(s) of their teaching (Southerland et al., 2011). Southerland and colleagues (2011) proposed a relationship between pedagogical discontentment and teaching self-efficacy. Teaching self-efficacy refers to the confidence an individual has in their ability to perform future teaching activities skillfully (Bandura, 1977;DeChenne et al., 2015;Southerland et al., 2011). The relationship proposed by these researchers indicated that instructors who experience pedagogical discontentment with high teaching self-efficacy may be more motivated to attempt new instructional methods than those with no pedagogical discontentment or with pedagogical discontentment but with low teaching self-efficacy (Table 1-1).
Proposed relationship between pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy (adapted from Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011) High Self-Efficacy Low Self-Efficacy
No motivation for changes to
adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs No motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs Pedagogical Discontentment Motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs Possible motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs
Based on this model, I hypothesized that facilitating (or increasing) pedagogical discontentment while supporting GTA teaching self-efficacy might effectively motivate them to engage in TPD programs. Unlike other instructors in higher education, GTAs may have limited autonomy to define their own teaching goals, classroom practices, or engagement in TPD (Dillard et al., 2023;Flaherty et al., 2017;Winters & Matusovich, 2011). Due to a lack of or limited autonomy, GTAs' ability to develop pedagogical discontentment and teaching selfefficacy might be impeded. Therefore, this lens helps researchers to understand how pedagogical discontentment can influence GTAs' motivation to engage in TPD programs in their unique personal and contextual circumstances.
Self-determination theory (SDT) describes the importance of satisfying psychological needs for individuals to feel motivated to enact particular behaviors and experience psychological well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2017). As described by SDT, the psychological needs are competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Competence in teaching refers to an individual feeling effective in accomplishing tasks related to their teaching practices. Autonomy is an instructor's perception of being able to make independent decisions related to their teaching.
Relatedness refers to having strong and caring relationships with others, specifically around teaching. Competence, autonomy, and relatedness needs being satisfied or frustrated can then be aggregated to indicate an individual's motivation for conducting certain tasks around teaching, such as engaging in professional development or trying new instructional methods (Deci et al., 2017;Legault, 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017). Therefore, this lens can help researchers understand how an individual's psychological needs are satisfied or frustrated, which might indirectly support the learning and retention of undergraduate students. Additionally, I argued that the manifestation of psychological needs is a product of a STEM department's culture. In understanding how psychological needs around teaching are supported in STEM departments, researchers can better understand the motivation to support the learning and retention of undergraduate students.
Goal Statement: This work aimed to utilize two theories of motivation (pedagogical discontentment and self-determination theory) to better understand what motivates GTAs to engage in TPD. I explored motivation to engage in TPD at both the level of the individual graduate student and the departmental culture in which they are embedded.
This dissertation focused on the overarching aim to understand STEM GTAs' motivation to engage in TPD. There are three chapters, each a separate study aimed at understanding more manageable pieces of the overarching aim of the dissertation. The sections below briefly describe how each manuscript aligns with the purpose and goal statements of this dissertation. The fifth and final chapter of this dissertation is a discussion to synthesizes the findings across the three studies.
Chapter 2 aimed to understand GTAs' motivation to engage in TPD through the lens of pedagogical discontentment. I aimed to explore the relationships between pedagogical discontentment, teaching self-efficacy, and instructional autonomy. The specific research questions addressed in this study were:
1. What are STEM GTAs' perceived teaching autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
2. Are there relationships between GTAs' perceived teaching autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
3. When GTAs talk about their teaching positions, how do they describe interactions between their perceived teaching autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
This manuscript is currently under revision for a special call on GTAs' professional development in the Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education.
Chapter 3 aimed to better understand the GTA literature related to motivation to engage in professional development through the lens of SDT. I conducted a scoping review to understand GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs for teaching being met, common supports and thwarts of their psychological needs, and the impact of TPD programs on GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs. This study specifically explored the following research questions:
1. How do STEM GTAs describe their relatedness, autonomy, and competence in their current environment?
2. What supports and thwarts exist in STEM GTAs' current environment that bolster or reduce their perceptions of relatedness, autonomy, and competence?
3. How do TPD programs impact STEM GTAs' perceptions of relatedness, autonomy, and competence?
This manuscript is currently under review at the International Journal of STEM Education.
Chapter 4 describes a smaller study that is part of the NSF-sponsored Advancing the Culture of Teaching in STEM (ACT-STEM) project. This study aimed to understand the satisfaction or frustration of individual psychological needs related to teaching and how STEM departmental cultures support or thwart those needs. This study expanded the participants beyond GTAs to include other instructional faculty as aligned with the project goals. I addressed the following research questions:
1. How do individuals perceive satisfaction or frustration for their psychological needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy in reflection?
2. How do individuals perceive satisfaction or frustration for their department's cultural needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy in reflection?
3. How do individuals perceive cultural integration or dissonance in their department for relatedness, competence, and autonomy in reflection?
4. When reflecting on their psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, how do individuals perceive the roles of people, power, structures, and symbols within the departmental teaching culture?
This study provided implications for leveraging the strengths of each department to foster a Culture of Learning aimed at collaboration, inclusion, and growth.
Thiry, H., Weston, T. J., Harper, R. P., Holland, D. G., Koch, A., Drake, B., Hunter, A.-B., & Seymour, E. (2019). Talking about leaving revisited: Persistence, relocation, and loss in undergraduate STEM education (E. Seymour & A.-B. Hunter, Eds.). Springer. Winters, K., & Matusovich, H. (2011). Graduate teaching assistants' decision making and perceptions of autonomy. Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--18038
Xu, Y. J. (2015). Attention to retention: Exploring and addressing the needs of college students in STEM majors. Journal of Education and Training Studies,4(2), 67-76.
https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v4i2.1147
Chapter 2: Exploring the Relationship Between Autonomy, Self-Efficacy, and Pedagogical
ABSTRACT: Many universities in the United States rely heavily on graduate teaching assistants (GTAs), especially for instruction in introductory courses and laboratory sections in STEM
courses. Yet, little is known about how to support these unique instructors' teaching professional development (TPD). Prior research in K-12 contexts has proposed when instructors with high self-efficacy experience pedagogical discontentment, this may motivate them to change their instructional practices or engagement in TPD programs. In contrast, instructors with low selfefficacy may engage in avoidance behaviors related to instructional change even when experiencing pedagogical discontentment. This research explored the role autonomy (control over what and how an instructor teaches) has on the interactions of self-efficacy, pedagogical discontentment, instructional change, and engagement in TPD. We hypothesized that GTAs with pedagogical discontentment and high self-efficacy might be motivated to engage in TPD programs and consider alternative instructional methods. We administered a cross-sectional survey to a sample of GTAs in biology, geology, chemistry, and mathematics (n = 58). We used the survey results to identify interview participants with high (n = 1), moderate (n = 2), and low (n = 3) perceptions of instructional autonomy. We found evidence of a quantitative correlation between pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy. The qualitative data revealed GTAs' perceptions of autonomy could influence their pedagogical discontentment. These findings provide evidence of the importance of supporting STEM GTAs' perceptions of autonomy, as it could influence their motivation to change their teaching practices and engage in teaching professional development opportunities.
Due to the prevalence of graduate teaching assistant (GTA) instructors in introductory STEM courses, GTAs have been described as the "first line of defense" for retaining undergraduate STEM majors (Gardner & Jones, 2011;Nicklow et al., 2007, p. 89). As the first point of contact for many undergraduate STEM students, GTAs are uniquely positioned to provide high-quality, evidence-based instruction, directly supporting undergraduate student retention (Gardner & Jones, 2011;Kendall & Schussler, 2012). To achieve broader STEM education goals related to undergraduate student retention and success (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2011), it is imperative to support GTA Teaching Professional Development (TPD) and subsequently increase their use of evidence-based practices. Faculty mentors can discourage GTAs from committing time to TPD experiences, which could lead to limited engagement by graduate students, especially in voluntary TPD opportunities (Reid, 2020;Schussler et al., 2015). It is important to understand the impact of STEM GTAs' engagement in TPD programs, but it is also important to understand why GTAs choose to engage in TPD programs (Reeves et al., 2016).
Prior research in K-12 settings has used pedagogical discontentment and teaching selfefficacy as lenses to consider teachers' engagement in TPD programs and their subsequent use of new teaching practices (Saka, 2013;Saka & Keklikci, 2019;Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011;Southerland, Sowell, & Enderle, 2011). Teaching self-efficacy refers to the confidence an individual has in their ability to perform future teaching activities skillfully (Bandura, 1977;DeChenne et al., 2015;Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011). Pedagogical discontentment refers to instructors' dissatisfaction with some aspect(s) of their teaching (Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011). Southerland and colleagues (2011) proposed a theoretical relationship between K-12 science instructors' pedagogical discontentment and their teaching self-efficacy (Table 2-1). Their model suggests that instructors who experience pedagogical discontentment with high teaching self-efficacy may become motivated to attempt evidence-based instructional practices or engage in TPD programs (Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011). This contrasts with instructors who have no pedagogical discontentment or with pedagogical discontentment but low teaching self-efficacy (Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011). Based on this model, we hypothesized that GTAs with pedagogical discontentment and high self-efficacy might be motivated to engage in TPD programs and consider alternative instructional methods.
Proposed relationship between pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy (adapted from (Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011).
No motivation for changes to
adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs No motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs Pedagogical Discontentment Motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs Possible motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs
Our hypothesis is complicated by the limited authority GTAs may have for their teaching goals or classroom practices, which limits their autonomy in making decisions and implementing instruction in their classroom (Dillard et al., 2023;Flaherty et al., 2017;Winters & Matusovich, 2011). Autonomy is an individual's ability to choose or determine their actions through decisionmaking and risk-taking (King & Nomikou, 2018;Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). In teaching, autonomy refers to the degree to which an instructor has control or choice in their teaching practices and curriculum decisions (Dillard et al., 2023;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017). For example, Flaherty and colleagues (2017) found that chemistry GTAs who taught predetermined laboratory curricula had lower perceptions of classroom autonomy. Predetermined course curricula may not allow GTAs to perceive themselves as autonomous decision-makers in their classroom (Dillard et al., 2023;Flaherty et al., 2017;Winters & Matusovich, 2011). Without instructional autonomy, GTAs may not perceive they have the ability to change their instruction and thus may not develop dissatisfaction with an aspect of their instruction (pedagogical discontentment). Additionally, a lack of autonomy may impede GTAs' ability to build teaching self-efficacy to navigate a variety of instructional situations or experiences. We, therefore, anticipated that there could be relationships between GTAs' perceptions of autonomy, selfefficacy, and pedagogical discontentment.
Prior research has studied the impact of a TPD program on GTAs' perceptions of teaching self-efficacy, autonomy, and pedagogical discontentment (Freeman et al., in press). This study found that after engagement in a TPD program, GTAs' perceptions of pedagogical discontentment decreased, and their perceptions of self-efficacy increased. In a qualitative study regarding the impact of a professional development program, GTAs described experiences where they were provided with autonomy from the course instructors, which they believed supported their self-efficacy (Camarao & Din, 2023). To our knowledge, however, no previous work has considered the potential of relationships between self-efficacy, autonomy, and pedagogical discontentment. We, therefore, sought to address this aim by applying the prior pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy framework (Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011) in contexts with GTAs to explain how the three variables influence one another to infer GTAs' motivation to engage in pedagogical change. Based on our review of the prior literature, we hypothesized that GTAs would need to perceive autonomy in their teaching context to experience pedagogical discontentment. Specifically, the research questions for this study were:
1. What are STEM GTAs' perceived teaching autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
2. Are there relationships between GTAs' perceived teaching autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
3. When GTAs talk about their teaching positions, how do they describe interactions between their perceived teaching autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
We used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design (Ivankova et al., 2006;Mills & Gay, 2016). Specifically, quantitative Likert data were collected from surveys.
The GTAs' teaching autonomy scores from the survey were used to select and interview a subsample of participants along a continuum of autonomy scores (low, medium, and high). We chose to select GTAs based on their autonomy scores to understand how GTAs' perspectives might vary based on their autonomy and address research question 3. This study is approved under IRB (MTSU IRB FA2023-82).
At the beginning of two fall semesters, cross-sectional surveys were administered to a sample of GTAs who were currently teaching in the biology, geology, chemistry, and mathematics disciplines (n = 58) at a single research-intensive institution. To recruit participants, we attended the GTAs' weekly preparation meetings in each discipline. Survey items related to the GTAs' perceptions of their teaching autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and teaching self-efficacy were adapted from the literature as needed to develop one survey instrument (Appendix 2-1). When making adaptations from the original scales, we made superficial changes to clarify items for our sample of GTAs. We therefore removed language referring to specific contexts we did not anticipate the STEM GTAs in our sample would experience (e.g., "balancing personal science teaching goals with state/national testing requirements" was edited to "balancing personal teaching goals with those of departmental requirements").
For each construct, we chose to maintain the original Likert Scales as reported in the literature. Teaching autonomy has 19 items along two sub-scales: curricular autonomy and general autonomy (Pearson & Hall, 1993). Curricular autonomy refers to the instructors' ability to select and sequence the course content and activities. General autonomy refers to an instructor's ability to determine their classroom standards and teaching practices. The autonomy scale uses a Likert Scale from 1 -4, where 1 represents the GTAs' perceptions of having no autonomy in their teaching while a 4 represents being fully autonomous to make classroom decisions. The pedagogical discontentment survey has 14 items along four sub-scales for instructors' dissatisfaction with: teaching all students regardless of ability, content knowledge of the discipline, balancing depth and breadth of instruction, and assessing student learning (Southerland et al., 2012). The pedagogical discontentment scale uses a Likert scale of 1 -5, where 1 represents being very content (i.e., no discontentment or high satisfaction) with aspects of their teaching and 5 represents very high discontentment (i.e., high dissatisfaction). The GTA teaching self-efficacy survey has 18 items along two sub-scales: confidence in promoting a productive learning environment and confidence using various instructional strategies (DeChenne et al., 2012). The self-efficacy scale uses a Likert Scale from 1 -5, where 1 represents a GTAs' perception of being not very confident with aspects of their teaching. A 5
represents them being very confident.
After we collected the survey data (n = 58), we ran confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) in SPSS to determine the validity of our interpretations of the data for each construct on the survey. We recognize that our small sample size reduces the statistical power of CFAs, which is a limitation of this analysis. We chose, however, to conduct CFAs since two of the original scales (autonomy and pedagogical discontentment) were not designed for use with GTAs. We have included model fit statistics and factor loadings in Appendix 2-2, but we briefly describe the results here. For the autonomy items on the survey, three items did not function with high validity, considering their factor loadings and model fit standards. We reviewed the items and decided to remove them for the rest of our analysis. For pedagogical discontentment, we removed two items based on the factor loadings of the CFA. Based on the factor loadings and model fit statistics, the self-efficacy survey was a reasonable fit with all the items included. The original autonomy and pedagogical discontentment scales were developed to understand the perceptions of K-12 teachers, while the self-efficacy scale was designed and implemented with GTAs. We anticipate that the GTAs in this study may have interpreted these items differently than teachers, which led us to remove these items from our analysis (see Appendix 2-2). We also calculated Cronbach's Alpha as a measure of internal item reliability for each construct on the survey. Each construct had an acceptable estimate (autonomy: α = 0.886, pedagogical discontentment: α = 0.826, self-efficacy: α = 0.986).
To address research question 1, we calculated means and standard deviations of the GTAs' reported perceptions of each sub-construct of autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and self-efficacy. For research question 2, we calculated Pearson correlation coefficients to explore the relationships between each construct.
To select participants for semi-structured interviews, we sorted the GTAs based on their mean autonomy responses from the survey into low (1 -1.75 Likert score range, n = 6), moderate
(1. 75 -3.25 Likert score range, n = 49), and high (3.25 -4 Likert score range, n = 3) categories.
Then, we used stratified sampling techniques (Mills & Gay, 2016) to identify potential interview participants within each category of autonomy. We acknowledge most of our sample reported moderate perceptions of autonomy. Having interview participants with varying perceptions of autonomy allowed us to try and understand how differing autonomy perceptions could influence
GTAs' perceptions of pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy. We intended to interview six participants (two from each category of autonomy). However, we were only able to recruit one participant with high perceptions of autonomy. Therefore, we interviewed one participant with high perceptions of autonomy, two with moderate perceptions, and three with low perceptions of autonomy. The interview protocol was adapted from prior published interview protocols (Settlage et al., 2009;Southerland, Sowell, & Enderle, 2011;Winters & Matusovich, 2011) for each of the three constructs to elicit responses from participants to address our research question (see Appendix 2-3 for protocol). Each participant was interviewed for approximately thirty minutes each. Two researchers deductively coded the interviews based on the GTAs' perceptions of autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and self-efficacy (see Appendix 2-4 for codebook). Multiple codes were allowed to be applied to the data segments to help us understand the relationship between autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and self-efficacy for each GTA.
Each researcher coded two participant interviews, meeting to discuss the coding as needed in order to reach consensus. To address research question 3, we specifically looked for instances where multiple codes were applied to the data to develop an understanding of the relationship between the constructs.
58 participants completed the survey (Table 2-2). Due to the disciplinary audience of this journal, we focus on sharing the qualitative findings from two biology GTAs as representative cases with low (Sara) and moderate (George) perceptions of teaching autonomy (Table 23). Biology GTAs tended to report lower autonomy perceptions than the other disciplines (Appendix 2-5), and none fell into the "high autonomy perception" category.
Therefore, we will also share the qualitative findings from a mathematics GTA, Ben, who reported high perceptions of teaching autonomy as a point of comparison.
Table 2-2 Demographic information of participants Degree Pursuing* Interested in a future career with teaching M.S. n = 48 Yes n = 34 Ph.D. n = 11 No n = 24 Discipline Prior experience as a GTA † Biology n = 23 1-2 semesters n = 31 Geology n = 7 3-4 semesters n = 16 Chemistry n = 11 5-6 semesters n = 2 Mathematics n = 17 More than 6 semesters n = 8 * One respondent indicated they were pursuing both an M.S. and a Ph.D. † The number of participants varied due to missing data
We first describe our findings for research question one to characterize STEM GTAs' perceptions of autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and self-efficacy. Then, we describe our findings for research questions two and three to explore the quantitative and qualitative relationships between these constructs.
RQ1: What are STEM GTAs' perceived teaching autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
The participants reported an average general teaching autonomy score of x̄ = 2.68 and curriculum autonomy of x̄ = 2.06, which indicates moderate autonomy (Table 2-4, Figure 2-1).
For each sub-construct, the average perception of pedagogical discontentment was between "content" and "very content" (x̄ =1.99, 2.02, 1.78, 1.89), indicating the GTAs in this sample were largely satisfied with their teaching practices (Table 234). For self-efficacy, the participants reported an average of 4.07 for both the learning environment and instructional strategies subconstructs. This finding indicates the GTAs in this sample were "somewhat confident" to "very confident" with their teaching. Violin plots of GTAs' reported autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and self-efficacy RQ2: Are there relationships between the GTAs' perceived teaching autonomy, selfefficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
The study showed evidence of a low, negative correlation (r55 = -0.46, p < 0.001) between pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy. This finding indicates that the more confident GTAs tended to report lower pedagogical discontentment (more contentment or more satisfaction). There was no statistical evidence of a correlation between autonomy and selfefficacy (r55 = -0.13, p = 0.32). There was also no statistical evidence of a correlation between autonomy and pedagogical discontentment (r55 = -0.21, p = 0.11).
When GTAs talk about their teaching positions, how do they describe interactions between their perceived teaching autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment?
We also conducted qualitative interviews to provide a richer description of these relationships. For each participant, we first describe their survey responses and representative quotes of their autonomy to provide background on how each perceived their autonomy, selfefficacy, and pedagogical discontentment (Figure 2-1). We then provide qualitative evidence to describe the relationships between the constructs we coded.
Sara indicated on the survey that she had low pedagogical discontentment (Figure 2-1;
Likert scale = 2.0/5.0) and high self-efficacy (4.97/5.0), in addition to her low perceptions of autonomy (1.38/4.0). In describing her autonomy, Sara stated:
The actual curriculum, we don't have a lot of influence over it. So, we can make
suggestion[s], and maybe if our supervisor thinks it is a good idea, it can be part of the curriculum in the next semester. But it is mainly, you know, we are told what to do, what to teach.
This quote demonstrates Sara's limited perceptions of autonomy. Sara also expressed that she could make suggestions to her supervisor, and if approved, those suggestions could be included in the curriculum for the following semester. However, Sara also expressed that although she had a few suggestions, it's "not like [she] suffers from" the curriculum, which indicated her overall pedagogical contentment with her teaching situation. Though Sara was largely content with her teaching, she did express some discontentment when teaching concepts with mathematics:
And it is a very important idea [serial dilutions], and I think it is not very difficult, but it seems like it is a very difficult idea for them, and probably I don't make their lives easier…And probably I could express those ideas better, but I'm not a mathematician. So, I [assume] they have a basic understanding about a few mathematical things, and sometimes they do not have that basic understanding. And I'm just not fit to explain those things to them. So those are frustrating.
We have interpreted this quote to indicate that Sara experienced pedagogical discontentment and lower self-efficacy when teaching mathematics concepts. Though Sara expressed pedagogical discontentment when teaching serial dilutions, throughout her interview (and survey responses), she indicated her overall satisfaction with her teaching.
On the survey, George indicated that he had moderate autonomy (2.50/4.0; Figure 2-1), low pedagogical discontentment (2.25/5.0), and high self-efficacy (4.33/5.0). In the interview, George was provided "guidance" by his supervisor but also had "a great degree of freedom to go ahead and design the curriculum materials, as long as [he] stayed within certain guidelines" to cover particular concepts. George did experience some pedagogical discontentment related to the coordination between the lecture and laboratory sections. He stated: "Our work in the lab doesn't always parallel the work that's done in lecture, which can sometimes be frustrating; we're either ahead of or behind, and in the rare event, right page with what's being done in lecture." Since George did not have control over the lecture sections, he sometimes experienced pedagogical discontentment when the lecture and laboratory courses did not align.
George also indicated that his perceptions of contentment could be related to his perceptions of self-efficacy. He stated:
I don't know if it's so much confidence, but just a sense of satisfaction. Maybe. When the students are getting it, there's a speed back and forth between an instructor and student.
And I think that makes the instructor feel good. Satisfied that they've done the job that they've been appointed to do. I mean, I think, confidence sort of plateaus.
In this quote, George describes how his self-efficacy has "plateaued" and can now focus on developing his pedagogical contentment with his teaching.
In addition to having high perceptions of autonomy (3.44/4.0; Figure 2-1), Ben also indicated on the survey he had low pedagogical discontentment (2.0/5.0) and high self-efficacy (4.17/5.0). Ben described how, at his current university, he had "a lot of freedom" to teach how he wanted but had to cover certain topics in a departmental final. Ben liked the "unstructured"
environment, which provides evidence of his pedagogical contentment with the autonomy he has as a GTA. He did, however, express some pedagogical discontentment: In this quote, Ben described pedagogical discontentment and low self-efficacy during certain student interactions. Later in the interview, Ben indicated that he noticed the "barrier" between himself and the students more when he lectured. When he had students participate in activities, the classroom environment felt more "positive" thus supporting his pedagogical contentment and self-efficacy.
Both Ben's and George's perceptions of pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy appeared to be influenced by interactions with their students. For instance, George described how having self-efficacy as an experienced instructor now allowed him to focus on gaining contentment with his instruction when he noticed students learning. All three GTAs mentioned pedagogical discontentment with perceived constraints of their autonomy as instructors. Ben, however, was the only GTA who identified a future goal for teaching in his interview, (i.e., expressed motivation to change his instructional practices) which was to incorporate the nature of mathematics more into his instruction.
This research study explored the relationships between autonomy, self-efficacy, and pedagogical discontentment. Most of the survey participants reported high self-efficacy and low pedagogical discontentment. The quantitative data provided evidence of a correlation between pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy but no other constructs. In particular, there was no evidence of a correlation between autonomy and pedagogical discontentment, which we hypothesized would exist for these GTAs (Dillard et al., 2023;Winters & Matusovich, 2011). In the interviews, however, the participants described examples of their pedagogical discontentment being influenced by their perceptions of autonomy, providing some support for this hypothesis.
We did find qualitative support for the quantitative correlation calculated between autonomy and pedagogical discontentment. Therefore, this study found conflicting results from the quantitative and qualitative data sources for the relationships between autonomy and pedagogical discontentment, which is not unusual in mixed methods studies in educational settings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Creswell and Plano Clark (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017) suggest that in response to contradictory findings, a researcher might discuss which data source has stronger validity evidence (in the case of quantitative data) or trustworthiness (in the case of qualitative data). As described in the Methods section, we had a relatively small sample size, leading to limited statistical power for the CFA. We chose, however, to conduct CFAs since two of the original scales (autonomy and pedagogical discontentment) were not designed for use with GTAs and thus might require additional validity evidence. Due to these methodological considerations, we recognize the limitations of our quantitative analysis and anticipate that this may have led to our conflicting findings for the relationship between autonomy and pedagogical discontentment. We encourage future research to use this survey instrument (Appendix 2-1) with larger sample sizes to find further evidence of validity and reliability for these instruments with populations of STEM GTAs.
To summarize our qualitative findings from this work, we extend the proposed relationship between pedagogical discontentment and self-efficacy (Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011) to include GTAs' perceptions of autonomy. We recognize that our data does not explicitly speak to the motivation of GTAs to engage in TPD or change their instructional practices as we theorize in the Introduction. We, however, view the extension of this theory as an attempt to describe the implications and importance of these findings for GTA teaching professional development. Future studies may consider how these three variables could come together to predict GTAs' motivation to engage in pedagogical change. For example, Sara tended to think her curriculum had good activities for the students, which appeared to allow her to be largely content with her instructional practices. However, since Sara appeared to experience pedagogical contentment despite her limited autonomy, we infer (based on the prior relationships proposed by Southerland and colleagues) that she may not experience motivation to change her instructional practices and engage with TPD.
George did not perceive he had autonomy over the coordination between the lecture and laboratory courses and appeared to experience pedagogical discontentment when misalignments occurred. When George experienced these misalignments, he could not adjust his instructional practices (due to his limited autonomy) to help foster student learning. Therefore, we infer that George (based on the prior relationships proposed by Southerland and colleagues) may not experience motivation to change his instructional practices and engage with TPD despite facing pedagogical discontentment. Finally, Ben indicated that when he lectured to the class, students could be "quiet" and "hesitant," leading to low self-efficacy and pedagogical discontentment with his instructional practices. He did notice that he felt more self-efficacy when engaging students with activities. As such, Ben appeared to use his pedagogical discontentment to reflect on his teaching, which we infer could motivate him to use more evidence-based practices in the future or engage in TPD since he perceived high autonomy (Di Benedetti et al., 2023;Schussler et al., 2008). From the three interview participants described in this study, we did not have GTAs in every possible combination of the constructs to fully propose an extension of the framework for STEM GTAs (Table 2345). Therefore, we proposed the same motivational outcomes as the original framework in places where we did not have data from interview participants. Future research can continue analyzing these relationships to build on the findings in this manuscript to update the framework as needed.
Table 2-5 Proposed relationships between pedagogical discontentment, self-efficacy, and autonomy High Self-Efficacy Low Self-Efficacy High Autonomy Low Autonomy High Autonomy Low Autonomy Pedagogical Contentment No motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs No motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs (e.g., Sara with the course curriculum) No motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs No motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs Pedagogical Discontentment Motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs No motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs (e.g., George with lab and lecture coordination) Possible motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs (e.g., Ben in "quiet" or "hesitant" student interactions) Possible motivation for changes to adopt new practices and/or engage in TPD programs
Prior research with GTAs has explored the importance of self-efficacy in considering their development as instructors (DeChenne et al., 2012(DeChenne et al., , 2015;;Smith et al., 2023;Smith & Delgado, 2021). There is evidence from a recent meta-analysis of quantitative studies that teaching self-efficacy is one of the few constructs empirically demonstrated to be successfully impacted by TPD programs (Gardner et al., 2025). We have very little evidence of other constructs that might be critical to STEM GTAs' engagement with and outcomes from TPD programs. In addition, we have few theoretical or empirical frameworks for what motivates graduate students to engage in TPD programs in their unique instructional context (Reeves et al., 2016). These findings address this gap in the literature to indicate the importance of considering
GTAs' perceptions of autonomy and pedagogical discontentment as well as self-efficacy.
We do not intend to suggest that GTAs should have total autonomy in their teaching position. Instead, we argue that a balance must be struck to engender some pedagogical discontentment, which could encourage GTAs to consider changing their instructional practices (Freeman et al., 2025;Southerland, Sowell, Blanchard, et al., 2011). It is unclear from the literature what evidence-based claims could be made to support GTAs' perceptions of instructional autonomy and promote pedagogical discontentment to motivate their instructional development. GTAs' perceptions of autonomy could be supported when faculty provide individualized autonomy for each GTA (Meyers, 1995). For instance, faculty can encourage and support GTAs (like Sara) who want to try changing aspects of the curriculum or activities.
Similarly, Ben was the only GTA who reflected to identify future goals for his teaching (to incorporate the nature of mathematics more), which could be related to his high autonomy perceptions. For GTAs like Ben, providing them with specific opportunities for more autonomy in their instruction could also surface pedagogical discontentment to support the development of their instructional practices. It is unclear from these interview participants, however, if autonomy commonly precedes GTAs' perceptions of pedagogical (dis)contentment, which could be explored in future research. Research with biology faculty found that pedagogical discontentment and circumstances that allow for changing their instructional practices to become a priority (i.e., autonomy; Andrews & Lemons, 2015) were needed for faculty to engage in actions to change their teaching practices. Due to GTAs' perceptions of limited autonomy, it may be especially important for GTAs to perceive having autonomy in addition to pedagogical discontentment to prioritize change in their instructional practices. Additionally, supporting GTA to engage with in-depth reflection and goal setting may support their development of pedagogical discontentment (Erdmann et al., 2020;Freeman et al., 2025) to encourage changes to their instructional practices.
We provided Table 5 as a summary and to provide implications of the findings for this research study. However, more research is needed to understand how GTAs in each category of pedagogical discontentment, autonomy, and self-efficacy might change their instructional practices. In the future, researchers could also use more developed theories of motivation to explore GTAs' motivation to engage in TPD programs and changes in their instructional practices. There are other studies that address STEM faculty motivation to use evidence-based practices or engage in TPD that could be fruitful as sources of theoretical models (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012;McCourt et al., 2017;Stupnisky et al., 2018), but researchers must also recognize the unique context that GTAs and faculty have regarding instruction. As the field continues to support GTAs in TPD programs, it is also imperative to understand the influential factors or perceptions that support GTAs in growing their instructional practices.
Appendix 2-1 Survey instrument Construct Subconstruct Item Name Item Autonomy General A_Gen1* In my class, I have little control over how classroom space is used. A_Gen2 I select the teaching methods and strategies I use with my students.
I make my own decisions as to when and how topics are taught.
The scheduling of use of time in my classroom is under my control.
I am free to be creative in my teaching approach.
Being a graduate student does not allow for much discretion on my part.
As a graduate student, I have only limited latitude in how major problems are resolved.
The evaluation and assessment activities used in my class are selected by people other than myself.
Standards for my classroom are set primarily by myself.
I have little say over the scheduling of use of time in my classroom.
The selection of student-learning activities in my class is under my control.
The content and skills taught in my class are those I select.
My teaching focuses on those goals and objectives I select myself.
The materials I use in my class are chosen for the most part by myself.
A_Curr4* I have no control over the class I am assigned to teach.
In my situation, I have little say over the content and skills that are selected for teaching.
What I teach in my class is determined for the most part by myself.
My teaching primarily follows approaches that are specified by my supervisor.
In my teaching, I use my own guidelines and procedures.
Balancing personal teaching goals with those of your course coordinator
PD_Bal2 Balancing depth versus breadth of content being taught PD_Bal3* Balancing personal teaching goals with those of departmental requirements Ability to teach all students PD_All1 Teaching to students of lower ability levels PD_All2 Orchestrating a balance between the needs of both high and low ability-level students PD_All3 Including all ability levels during teaching and learning activities PD_All4 Teaching to students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds Content knowledge PD_Con1 Having sufficient content knowledge to facilitate classroom discussions PD_Con2 Having sufficient content knowledge to generate lessons PD_Con3* Teaching subject matter that is unfamiliar to me PD_Con4 Teaching to students of higher ability levels Assessing student learning PD_Assess1 Using assessment practices to modify teaching PD_Assess2 Monitoring student understanding through alternative forms of assessment PD_Assess3 Planning and using alternative methods of assessment Self-Efficacy Instructional Strategies SE_Strat1 Evaluate accurately my students' academic capabilities SE_Strat2 Appropriately grade my students' exams/assignments SE_Strat3 Stay current in my knowledge of the subject I am teaching SE_Strat4 Provide my students with detailed feedback about their academic progress SE_Strat5 Prepare the teaching materials I will use SE_Strat6 Spend the time necessary to plan my classes SE_Strat7 Clearly identify the course objectives Learning Environment SE_Learn1 Promote student participation in my classes SE_Learn2 Make students aware that I have a personal investment in them and in their learning SE_Learn3 Create a positive classroom climate for learning SE_Learn4 Actively engage my students in the learning activities that are included the teaching plan/syllabus SE_Learn5 Encourage the students to interact with each other SE_Learn6 Let students take initiative for their own learning SE_Learn7 Think of my students as active learners, which is to say knowledge builders rather than information receivers SE_Learn8 Encourage my students to ask questions during class SE_Learn9 Promote a positive attitude towards learning in my students SE_Learn10 Provide support/encouragement to students who are having difficulty learning SE_Learn11 Show my students respect through my actions Note: * indicates the survey item was removed from data analysis after conducting confirmatory factor analyses Appendix 2-2 Model fit statistics for each construct of autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and self-efficacy Construct Initial or Final Model df 𝜒 2 * CFI* TLI* RMSEA* [90% CI] Autonomy (n = 50) Initial 151 219.41 0.746 0.680 0.096 [0.067, 0.123] Final 103 163.93 0.765 0.690 0.110 [0.077, 0.141] Pedagogical Discontentment (n = 53) Initial 73 143.73 0.585 0.403 0.137 [0.103, 0.169] Final 50 108.71 0.624 0.414 0.150 [0.112, 0.189] Self-Efficacy (n = 53) Initial & Final 134 304.58 0.880 0.846 0.156 [0.133, 0.180] * Acceptable data-fit values differ by estimator: CFI and TLI >0.95, RMSEA <0.06 (Hu and Bentler, 1999) Factor loadings for the initial and final models for each construct Construct Item Initial Loading Final Loading Autonomy A_Gen1 0.15 -A_Gen2 0.49 0.49 A_Gen3 0.64 0.64 A_Gen4 0.50 0.50 A_Gen5 0.38 0.38 A_Gen6 0.56 0.56 A_Gen7 0.48 0.48 A_Gen8 0.60 0.60 A_Gen9 0.57 0.58 A_Gen10 0.58 0.58 A_Gen11 0.75 0.75 A_Curr1 0.77 0.78 A_Curr2 0.70 0.70 A_Curr3 0.73 0.72 A_Curr4 0.31 -A_Curr5 0.28 -A_Curr6 0.72 0.74 A_Curr7 0.34 0.33 A_Curr8 0.65 0.66 Pedagogical Discontentment PD_Bal1 0.52 0.44 PD_Bal2 0.69 0.78 PD_Bal3 0.31 -PD_All1 0.47 0.49 PD_All2 0.31 0.33 PD_All3 0.94 0.92 PD_All4 0.33 0.35 PD_Con1 0.77 0.80 PD_Con2 0.75 0.77 PD_Con3 0.30 -PD_Con4 0.80 0.77 PD_Assess1 0.55 0.54 PD_Assess2 0.56 0.53 PD_Assess3 0.76 0.79 Self-Efficacy SE_Strat1 0.87 -SE_Strat2 0.95 -SE_Strat3 0.90 -SE_Strat4 0.91 -SE_Strat5 0.88 -SE_Strat6 0.90 -SE_Strat7 0.92 -SE_Learn1 0.92 -SE_Learn2 0.83 -SE_Learn3 0.91 -SE_Learn4 0.88 -SE_Learn5 0.76 -SE_Learn6 0.79 -SE_Learn7 0.83 -SE_Learn8 0.94 -SE_Learn9 0.95 -SE_Learn10 0.93 -SE_Learn11 0.97 -Note: For autonomy and pedagogical discontentment, we used a cutoff value of 0.31.
• How has your confidence changed over the time you have been teaching? Pedagogical Discontentment • Are there aspects of your teaching that you are not completely happy or are frustrated with? [Can you please explain?] • Describe anything that you feel is preventing you from being happy with your teaching? • How much of this unhappiness or frustration is due to something you feel you can or can't control? (if examples are needed: culture of your discipline, culture of the department, advisors, supervisors, etc) • How would you explain your frustration you feel with your current teaching practices to a [same discipline] TA? How would you explain it to a TA in another STEM field? • Are there aspects of your teaching that you are happy with? [Can you please explain?] Appendix 2-4 Codebook Code Definition Example quote Autonomy Control over an aspect of their teaching And also like being able to write my own exams and all of that sort of thing. (Ben, 6:40) Pedagogical discontentment (or contentment) Disatisfaction or satisfaction with an aspect of their teaching I told the other TAs. They told me the same thing. But they are not mathematicians. They are in biology, biologists are not famous for their mathematical skills, and they have difficulties. Our supervisor tried to help us. But she said that it can be a really difficult idea, this whole counting bacteria thing for the students, and generally this serial dilution to understand what we try to achieve here…But yeah she, we told her, and she said, Yeah, that yeah, this is a difficult idea for them. (Sarah, 12:26)
Confidence to perform a task related to their teaching But it was an assumption that when we come to TA, that come here, to the department, we know how to teach. Given. There are some that have never taught before, but they are given, you know, the assumption is that they either know or they will learn quite quickly. I'm very confident my ability to teach and teach well. And there are some other students. This is the first time, and they're a little knock-need, wideeyed, you know. And are they pick it able to pick up very well, they're very competent TAs in our department. (George, 8:48) Note: multiple codes were allowed to be applied to a particular excerpt of data
Appendix 2-5 Results for GTAs' reported autonomy, pedagogical discontentment, and self-efficacy by discipline Construct Mean ± SD ANOVA Biology (n=23) Chemistry (n=10) Geology (n=7) Math (n=17) Discontentment 1.97 ± 0.55 2.06 ± 0.36 1.74 ± 0.49 1.91 ± 0.55 F(3, 53) = 0.58, p = 0.629, ƞ 2 = 0.03 Self-Efficacy 4.45 ± 0.60 3.69 ± 1.34 3.60 ± 1.68 3.95 ± 1.24 F(3, 53) = 1.79, p = 0.16, ƞ 2 = 0.09 Autonomy 2.25 ± 0.37 2.46 ± 0.32 2.46 ± 0.91 2.76 ± 0.59 F(3, 53) = 3.23, p = 0.0296*, ƞ 2 = 0.15 * Indicates a p-value below 0.05. Chapter 3: STEM Graduate Teaching Assistants' Psychological Needs for Teaching: A Scoping Review of Literature ABSTRACT: STEM graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are responsible for teaching many undergraduate students. Yet, graduate teaching assistants typically receive limited formal pedagogical preparation. The reasons for this lack of professional development are sometimes external to the GTAs themselves (e.g., few training opportunities offered by departmental leaders; those offered are voluntary) and sometimes internal to the GTAs (e.g., their intrinsic desires or motivations to participate in such trainings). In this study, we focus on those internal (motivational) reasons for the engagement, or lack thereof, of GTAs in teaching professional development.
In particular, we used Self-Determination theory as an analytical framework to explore GTAs' motivation to engage in teaching professional development programs (TPD) to support their instructional practices. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify key features of GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs for teaching, including competence, autonomy, and relatedness. We found that GTAs tended to express high perceptions of instructional competence, variable perceptions of autonomy to make decisions around their teaching, high perceptions of relatedness with students and peer GTAs, and low perceptions of relatedness with faculty. This review also found common supports and thwarts to GTAs' positive perceptions of their psychological needs. TPD programs appeared to generally have positive impacts on GTAs' perceptions of teaching competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which leads to a potential outcome of further engagement in TPD programs. This review has implications for future research to address the support of GTAs' positive perceptions of teaching autonomy and relatedness, leading to more engagement with TPD programs, and better instructional outcomes
Since many STEM graduate students teach as a source of funding during their degree program, they have the potential to highly impact the learning and retention of many undergraduate students (Connolly et al., 2016;Gardner & Jones, 2011;Thiry et al., 2019). The impact on undergraduate instruction is so strong that graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) have been described as the "first line of defense" for retaining undergraduates in STEM majors (Dika & D'Amico, 2016;Nicklow et al., 2007). This could be due to the large number of undergraduates they teach (Connolly et al., 2016) or to students' reporting of GTAs being more relatable than faculty (Kendall & Schussler, 2012). GTAs impact both the quantity and quality of undergraduate STEM instruction (Gardner & Jones, 2011). Yet, GTAs often have little pedagogical training to increase the quality of their instruction or modify the course curricula to be responsive to undergraduate student needs (Gardner & Jones, 2011;Dillard et al., 2023;Flaherty et al., 2017;Kendall & Schussler, 2012;Schussler et al., 2015). Thus, careful thinking about how to support GTAs in teaching professional development (TPD) is needed to impact the quality of undergraduate instruction and support STEM retention efforts.
A national sample of graduate student TPD programs for life sciences GTAs indicated that the majority of these programs were voluntary for graduate student engagement (Schussler et al., 2015). With many demands on their time, voluntary engagement in TPD programs might limit the number of GTAs who choose to participate (Park & Ramos, 2002). There could be many reasons why STEM GTAs voluntarily engage in TPD programs beyond time limitations, such as a norm for GTAs to develop as researchers rather than instructors (Reid & Gardner, 2020). Whatever the reason, a better understanding of why STEM graduate students are intrinsically motivated to engage in voluntary TPD is critical to undergraduate STEM reform efforts.
One way to explore GTAs' motivation to engage in TPD programs is through Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT is a broad theory of motivation that describes the importance of first satisfying individuals' psychological needs in order for them to feel motivated to enact particular behaviors and experience psychological well-being. The psychological needs are relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Relatedness refers to an individual's perception of having strong and caring relationships with others. Autonomy is an individual's perception of being able to make their own decisions related to tasks. Competence refers to an individual's feeling effective in accomplishing tasks in a particular environment.
Using the SDT framework as a lens, GTAs can have perceptions of their psychological needs, which can be impacted by their engagement in TPD programs. If GTAs' psychological needs are satisfied after engaging in TPD, they can experience a sense of well-being and enact behaviors to support student learning. We focused this manuscript on addressing how STEM GTAs' psychological needs are (or are not) being satisfied for teaching through the lens of SDT.
We conducted a scoping review of the literature to achieve the following aims: 1) describe STEM GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs for teaching being satisfied (or frustrated), 2) describe common supports and thwarts to GTAs' their psychological needs, and 3) explore the impact of TPD programs on STEM GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs.
We first describe in more detail the theoretical frameworks guiding this scoping review.
The theory of interpretivism frames this scoping review to understand a phenomenon with an acknowledgment that knowledge and truth are subjective (Stinson & Walshaw, 2017).
Interpretivism is a useful perspective for this scoping review because the nature of knowledge, reality, and methods used in each article can vary widely. Thus, similar to a qualitative study where participants may differ in their worldviews, the participants of this review (the selected articles) are the product of various perspectives and worldviews. In the context of this scoping review, we sought to "include richness" (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020, p. 41) of the data by providing background from each article selected for inclusion. This scoping review also sought to provide various perspectives and findings related to GTAs' psychological needs but does not intend to make broad generalizations about the entire population of GTAs across various countries.
SDT is used as an analytical framework in this scoping review to describe and conceptualize the psychological needs of STEM GTAs for teaching and to consider the supporting and thwarting features of environments toward those needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
SDT is a broad theory describing how contextual features can facilitate motivation and subsequent wellness in individuals (Ryan & Deci, 2017). The basic psychological needs theory suggests individuals must have perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness to thrive or experience wellness within a particular environment (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Considering whether instructors' (in this review, specifically GTAs') psychological needs are being met in their teaching context is critical to understanding their motivated action related to teaching, including engaging in TPD. These psychological needs are described in more detail below, along with specific descriptions in teaching contexts.
The psychological need for relatedness describes how individuals need to perceive being socially connected through close relationships with others (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Having trust and mutual caring for one another fosters a sense of belonging through contributions that are valued by the members (Deci & Ryan, 2012;Ryan & Deci, 2017;Van den Broeck et al., 2010). In teaching, instructors can have their perceptions of relatedness supported by networking with fellow instructors, administrators, and students (Klassen et al., 2012). GTAs need to have trusting relationships with teaching colleagues to support their perceptions of relatedness in their departmental environments.
Autonomy describes an individual's perceptions of being able to self-govern and make their own decisions to enact behaviors aligned with their interests and values (Legault, 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017). Autonomy refers to an individual's need to act "as [the] origin rather than [a] pawn" in decision-making (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 673). In teaching, autonomy can refer to an instructor's perception of having control or choice to enact behaviors related to the curriculum, teaching practices, and assessment of student learning (Dillard et al., 2023;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). Environments can support perceptions of autonomy by encouraging choice and self-regulation for completing instructional tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In teaching, GTAs' perceptions of autonomy could be influenced by their interactions with others, such as a laboratory coordinator or faculty supervisor, and how much ownership these leaders give GTAs over their classroom practice.
Competence describes an individual's perception of accomplishing a task and a sense of mastery of the task within various aspects of their life (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In teaching, competence refers to an instructor's perception of feeling effective at accomplishing teachingrelated tasks (Hardre, 2013). There are, however, many types of tasks involved in teaching, such as planning, enactment, and assessing student learning (Abell et al., 2018), in which instructors can have various perceptions of their competence. Ryan and Deci (2017) also indicated that perceptions of competence can be "readily thwarted" by challenging tasks, consistently receiving negative feedback, and self-criticism or comparing oneself to others (p. 11). Environments can support an individual's perception of competence by providing structure and positive feedback on actions demonstrating mastery (Deci et al., 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017). GTAs' perceptions of competence could be supported by receiving positive feedback from colleagues about their teaching and being provided with some structure to grow in their instructional behaviors.
A summary figure of the connection among the psychological needs within SDT is depicted below (Figure 3-1). The dark blue boxes in Figure 1 indicate each of the psychological needs and represent this study's first purpose (and research question), which was to explore how GTAs describe their perceptions of relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Within a particular environment, features can support or thwart an individual's perceptions of their psychological needs, which are represented by the light blue boxes in Figure 3-1 (Deci et al., 2017). The light blue boxes also provide examples of supports and thwarts for each psychological need described by prior SDT research. These boxes also represent the second purpose of this review, which was to understand the supports and thwarts of GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs. As other people are part of the environment that individuals interact with, relationships and interactions with others can influence perceptions of relatedness as well as their perceptions of competence and autonomy (Legault, 2017). Evidence indicates that "each need [can] facilitate the satisfaction of the others" (Deci et al., 2017, p. 248). To indicate the interactions of GTAs' perceptions of relatedness, autonomy, and competence, Figure 3-1 shows each psychological need organized in a cycle with double-headed arrows. Connection among the psychological needs to lead to well-being, adapted from Legault (2017) and Deci and colleagues (2017) Note. The dark blue boxes indicate the psychological needs and the first purpose of this review (to understand how GTAs' perspectives of their psychological needs are being met or unmet). The light blue boxes refer to potential supports and thwarts of each psychological need and indicate the second purpose of the review (to explore the common supports and thwarts of GTAs' psychological needs). The orange box refers to the behavior of GTAs engaging in TPD programs and the impact on their perceptions of their psychological needs (the third purpose of this review). The grey boxes indicate important constructs to consider in self-determination theory but are beyond the scope of this literature review.
Relatedness, autonomy, and competence can then be considered aggregated to indicate the satisfaction or frustration of an individual's psychological needs (Deci et al., 2017;Legault, 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017). The satisfaction or frustration of an individual's psychological needs can vary within contexts and over time (Ryan & Deci, 2017). For instance, different concepts and types of activities can be used in classrooms, and GTAs can feel more or less competent to teach particular concepts or enact particular activities. The satisfaction or frustration with their psychological needs then influences an individual's motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012;Legault, 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017;Van den Broeck et al., 2010).
In particular, SDT specifies different types of motivation individuals can experience represented on a continuum from autonomous to controlled motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Autonomous motivation occurs when individuals engage in a task completely of their own choice and willingness (Deci et al., 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017). Even tasks controlled by external factors (e.g., those related to workplace expectations from supervisors) can also be autonomously motivated if individuals engage with the tasks willingly, often when they understand the purpose and value of tasks (Deci et al., 2017). On the other hand, controlled motivation can occur when individuals perceive their actions to be directly influenced by others through rewards or threats (Deci et al., 2017). In the context of this review, we specifically framed motivation regarding GTAs' engagement in TPD programs. We recognize, however, GTAs could be motivated to engage in various tasks related to their teaching. For instance, GTAs may feel autonomously motivated to engage in TPD programs when they understand the purpose and value of opportunities designed to support their growth as instructors. In contrast, GTAs could experience controlled motivation if they feel forced to participate in TPD programs (by faculty, departments, universities, etc.) rather than authentically seeking TPD opportunities. The motivation an individual experiences can influence their behavior and well-being. In this context, behaviors refer specifically to GTAs' engagement in TPD programs (orange box in Figure 3-1). We anticipated that participation in TPD programs would create a feedback loop that would also support GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs. This conjecture is explored as the third section of this review.
A scoping review research design was used to address the research question and aims (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Levac et al., 2010). We used the original scoping review framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and further clarifications of the framework identified by Levac and colleagues (2010) to conduct this work. The steps of a scoping review are: 1) identify the research question, 2) identify studies, 3) study selection, 4) chart the data, and 5) analyze the data. Each step and the specific methods taken in this review are described below.
Using the psychological needs of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and the literature as a data source, this review explored the satisfaction or frustration of STEM GTAs' psychological needs in their teaching contexts. In particular, this review addressed the following research questions:
1. How do STEM GTAs describe their relatedness, autonomy, and competence in their current environment?
2. What supports and thwarts exist in STEM GTAs' current environment that bolsters or reduces their perceptions of relatedness, autonomy, and competence?
3. How do TPD programs impact STEM GTAs' perceptions of relatedness, autonomy, and competence?
This stage of the scoping review focused on finding articles through databases with specific search terms (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Levac et al., 2010). The selection of articles was initially based on a previously conducted meta-analysis on the impacts of STEM GTAs' engagement in TPD programs and the relevant outcomes (Gardner et al., 2025). This search used the Web of Science Core Collection, Educational Resources Information Center, and Scopus to identify articles relevant to the meta-analysis. The search terms listed below in Table 3-1 were used for each database. Specifically, one search term was used from each column in all possible combinations. This search was conducted in 2020 and included articles as early as 1989 (the last known literature synthesis on GTA TPD; Abbott et al., 1989). Since identifying studies for this scoping review occurred in May 2024, we ran an additional search in Scopus using the search terms in Table 3-1 with filters to find studies from 2020 to May 2024. At this point in the scoping review, we chose the SDT to guide this work. Thus, we conducted an additional Scopus search to identify any science or STEM articles pertaining to SDT that might have been missed with the previous search terms (Table 3-2).
Table 3-1 Table indicating the search terms for the original search Sample Content Teaching Professional Development Graduate Student, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Teaching Assistant STEM, Science, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Engineering, Computer Science, Geosciences, Social Sciences, Sociology, Psychology, Astronomy, Physiology Teaching, Pedagogy, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Curriculum, Instruction Teacher Training, Professional Development, Socialization, Informal Professional Development, Workshops, Courses
Table 3-2 Search terms to identify articles relevant to Self-Determination Theory Sample Content Self-Determination Graduate Student, Graduate Teaching Assistant, Teaching Assistant Science, STEM Autonomy, Self-efficacy, Relatedness, Belonging, Selfdetermination theory, Motivation Note: Search terms were also used without specifying a content area.
The focus of scoping reviews is not to include or exclude articles due to their perceived quality or specific study designs (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005). Instead, scoping reviews seek to include relevant articles and provide information on articles (e.g., year of publication, demographics of participants, and study location) so readers can assess the literature quality (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Levac et al., 2010). From the n = 5,430 articles identified in stage 2, we included or excluded articles that directly addressed the research questions (the steps are outlined in Figure 3-2). All the articles were compiled into an Excel spreadsheet, and duplicates were removed. Articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals were kept in the sample. Titles and abstracts were screened for research studies specifically referring to STEM GTAs and their teaching in higher education contexts. We looked specifically for research articles with collected data on constructs which appeared to be similar to the psychological needs (e.g., confidence). Studies that reviewed the literature or described a professional development program (without evaluation data) were categorized as "descriptive" and excluded from our sample. If the title and abstract were not clear in terms of whether we should exclude the article, it was retained in the sample for further review. Study selection flow chart Note. From: Page M.J. et al. (2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372(160), 1-36. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160
Full articles were then reviewed and categorized as including data addressing the psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. This scoping review did not seek to explore the various types and structures of TPD programs (see Sadera et al., 2024). Instead, it aimed to explore GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs, how their needs are supported (or thwarted), and the impact of TPD programs on their perceptions of their psychological needs.
For instance, this review did not include articles that characterized GTAs' instructional practices with observation protocols. This study draws on the literature where GTAs described their perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness through various means, such as survey responses or interviews. From the search protocol, eighty-two articles were chosen for inclusion in the final sample of this study.
Charting the data is an iterative process in which data are extracted from the articles to contextualize the outcomes described in the findings (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005;Levac et al., 2010). This stage included collecting information such as the study discipline, research design, type of data collected (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed), and the psychological needs (Table 3-3) to provide transparency about the context of each study (Arksey & O'Malley, 2005).
Table 3-3 Description of included articles Article Discipline Research Design Data Type Psychological Need (Akcayir et al., 2024) Engineering Case study Qualitative A, C, R (Bale & Anderson, 2022) STEM Phenomenology Qualitative A, C, R (Baumgartner, 2007) Biology Case study Mixed A, C, R Article Discipline Research Design Data Type Psychological Need (Birt et al., 2019) Biology Case study Qualitative A, C, R (Bond-Robinson, 2000) Chemistry Quasiexperimental Quantitative C, R (Bowman et al., 2020) Biology Quasiexperimental Mixed C, R (Boyle & Boice, 1998) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative R (BrckaLorenz et al., 2020) General Large scale survey Quantitative C, R (Buerkel-Rothfuss & Gray, 1990) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative A, C, R (Camarao & Din, 2023) Physics Phenomenology Qualitative A, C, R (Chiu & Corrigan, 2019) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative C, R (Cho et al., 2011) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Coles et al., 2020) Mathematics Ethnography Mixed A, C, R (Connolly et al., 2018) STEM Quasiexperimental Mixed C (Deacon et al., 2017) Science Mixed methods Mixed C (DeChenne et al., 2015) STEM Quasiexperimental Quantitative C, R (DeChenne, Enochs, et al., 2012) STEM Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (DeChenne, Lesseig, et al., 2012) STEM Validity evidence Quantitative C (Dotger, 2010) Earth Science Delphi Qualitative A, C, R (Duba-Biedermann, 1994) General Case study Qualitative A, C, R (Eby, 2023) General Ethnography Qualitative C, R (Flaherty & Overton, 2018) Science Narrative Qualitative C, R (Fong et al., 2019) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Frey et al., 2020) STEM Case study Qualitative R (Gaia et al., 2003) General Case study Qualitative C, R Article Discipline Research Design Data Type Psychological Need (Ghalichi et al., 2023) Mathematics Mixed methods Mixed A, C (Gilmore et al., 2014) STEM Mixed methods Mixed A, C, R (Gin et al., 2021) Biology Phenomenology Qualitative C, R (Goodwin et al., 2021) Biology Case study Qualitative A, C, R* (Gunn, 2007) Science Case study Qualitative A, R (Harding & Lane, 2018) Biology Case study Mixed C, R (Hardré & Chen, 2005) General Case study Qualitative A, C, R (Hardré, 2003) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Heim & Holt, 2019) Biology Phenomenology Qualitative C, R (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017) Engineering Mixed methods Qualitative A, C, R* (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2020) Engineering Mixed methods Mixed C, R* (Kajfez et al., 2016) Engineering Phenomenology Qualitative A, C, R * (Ke et al., 2016) General Mixed methods Mixed C (Krsmanovic, 2024) General Mixed methods Mixed A, C, R (Lampley et al., 2018) Biology Case study Qualitative R (Lane et al., 2019) Biology Grounded theory Qualitative A, C, R (Luft et al., 2004) Science Case study Qualitative A, C, R (Matos & Iaochite, 2018) Engineering Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (McLaughlan, 2021) General Mixed methods Mixed C, R (Meyers, 1995) General Case study Qualitative A, C, R (Myers, 1996) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative R (Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2021) General Mixed methods Mixed A, C, R (Notarianni-Girard, 1999) General Large-scale survey Quantitative A, C, R (Nurrenbern et al., 1999) Chemistry Quasiexperimental Quantitative C, R (Park & Ramos, 2002) General Case study Mixed A, C, R (Piccinin & Fairweather, 1996) General Case study Qualitative A, C, R Article Discipline Research Design Data Type Psychological Need (Prieto et al., 2007) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative A, C, R (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative A, C (Prieto, 1999) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative A, R (Reeves et al., 2018) Biology, Chemistry Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Reid & Gardner, 2020) Biology Large-scale survey Quantitative C, R (Rivera, 2018) STEM Grounded theory Qualitative C, R (Robinson, 2016) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Russell, 2008) Biology Ethnography Qualitative C, R (Russell, 2010) Biology Mixed methods Mixed A, C, R (Salina et al., 1999) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Sandi-Urena et al., 2011) Chemistry Phenomenology Qualitative A, C, R (Schultz et al., 2022) Science Quasiexperimental Quantitative A, C, R (Shum et al., 2021) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Slack & Pownall, 2023) General Mixed methods Mixed C, R (K. Smith, 2001) General Case study Qualitative A, C, R (C. Smith et al., 2023a) Biology Mixed methods Mixed C, R (C. Smith & Delgado, 2021) STEM Mixed methods Mixed C, R (C. Smith et al., 2023b) STEM Mixed methods Mixed C, R (Stachl & Baranger, 2020) STEM Item response theory Quantitative R (Stromholt et al., 2024) STEM Design-based research Qualitative C, R Article Discipline Research Design Data Type Psychological Need (Sullivan et al., 1997) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative A (Taylor et al., 2008) General Quasiexperimental Quantitative A, C, R (Vergara et al., 2014) Science Case study Qualitative R (Verkoeyen & Allard, 2020) General Case study Quantitative C, R (Volkmann et al., 2005) Physics Self-study Qualitative C, R (Wheeler et al., 2015) Chemistry Case study Qualitative A, C, R (Wheeler et al., 2017) Chemistry Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Wheeler et al., 2019) Chemistry Mixed methods Mixed A, R (Wyse et al., 2014) Science Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Zehnder, 2016) Biology Quasiexperimental Quantitative C (Zhu & Alsup, 2024) General Narrative Qualitative A, C, R Note: A = autonomy, C = competence, R = relatedness; * indicates the study used self-determination theory as a theoretical framework
We used thematic analysis to guide the coding of the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After articles were identified in the categories of relatedness, competence, and autonomy, they were uploaded to the software Atlas.ti 24.2.0. The findings of the articles were coded inductively, using the phrasing found in the article to identify relevant codes pertaining to the GTAs' psychological needs and the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Only four of the articles in the review specifically used SDT as a theoretical framework (Goodwin et al., 2021;Kajfez et al., 2016;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017, 2020). Thus, particular words or phrases were interpreted to be related constructs and coded for the three psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. For instance, researchers have commonly studied GTA self-efficacy to measure the impact of TPD programs (Authors, 2025). Ryan and Deci (2017) have indicated similarities between competence and self-efficacy since both constructs attempt to understand an individual's perceptions of being effective in their environment (Bandura, 1999;Ryan & Deci, 2017). As such, self-efficacy was used as an indicator of competence in this review. Similarly, terms such as choice or control were used as indicators of autonomy, while terms such as belonging or relationships were used as indicators of relatedness. In this review, the terms specific to SDT will be used throughout the findings for clarity despite the specific terminology of the original articles.
A codebook with definitions and example quotes is provided in Table 3-4. After relevant codes were established for all the articles, each code was reviewed to search for themes by collapsing or expanding codes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Throughout this process, we focused on analyzing the codes in ways that would align with the research questions. For instance, in articles that referenced TPD programs, each time a code was applied to data, a code indicating "TPD program" was also applied. This ensured that throughout the data analysis process, we could selectively analyze the codes that addressed research question three for each of the psychological needs. Additionally, the SDT literature (Ryan & Deci, 2017) was reviewed to assist in organizing the themes within each of the psychological needs. For instance, providing positive feedback was noted by Ryan and Deci (2017) as an important support of individuals' perceptions of competence. As such, codes pertaining to providing positive feedback were organized into a theme for the competence psychological need. Then, each theme was reviewed for alignment in coding across all of the selected articles and organized to address each research question for each psychological need.
Table 3-4 Codebook Construct Theme Definition Example Quote Relatedness Building Relationships with Teaching Colleagues Developing a connection and mutual respect with others such as faculty mentors, peer GTAs, etc. Participants commonly identified mentors and built these relationships through teaching professional development programs (Rivera, 2018) Receiving Support from Teaching Colleagues Description of being able to ask questions or gain advice from teaching colleagues such as faculty mentors, peer GTAs, etc. Elizabeth described the importance of being with people who can "support and relate to the goods and bads" of teaching, "when you are in the trenches, nothing helps more than people who understand what you're going through because they're going through it too" (Lane et al., 2019) Building Relationships with Students Developing a connection and mutual respect with students in their course
Justin found that he appreciated the chance to "have a really close connection" with students, and push students to think more deeply until they had a "wow moment" (Lane et al., 2019) Autonomy General A vague description of control or responsibility (or perceived lack thereof) in their teaching position Four GTAs described that they valued the autonomy they had in teaching the [course] and felt they had control and responsibility that they might not have had in other GTA positions (Goodwin et al., 2021) Often Teach Prescribed Curricula Description of feeling constrained by teaching a course similarly across multiple sections She felt bound by the prescribed, fixed curriculum and syllabus developed by the course instructor to ensure all TAs in different lab sections were consistent (Birt et al., 2019) Making Changes
Students not paying attention pushed Michael to make great changes to his teaching in the second year. This major change was largely due to his efforts and reflections in preparing for the course, as he realized it was impossible to cover all the content from the book (Zhu & Alsup, 2024) Competence General A vague description of confidence or ability (or perceived lack thereof) in their teaching position Nearly all GTAs expressed that they generally felt very confidence in their ability to teach the [course] (Goodwin et al., 2021)
Role in Departments Description of feeling a lack of clarity for navigating various roles as a graduate student such as research and teaching I think I'm still trying to get out of the conditioning that lots of people in academia have, where like research should be the most important thing and teaching is the secondary thing. (Bale & Anderson, 2022)
Description of wanting to be perceived as credible and competent to fulfill their teaching roles to students Some participants wrote about how they use terms such as "Ph.D. researcher" or "Ph.D. student" to make it clear to students where they are at with their training and to assure students that they are not "fully qualified" (Slack & Pownall, 2023) Clear Expectations Description of feeling confident (or lack thereof) based on explicit directions or discussions for their teaching responsibilities I had the course instructor tell me "it's not your job to teach them, they learn everything in lecture. In the labs, they're just doing this stuff." So, it's just polar opposite, that instructor telling me not to teach like it's not my job and then we're talking about teaching every single meeting" (Camarao & Din, 2023) Experience Description of feeling confident (or lack thereof) based on prior learning by practicing teaching Previous experience also contributed strongly to GTA competence (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017) Demographics Description of feeling confident (or lack thereof) based on particular characteristics such as gender or international student status, etc.
Teaching self-efficacy in STEM GTAs does not vary in this study by gender (DeChenne et al., 2012)
Description receiving or not receiving feedback on their teaching practices from others such as faculty or students
Frequently, student evaluations were used as the only mechanism of feedback, and GTAs clearly felt that student evaluations represented only one perspective and did not address the entirety of their teaching (Luft et al., 2004) The findings section attempts to provide the GTAs' voices through quotes from the selected articles, when possible, to provide a description of how the GTAs themselves perceived their psychological needs. This approach aligns with the interpretivist perspective to provide "richness" to the data while also providing opportunities to capture varying perspectives of GTAs as described in the literature (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). When specific participant quotes are described, all names (pseudonyms) and pronouns used in the findings are directly from the original referenced articles. Additionally, studies used varying terminology to describe faculty and other teaching staff. Thus, faculty will be used to denote any person referenced in a study who has a teaching role, except for GTAs.
The number of articles used to address each research question is included in Table 3-5. Each section below is organized to describe the findings for each research question within each psychological need. For example, the first section discusses how GTAs describe their perceptions of relatedness for teaching (Research Question 1), their supports and thwarts in their environment to building perceptions of relatedness for teaching (Research Question 2), and finally, how TPD impacts their perceptions of relatedness (Research Question 3). The GTAs' perceptions of having relationships with others for teaching can influence their perceptions of autonomy and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2017). As such, GTAs' relationships with others are mentioned throughout the sections on autonomy and competence.
Table 3-5 Number of articles used to address each research question Psychological Need Research Question Number of Articles Relatedness How do GTAs describe their relatedness? n = 1 What supports and thwarts GTAs' perceptions of relatedness? n = 55 How do TPD programs impact GTAs' perceptions of relatedness? n = 35 Autonomy How do GTAs Describe Their Autonomy? n = 17 What supports and thwarts GTAs' perceptions of autonomy? n = 29 How do TPD programs impact GTAs' perceptions of autonomy? n = 18 Competence How do GTAs describe their competence? n = 51 What supports and thwarts GTAs' perceptions of competence? n = 57 How do TPD programs impact GTAs' perceptions of competence? n = 46 Relatedness Relatedness Research Question 1: How Do STEM GTAs Describe Their Relatedness?
Only one study in this scoping review collected data to analyze GTAs' perceptions of relatedness in teaching by classifying the strength of their relationships with others in their department (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017). Specifically, these researchers classified each participant's relationships with undergraduate students, peer GTAs, and faculty as weak, moderate, or strong. A strong relationship was determined when the participant talked "extensively" about connections to the group (i.e., students, peer GTAs, or faculty), along with mentions of "deep levels of connection" (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017, p. 261). Moderate relationships were determined when the participant mentioned interactions of low importance with the group. Weak relationships were determined when the participant described surface-level interactions with the group. These researchers found GTAs tended to report moderate to strong perceptions of their relationships with students they teach and peer GTAs. On the other hand, approximately 83% of the GTAs reported weak relationships for instruction with departmental faculty.
From the literature reviewed (n = 55), there appear to be three important supports for GTAs to develop their perceptions of relatedness to others: 1) establishment of close relationships with teaching colleagues, such as peer GTAs and faculty, 2) perceived instructional support from those relationships, and 3) building relationships with the students they teach.
These supports are intricately connected to one another and may not occur sequentially, but all appear to be key contributions to GTAs' perceptions of positive teaching relationships with others. On the other hand, GTAs' perceptions of relatedness were thwarted if they had no close relationships with others for teaching or did not perceive instructional support from those relationships.
Building Relationships with Teaching Colleagues. In teaching a course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE), GTAs described an appreciation for their close interactions with the faculty of the lecture section of the course (Goodwin et al., 2021). This sentiment was echoed by Pam, who found an "unofficial faculty teaching mentor," that allowed her to build a sense of belonging in a teaching community (Coles et al., 2020, p. 92). Mentions of relationships with faculty (outside of TPD programs) related to teaching were largely nonexistent in the literature. There were some instances in which GTAs described limited (Duba-Biedermann, 1994;Eby, 2023;Gilmore et al., 2014;Luft et al., 2004;Park, 2002) or negative (Meyers, 1995) interactions with faculty members that appeared to prevent the establishment of relationships that could have subsequently supported instruction. For instance, one article mentioned GTA complaints about being treated like a "servant" to faculty supervisors and felt they were not treated with respect when it came to their teaching (Meyers, 1995, p. 27).
Similar to the findings for relationships with faculty members, relationships with peer GTAs (outside of TPD programs) were largely nonexistent in the literature. In one article, Eby (2023) described her attempts to conceal that "[she] had no clue what [she] was doing" with her teaching, so she "lost track" of other GTAs in her department and did not feel connected to them at all (p. 2). In the selected articles, some GTAs were able to build relationships with teaching colleagues, although this was not often the case.
Receiving Support from Teaching Colleagues. GTAs have expressed the importance of faculty members being available for them throughout the semester for regular meetings as well as to address impromptu questions they might have about their instruction (Meyers, 1995). Some
GTAs felt they received continuous support for their teaching from faculty members, but many studies indicated this is not the case (Duba-Biedermann, 1994;Eby, 2023;Luft et al., 2004;Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2021;Russell, 2010;Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). For instance, Kat described how she had asked her faculty mentor questions about teaching during their staff meetings, which they were unable to answer (Luft et al., 2004). As a result, Kat felt frustrated and not supported by the faculty mentor and felt the staff meetings were "not an efficient use of
[her] time" (p. 220). One study found that while GTAs thought faculty were available for questions, they preferred asking questions of their peer GTAs (Duba-Biedermann, 1994). Other
GTAs similarly described "looking to peers for support" (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;C. Smith & Delgado, 2021, p. 7;Stachl & Baranger, 2020). There were no instances coded in this analysis for which GTAs indicated they did not receive support from their peer GTAs for their teaching.
Building Relationships with Students. As mentioned in the Kajfez & Matusovich (2017) article, GTAs tended to report moderate to strong relationships with their students. For example, Pam noted that "there was a lot of interaction" between herself and the students, which led to a "strong sense of community amongst the students [where] we were able to let our guards down when working together, and everything became a lot more fun and less stressful" (Coles et al., 2020, p. 92). Similar sentiments of building positive relationships with students were also described in other studies (Goodwin et al., 2021;Gunn, 2007;Lane et al., 2019;Sandi-Urena et al., 2011;C. Smith & Delgado, 2021). Some GTAs expressed challenges in building relationships with students due to the COVID-19 pandemic (Stromholt et al., 2024) or being an international GTA with different cultural norms in classrooms (Zhu & Alsup, 2024). Generally, GTAs appeared to perceive that they were able to build strong relationships with their students, which supported their psychological need for relatedness.
For the articles that included TPD programs as an intervention (n = 35), many described GTAs building teaching relationships with faculty and peers as important outcomes of these programs (Boyle & Boice, 1998;Camarao & Din, 2023;Coles et al., 2020;Gaia et al., 2003;Krsmanovic, 2024;Lane et al., 2019;McLaughlan, 2021;Nurrenbern et al., 1999;Rivera, 2018;Stachl & Baranger, 2020). These relationships could continue beyond the TPD programs (Coles et al., 2020), as one participant described having a TPD program in their first semester "lowered the barrier to talking to peers about teaching" (Stachl & Baranger, 2020, p. 11). Many GTAs described feeling supported in teaching by faculty and their peers after their engagement in the TPD program (Boyle & Boice, 1998;Flaherty & Overton, 2018;Gaia et al., 2003;Hardré & Chen, 2005;Lane et al., 2019;Meyers, 1995;Nurrenbern et al., 1999;Rivera, 2018;Stachl & Baranger, 2020;Vergara et al., 2014). For instance, Elizabeth described the importance of being around people who can "support [her] and relate to the goods and bads of teaching" (Lane et al., 2019, p. 156). On the other hand, one study indicated that GTAs did not feel support from their supervisors or peers to implement aspects of their TPD program into their instruction (Notarianni-Girard, 1999). As such, TPD programs appear to be an important place where GTAs can build relationships with others and receive instructional support from others.
In the articles analyzed for this review, GTAs perceived having strong relationships with peer GTAs (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017) and with their students (Goodwin et al., 2021;Gunn, 2007;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Lane et al., 2019;Sandi-Urena et al., 2011;C. Smith & Delgado, 2021), which supported their perceptions of relatedness in instructional contexts.
Additionally, GTAs tended to perceive that they received support for teaching from their peer
GTAs (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;C. Smith & Delgado, 2021, p. 7;Stachl & Baranger, 2020).
GTAs' perceptions of positive relatedness with faculty, however, were more conflicting. GTAs did not always perceive having strong relationships where they were provided with instructional support in their relationships with faculty. TPD programs where GTAs are provided opportunities to discuss and learn about teaching appear to be valuable places where GTAs can build relationships, receive support for teaching, and foster their perceptions of relatedness with teaching colleagues.
In the 17 articles reviewed, GTAs have indicated a preference for autonomy in making instructional decisions in their classroom (Kajfez et al., 2016;Park, 2002;Prieto & Meyers, 1999). If GTAs did not perceive autonomy, they may not have experienced satisfaction from their teaching, which could limit their identification as a teacher or their excitement about teaching in the future (Lane et al., 2019;Sullivan et al., 1997). For instance, one participant, Joshua, stated in their interview:
I do not share the passion of being a teacher. Which means, although I get excited while teaching, I don't feel accomplished much afterwards. Maybe it has something to do with I have been teaching dependently. Dependently means I answer to another actual (emphasis added) educator or teacher that I work for him or her instead of having my own classes. So, I don't feel responsible to the students, instead I feel responsible to the teacher. (Lane et al., 2019, p. 157) In this quote, Joshua described that because of his lack of autonomy, he does not identify as an "actual" instructor. Not every GTA, however, has indicated a lack of autonomy in their teaching position (Buerkel-Rothfuss & Gray, 1990;Duba-Biedermann, 1994;Goodwin et al., 2021). In one study, in the context of a CURE course, GTAs felt they had control and responsibility in their position but expressed that their autonomy might not be applicable to GTAs in other courses (Goodwin et al., 2021). Other GTAs have described having "specific outlets" for instructional autonomy, such as their presentations, teaching practices, grading, or mentoring undergraduate teaching assistants (Birt et al., 2019;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017, p. 260;Lane et al., 2019;Luft et al., 2004;Schultz et al., 2022). STEM GTAs' perceptions of instructional autonomy appear highly variable in the literature and can be context-dependent.
In the 29 articles reviewed, GTAs' perceptions of autonomy could be thwarted by teaching prescribed curricula. GTAs' perceptions of autonomy could be supported when they were encouraged to make changes and personalize their instruction.
GTAs Often Teach Prescribed Curricula. In attempts to standardize the course experiences for undergraduates and support GTAs in teaching, faculty can develop predesigned curricula for STEM GTAs to enact (Birt et al., 2019;Luft et al., 2004). As a result, GTAs expressed frustrations due to their lack of autonomy in decision-making regarding the curriculum (Akcayir et al., 2024;Birt et al., 2019;Goodwin et al., 2021;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Park, 2002;Piccinin & Fairweather, 1996). For instance, Orca described they were "expected to follow the faculty instructors' vision [instead of teaching] in a way that suited them" (Goodwin et al., 2021, p. 10). Instead of teaching the way they wanted to, Orca expressed frustrations with feeling constrained by the predesigned curriculum. This feeling has also resulted in GTAs feeling like they were a "flight attendant," "shepherd," or "babysitters" rather than autonomous teachers (Bale & Anderson, 2022, p. 8;Lane et al., 2019, p. 157;Park, 2002, p. 51). Prescribed curricula caused additional challenges for international GTAs, who had to spend time interpreting the curriculum and assignments, which were not described in a way that made sense to them (Zhu & Alsup, 2024). The literature has documented GTAs' frustration with prescribed curricula for courses designed to address education reforms (e.g., CUREs) and traditional "cookbook" laboratory exercises (Akcayir et al., 2024;Birt et al., 2019;Goodwin et al., 2021;Park, 2002;Piccinin & Fairweather, 1996).
With prescribed curricula, GTAs also noted their faculty members would emphasize the importance of consistency across the course sections (Birt et al., 2019;Wheeler et al., 2015;Zhu & Alsup, 2024), further thwarting GTAs' perceptions of autonomy in making changes to their instruction. Even if GTAs thought the curriculum lacked cohesion (Zhu & Alsup, 2024) or had the desire to implement more student-centered teaching practices (Birt et al., 2019;Wheeler et al., 2015), many felt constrained by their faculty supervisor due to the prescribed curricula. For instance, Marie allowed her students to revise their homework assignments, however, once the grades were perceived as "too high" by the faculty supervisor, she was asked to stop allowing revisions (Birt et al., 2019, p. 787). Though GTAs often teach prescribed curricula, there are opportunities for faculty members to encourage GTAs to make small changes and support their perceptions of teaching autonomy.
Making Changes. There were instances of GTAs mentioning how they felt autonomous enough to make changes to their teaching. For some GTAs, these changes were to incorporate their personality and interests into the standardized slide decks provided by supervisors (Birt et al., 2019;Camarao & Din, 2023) or to make "great changes" by limiting the breadth of content covered to address limited student participation (Zhu & Alsup, 2024). To support GTAs' perceptions of autonomy, even with prescribed curricula, the literature gave examples of faculty who encouraged GTAs to make changes and provide feedback on the curriculum (Coles et al., 2020;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Krsmanovic, 2024;Notarianni-Girard, 1999). GTAs have also expressed a desire to work with faculty to evaluate and update the curricula (Dotger, 2010;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Luft et al., 2004;Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2021), which could be an opportunity to support GTAs' perceptions of autonomy through their involvement in the curriculum redesign decision-making process. This can support GTAs' perceptions of relatedness to faculty by fostering an environment where the GTAs' opinions, thoughts, and ideas are valued and respected (Coles et al., 2020). For instance, a participant described how the support they received from their teaching mentor supported their autonomy:
He created an environment in which my opinion was valued and respected, and there was a strong sense of collaboration in our teaching group -feedback would often be put into action. I can remember having an idea about changing the overall structure of a pair of courses I was teaching, and this actually got put into effect. Having the opportunity to make mistakes in a supported environment was paramount to my growth and identity as an educator. (Coles et al., 2020, p. 92) In this quote, the participant described their growth as an educator because a faculty member supported them in sharing feedback. While this quote shows the impact of the faculty's relationship with the GTA, it also provides an indication of supporting the GTAs' perceptions of autonomy by providing opportunities for GTAs to give feedback and observe the impacts of their feedback (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017) rather than emphasizing consistency.
There were 18 articles reviewed to address this research question. In one study, prior to participating in a TPD program, GTAs were described as having a "healthy degree" of autonomy but that it did not change much after the program (Taylor et al., 2008, p. 55). In another study, there appeared to be a temporary increase in the GTAs' perceptions of teaching autonomy, which diminished in the follow-up survey after one semester (Schultz et al., 2022). These researchers suggested GTAs may have thought they were going to have more autonomy over their teaching after their engagement in the TPD program, but were not able to enact this change due to other constraints. One study found GTAs with higher perceptions of autonomy were more likely to implement new strategies learned in TPD programs compared to GTAs with lower perceptions of autonomy (Hardré & Chen, 2005). For instance, some GTAs have felt constrained because they could not "immediately transfer some of their learning into their practices" (Akcayir et al., 2024, p. 38;Wheeler et al., 2015).
On the other hand, there were instances in which GTAs acted more autonomously to make changes to their practice and be more aligned with the student-centered teaching practices they learned (Baumgartner, 2007;Birt et al., 2019;Hardré & Chen, 2005;Wheeler et al., 2019).
For instance, Marie described her laboratory curricula as being traditional "cookbook" activities in which students fill out worksheets (Birt et al., 2019). After engaging in a TPD program, Marie started asking students additional questions beyond the scope of the worksheet to limit students' focus on memorizing content and expand their focus on application. Overall, Marie felt very constrained by the prescribed curriculum but was able to make small changes to her instruction in ways she felt supported student learning.
The articles analyzed in this review indicated GTAs can have varying perceptions of autonomy in their teaching which were highly dependent on their teaching context. These varying perceptions can also occur within the same course context (Goodwin et al., 2021).
Generally, across the studies, we found that GTAs tended to teach prescribed curricula, which thwarted their perceptions of autonomy. Further, if faculty emphasized consistency among course sections, GTAs' perceptions of autonomy were highly thwarted. Faculty who encouraged GTAs to make changes and provide feedback on the prescribed curricula supported GTAs' perceptions of teaching autonomy. The impact of TPD programs on GTAs' perceptions of autonomy is mixed. Some GTAs acted autonomously to change their teaching practices, while other GTAs felt constrained by the curriculum and did not feel they could make changes to their teaching despite what they learned during professional development.
Competence Research Question 1: How Do STEM GTAs Describe Their Competence?
In the 51 articles reviewed for this research question, many GTAs have indicated their perceptions of high competence for teaching (Coles et al., 2020;DeChenne, Enochs, et al., 2012;DeChenne et al., 2015;Goodwin et al., 2021;Matos & Iaochite, 2018;C. Smith et al., 2023b;Zhu & Alsup, 2024). For instance, GTAs often felt competent in their disciplinary content knowledge (Bond-Robinson, 2000;Gin et al., 2021;Goodwin et al., 2021;Hardré & Chen, 2005;Kajfez et al., 2016;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Piccinin & Fairweather, 1996;Wheeler et al., 2015), though some GTAs indicated concerns about their ability to teach the content (i.e., pedagogical content knowledge; Bond- Robinson, 2000;Coles et al., 2020;Eby, 2023;Heim & Holt, 2019;Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2021;Slack & Pownall, 2023;C. Smith & Delgado, 2021). Some GTAs attributed this competence as relative to their undergraduates, saying that they have "mastery of content that undergraduates had not" (Gin et al., 2021, p. 7). GTAs also perceived competence in their teaching abilities (DeChenne, Enochs, et al., 2012;Taylor et al., 2008), which was often related to "easy" cookbook laboratory designs that allow for easy instructional implementation at a high level of competence (Sandi-Urena et al., 2011, p. 97).
In 57 articles analyzed, there were common supports and thwarts to GTAs' perceptions of competence in the STEM classroom. GTAs felt their competence was thwarted by their 1) ambiguous professional roles in the department, 2) concerns of credibility as a teacher, 3) a lack of clear expectations related to instruction, and 4) limited feedback on their teaching from their students and faculty members. Additionally, prior teaching experience and demographics of GTAs were commonly explored in the literature as potential supports to higher perceived competence. Each of these are described in more detail below.
Ambiguous Role in Departments. GTAs commonly mentioned having an ambiguous professional role in their department as they attempted to balance the roles of being students and instructors, complicated by a culture that tends to value research more than teaching (Reid & Gardner, 2020;Bale & Anderson, 2022;Dotger, 2010;Gunn, 2007;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2020;Lane et al., 2019;Park, 2002;Russell, 2010;Sandi-Urena et al., 2011;K. Smith, 2001;Wheeler et al., 2015). Lane and colleagues (2019) described this phenomenon as a "blizzard" (p. 149) of messages GTAs must navigate related to their professional role in the department throughout their degree program. In one study, approximately 65% of the GTAs indicated they thought there was a synergistic professional relationship between their teaching and research roles, with each supporting the other (e.g., research can support GTAs to be better instructors; Reid & Gardner, 2020). However, they have also reported hearing antagonistic messages from their peers (approximately 60%) and advisors (approximately 34%) about their research and teaching roles, meaning that teaching responsibilities are seen as taking time away from research responsibilities. Hearing antagonistic (conflicting) messages can place an "undue burden" (Reid & Gardner, 2020, p. 14) on GTAs when they are expected to teach, but encouraged not to invest time in it. These conflicting messages can give GTAs an ambiguous role in the department, which can impact their perceptions of competence as instructors.
GTAs also expressed concerns about being perceived as credible and competent to fulfill their teaching roles and obligations to their undergraduate students (Bale & Anderson, 2022;Bond-Robinson, 2000;Dotger, 2010;Eby, 2023;Heim & Holt, 2019;Russell, 2008;Slack & Pownall, 2023;Stromholt et al., 2024;Wheeler et al., 2015) as they did not want students to take advantage of their inexperience or for their students to feel "short-changed" (Eby, 2023, p. 2). For instance, Ava describes, "When you're a Ph.D. in the first year, you're more, you're kind of above the undergrads, kind of just barely" (Bale & Anderson, 2022, p. 11). Echoing this, some GTAs have described the sentiment they wanted to be clear to students that they are "still in training" and not "qualified lecturers," so they used the phrase "Ph.D. student" when introducing themselves (Slack & Pownall, 2023, p. 1269). One GTA expressed openly communicating with her students that she has practiced the laboratory activities (in their weekly preparation meetings), which she felt helped her credibility with the students (Wheeler et al., 2015), further supporting her perceptions of competence. Another GTA expressed "pretending" she was competent to her students by "faking it 'til you make it" (Heim & Holt, 2019, p. 5). Further, GTAs felt their perceptions of competence could be supported by having faculty support their credibility with students by discussing course policies early in the semester (Dotger, 2010). GTAs' concerns about their credibility in teaching could thwart their perceptions of competence.
Clear Expectations. GTAs sometimes felt they needed to understand more clearly what was expected of them as an instructor, which limited their perceptions of competence as instructors (Camarao & Din, 2023;Dotger, 2010;Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2021;Piccinin & Fairweather, 1996;Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). GTAs desired a more specific understanding of their teaching responsibilities (Nasser-Abu Alhija & Fresko, 2021), knowing better how to support students in their learning (Dotger, 2010), understanding the purpose of each activity (Camarao & Din, 2023), or more specific guidelines for grading assignments and exams (Piccinin & Fairweather, 1996). GTAs indicated that prepared and organized faculty supported them in knowing what was expected of them but also expressed wanting these expectations communicated verbally and in writing (Dotger, 2010;Duba-Biedermann, 1994;Meyers, 1995).
There was one instance where a GTA found written communications of expectations to be overwhelming, and it became unhelpful in how they perceived themselves as a competent instructor (Wheeler et al., 2015). Generally, however, GTAs expressed a desire to be provided with clearer expectations from faculty to support their perceptions of teaching competence.
Experience. GTAs expressed sentiments that experience teaching supported them in feeling more competent over time (Goodwin et al., 2021;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;C. Smith et al., 2023b;C. Smith & Delgado, 2021;Stromholt et al., 2024;Zehnder, 2016). Teaching experience supported GTAs in developing their perceived competence because they "knew where exactly the students had trouble last time" (C. Smith et al., 2023b, p. 6) and could plan their instruction to target those concerns. Some GTAs also expressed that as they gained experience with teaching, they saw themselves shifting from more of a learner to a teacher role (Bale & Anderson, 2022;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2020). For instance, Roberto described "I've transition [ed] from like student to the faculty, I think it's sort of, I don't know, I think I'll be able to identify less with being a student and eventually more with being a teacher" (Kajfez & Matusovich, 2020, p. 1057). In this quote, Roberto describes how, with experience, his perceptions of his professional role had shifted, which could indicate an increased perception of competence in that role.
There were conflicting results when quantitative analyses were conducted to explore relationships between teaching experience and GTAs' perceptions of competence. Some researchers found that experience was not a predictor of competence (DeChenne et al., 2015;Fong et al., 2019), while others found that experience was correlated to perceptions of competence (Deacon et al., 2017;Prieto et al., 2007;Prieto & Altmaier, 1994;Robinson, 2016).
Researchers' use of varying instruments to measure competence could explain these conflicting findings. For instance, Deacon and colleagues (2017) specifically found experience was negatively correlated to competence for demonstrating concern and respect for all students, indicating the more experienced GTAs tended to report lower perceptions of competence for demonstrating concern to students.
Studies have attempted to explore demographic factors and their relationship with GTAs' perceptions of competence, such as gender (DeChenne, Enochs, et al., 2012;Fong et al., 2019;Prieto et al., 2007;Prieto & Altmaier, 1994;Salina et al., 1999;Shum et al., 2021;Wheeler et al., 2017;Zhu & Alsup, 2024). Researchers have found some females may have lower perceptions of competence compared to males (Connolly et al., 2018), however, this finding is contradicted by inferential statistical analyses in many studies (DeChenne, Enochs, et al., 2012;Prieto et al., 2007;Prieto & Altmaier, 1994;Shum et al., 2021;Wheeler et al., 2017).
This indicates competence may not be influenced by gender. One study in this scoping review explored racial differences in perceptions of competence and did not find evidence of a difference in perceived competence between GTAs who identified as persons of color or white (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994).
Some international GTAs have reported being concerned about learning the culture in the United States, as well as concerns about teaching courses in English. These cultural factors can have distinct impacts on international graduate students' perceived competence to teach (Salina et al., 1999;Zhu & Alsup, 2024). Studies have found evidence for similar perceptions of competence among United States GTAs and international GTAs (DeChenne, Enochs, et al., 2012;Prieto et al., 2007). One study explored the impact of disciplines on perceptions of competence and found being a GTA in the STEM disciplines was a negative predictor for competence compared to graduate students in non-STEM disciplines (Fong et al., 2019). There was no evidence of differences between GTAs' reported perceptions of competence based on whether they were pursuing master's or doctoral degrees (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994). Therefore, though there have been explorations of the influence of some demographic variables on GTAs' perceptions of competence, there is no evidence in the quantitative studies selected in this review to support any statistical relationships.
GTAs commonly reported getting feedback on their teaching from student evaluations at the end of courses and its impacts on their perceived teaching competence (Akcayir et al., 2024;Birt et al., 2019;Buerkel-Rothfuss & Gray, 1990;Duba-Biedermann, 1994;Luft et al., 2004). GTAs expressed that they felt student evaluations were not representative of their entire teaching (Luft et al., 2004;Russell, 2010). There were reports of GTAs using in-the-moment (formative) feedback from students to provide positive reinforcement of their competent enactment of instruction (Gin et al., 2021;C. Smith et al., 2023b;C. Smith & Delgado, 2021). Negative feedback, groans, or eye rolls from students could also negatively impact GTAs' perceptions of their teaching competence (Gin et al., 2021;Ke et al., 2016). Naomi described how teaching online during the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected her confidence because she was unable to get immediate feedback from students about her teaching and their understanding of the material from their body language (C. Smith et al., 2023b). Smith and colleagues (2023b) found GTAs with lower perceptions of competence tended to rely on formative feedback from students. GTAs with higher perceptions of competence noted instances of feedback from experienced instructors and peer GTAs were more influential in supporting their perceptions of teaching competence.
Even though receiving positive feedback could support GTAs' perceptions of competence (Lane et al., 2019;C. Smith et al., 2023b;K. Smith, 2001), GTAs commonly reported limited (or a lack of) formal observations of their teaching by experienced instructors (BrckaLorenz et al., 2020;Dotger, 2010;Duba-Biedermann, 1994;Gilmore et al., 2014;Lane et al., 2019;Luft et al., 2004;Meyers, 1995;Notarianni-Girard, 1999;Park, 2002;Piccinin & Fairweather, 1996;Russell, 2010;C. Smith et al., 2023b). For instance, one GTA described "the only time we get feedback [from faculty] is if it's negative, and that is especially frustrating" (Duba-Biedermann, 1994, p. 120). There were a few instances of GTAs mentioning they received feedback on their teaching that was helpful for their instruction (Duba-Biedermann, 1994;Lane et al., 2019;K. Smith, 2001).
The literature analyzed (n = 46) showed positive impacts of TPD programs on GTAs' perceptions of competence (Camarao & Din, 2023;Chiu & Corrigan, 2019;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Krsmanovic, 2024;Prieto et al., 2007;Reeves et al., 2018;Russell, 2008;Shum et al., 2021;Stromholt et al., 2024;Taylor et al., 2008;Wyse et al., 2014). For instance, one GTA stated, "I am a lot more confident that my ability to teach well isn't going to be something I either have a knack for or don't -I think the ideas and tools we talked about will make a big difference" (Baumgartner, 2007, p. 20). One research study found GTAs who had teaching beliefs that were more aligned with inquiry-based teaching after participating in a TPD program had higher perceptions of competence (Wheeler et al., 2017). Additionally, there are numerous examples of GTAs' perceptions of competence in their teaching practices (enactment) increased after TPD (Bond-Robinson, 2000;Bowman et al., 2020;Connolly et al., 2018;Gaia et al., 2003;Ghalichi et al., 2023;Salina et al., 1999;Schultz et al., 2022;Stromholt et al., 2024;Taylor et al., 2008).
There were some studies that did not find evidence of an impact of TPD on GTAs' perceptions of competence (Ke et al., 2016;McLaughlan, 2021;Reeves et al., 2018;Wyse et al., 2014). This could be due to TPD quality, DeChenne and colleagues (2015) found that the quality of TPD programs was correlated to GTAs' perceptions of competence. TPD programs are more supportive of GTAs' development of teaching competence when participants are given opportunities to practice and receive feedback on their teaching (Bond-Robinson, 2000;Bowman et al., 2020;Camarao & Din, 2023;Gaia et al., 2003;Harding & Lane, 2018;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Russell, 2010;Verkoeyen & Allard, 2020). However, GTAs may experience fatigue from too much feedback on their teaching (Russell, 2008), highlighting the importance of finding a balance of observations that does not become tiring to support GTAs' perceptions of competence.
The articles analyzed in this review indicated GTAs tended to perceive themselves as confident in their teaching and in their disciplinary content. GTAs' perceptions of competence can be thwarted by having an ambiguous professional role as both a student and instructor, concerns about their credibility to teach in higher education contexts, unclear expectations for their teaching, and limited feedback from teaching colleagues. GTAs also reported that experience with teaching, having clear expectations for their teaching from faculty, and in-themoment feedback on their enactment from students supported their perceptions of competence.
In particular, TPD programs that incorporated opportunities for GTAs to practice their teaching and receive feedback from peer GTAs and program coordinators or faculty appear to be especially valuable experiences for supporting GTAs' development of teaching competence.
This scoping review sought to explore the literature to understand 1) how STEM GTAs describe the satisfaction of their psychological needs, 2) what environmental supports and thwarts they perceive as contributing to their psychological needs for teaching, and 3) how TPD programs influence and develop STEM GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs. The findings of this study are summarized below in Figure 3-3 but briefly described here. In the articles analyzed for this review, GTAs perceived having strong relationships with peer GTAs and with their students, which supported their perceptions of relatedness in instructional contexts. GTAs' relationships with faculty, however, appeared to be limited or weak. In particular, GTAs did not always perceive having strong relationships where they were provided with instructional support from faculty members. Findings from this study that generally describe GTAs' psychological needs (Research Question 1, in dark blue), the supports and thwarts of their psychological needs (Research Question 2, in light blue), and the impact of TPD programs (Research Question 3, in orange)
The GTAs' perceptions of teaching autonomy appeared to be variable in the literature, with contrasting perceptions of what supported or thwarted autonomy being highly dependent on their environment. Generally, prescribed curricula or an emphasis on consistency across course sections could thwart GTAs' perceptions of autonomy. GTAs' autonomy could be supported when they were encouraged to make changes and provide feedback on the prescribed curricula.
Across the psychological needs, GTAs appeared to have their perceptions of teaching competence satisfied more frequently within their professional environments compared to their perceptions of autonomy and relatedness. GTAs reported that experience with teaching, having clear expectations for their teaching from faculty, and in-the-moment feedback on their enactment from students supported their perceptions of competence. Their perceptions of competence could be thwarted by having an ambiguous professional role as both a student and instructor, concerns about their credibility to teach in higher education contexts, unclear expectations for their teaching, and limited feedback from teaching colleagues.
The literature indicated TPD programs could support GTAs' perceptions of competence when GTAs were provided opportunities to practice teaching and receive feedback. TPD programs also supported GTAs' perceptions of relatedness when the members (GTAs, peer GTAs, and faculty) could build relationships and receive support from one another for teaching.
However, the impact of TPD programs on GTAs' perceptions of autonomy is mixed. In some instances, GTAs were able to act with autonomy to change their teaching practices after their participation, while others felt constrained by the curriculum and did not feel they could act autonomously. The following sections describe 1) the implications of these findings for TPD facilitators and faculty to support GTAs' development of positive perceptions of psychological needs for teaching and 2) the limitations and implications for future research from this scoping review.
Though GTAs expressed that prescribed curricula thwarted their autonomy, we do not intend to claim that prescribed curricula are "bad" because they may not support GTAs' autonomy. Rather, prescribed curricula can reduce pressures on GTAs by providing guidelines (Park, 2002), which could allow GTAs to focus on developing competence for enacting particular teaching practices (e.g., student-centered practices) rather than fully developing activities and lessons. On the other end of the spectrum, we also do not intend to imply that giving GTAs full instructional autonomy with no guidance is the best option. Rather, we seek to argue for a balance of guidance and instructional mentorship to provide GTAs with support for their teaching practices and perceived autonomy. To support GTAs' perceptions of autonomy, even with prescribed curricula, faculty can seek to provide individualized and personalized instructional autonomy for each GTA (Meyers, 1995). For instance, if some GTAs feel their autonomy is supported by having specific outlets (e.g., their practices, presentations, grading, etc.), the faculty can support GTAs in learning about enactment practices through TPD programs.
Other GTAs who might want to try changing aspects of the curriculum or activities can be encouraged and supported by the faculty.
GTAs are described as having an ambiguous role in STEM departments as students (researchers) and instructors. To support GTAs' perceptions of competence in the future, would require a departmental cultural shift to encourage and support GTAs' development as both researchers and instructors. Curriculum materials can also provide opportunities to give GTAs clear expectations for their teaching to support their perceptions of competence. For instance,
Freeman and colleagues (2025) suggest providing GTAs with curriculum guides that include additional content information, lesson plans, rubrics, prompts for reflection, and places to draft potential questions to ask students and potential student responses. Providing GTAs with these materials suggested by Freeman and colleagues (2025) could provide GTAs with clearer expectations for their teaching to support their perceptions of competence.
It appears from the literature, that GTAs have their perceptions of relatedness supported from their relationships with peer GTAs and their students. However, many of the implications of this research would require, close and supportive relationships with faculty, which appear to be limited for many GTAs. Thus, a crucial implication of this review is that faculty need to build stronger teaching relationships with GTAs to support their psychological needs and encourage growth in their teaching practices.
Though we attempted to conduct an exhaustive search of the literature, it is possible that some articles were missed in the searches. Additionally, vague titles or abstracts could have led to improper exclusion in the review. Peer-reviewed articles were chosen to analyze in this review. However, there are potentially valuable contributions to the literature in conference proceedings, dissertations, and book chapters that could have informed these research questions.
This study also did not seek to address potential differences in GTAs' psychological needs based on their STEM discipline.
Only four articles in this review used SDT as a theoretical framework. Thus, this scoping review has limitations in interpreting similar phrases or terms as indicators for the GTAs' perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. As we can see by this review, separating GTA motivation into the three categories of autonomy, competence, and relatedness allowed us to parse the findings from previous research and expose important aspects of GTA motivation that may otherwise have been hidden. Therefore, we recommend more research be conducted through the lens of SDT, as this will allow a more fine-grained analysis of motivation and will give researchers a structure (framework) with which to discuss this issue consistently across studies.
As indicated in Figure 3-1, this study did not seek to address how the satisfaction or frustration of GTAs' psychological needs led them to experience motivation to engage in TPD programs. This could be explored through future research endeavors. Additionally, this review did not seek to determine GTAs' perceptions of their overall well-being related to their position as instructors. Competence was a commonly studied psychological need within the literature, which indicates a need for more research to be conducted exploring GTAs' perceptions of autonomy and relatedness for their instructional roles. In particular, this would allow the field to better understand how to support GTAs' perceptions of autonomy and relatedness, to support their perceptions of autonomy with prescribed curricula, and to build teaching relationships with faculty.
This scoping review identified key features of STEM GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. In particular, we found that GTAs tended to express having high perceptions of competence, variable perceptions of autonomy, high perceptions of relatedness with students and peer GTAs, and low perceptions of relatedness with faculty. This review also found common supports and thwarts of GTAs' perceptions of their psychological needs from the literature. TPD programs appeared to generally have positive impacts on GTAs' perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. This review has implications for future research to address, particularly on GTAs' perceptions of autonomy and relatedness to understand how to best support GTAs' psychological needs to support their teaching of students in STEM courses.
Frey, R., Mutambuki, J., & Leonard, D. (2020). Features of an effective future-faculty teachingdevelopment program: A case study of 10 STEM faculty. Journal of College Science Teaching, 49(4), 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2020.12315641 Freeman, A. S., Google, A., Carter, T., Jia, Z., & Grinath, A. (2025). Learning to support students to reason through talk: How pedagogically (dis)content teaching assistants use a curriculum guide integrated with professional development. Science Education. 109(2), 537-560. Gaia, A. C., Corts, D. P., Tatum, H. E., & Allen, J. (2003). The GTA mentoring program: An interdisciplinary approach to developing future faculty as teacher-scholars. College Teaching, 51(2), 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596413 Gardner, G., Freeman, A. S., & Rolle, C. (2025). The impact of teaching professional development on STEM graduate student instructional outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology. Gardner, G., & Jones, G. (2011). Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate teaching assistant: Challenges and implications. Science Educator, 20(2), 31-41. Ghalichi, N., Cervello Rogers, K., & Van Staaden, M. (2023). Reflecting on professional development opportunities: Links between conceptions of mathematics graduate teaching assistants and their self-efficacy. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 23(2), 57-75. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v23i2.33351 Gilmore, J., Maher, M. A., Feldon, D. F., & Timmerman, B. (2014). Exploration of factors related to the development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants' teaching orientations. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1910-1928. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.806459 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., & Ramos, M. (2002). The donkey in the department? Insights into the graduate teaching assistant (GTA) experience in the UK. Journal of Graduate Education, 3(2), 47-54. Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2006). Continuing validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 44-51. Piccinin, S., & Fairweather, D. (1996). A local analysis of TA training needs: Implications for the planning and development of TA training programs. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 4(1), 23-34. Prieto, L. (1999). Teaching assistants' preferences for supervisory style: Testing a developmental model of GTA supervision. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 6(3), 111-118. Prieto, L., & Altmaier, E. M. (1994). The relationship of prior training and previous teaching experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 35(4), 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496384 Prieto, L., & Meyers, S. A. (1999). Effects of training and supervision on the self-efficacy of psychology graduate teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 26(4), 264-266. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP260404 Prieto, L., Yamokoski, C., & Meyers, S. (2007). Teaching assistant training and supervision: An examination of optimal delivery modes and skill emphases. Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 33-44. There were also sentiments of shock in the focus groups about how competent survey participants perceived supporting the learning of all students. This study has implications for fostering a Culture of Learning within departments.
Many STEM graduate students teach introductory undergraduate courses during their degree program (Connolly et al., 2016;NASEM, 2018). For instance, Connolly and colleagues (2016) found that nearly 95% of doctoral students taught during their degree programs.
Therefore, graduate teaching assistants (GTAs), the instructional role of many of these graduate students, can impact the learning and retention of undergraduate students (Connolly et al., 2016;Gardner & Jones, 2011;Thiry et al., 2019). Careful thinking about how to support GTAs is needed to impact the quality of undergraduate instruction and support undergraduate retention efforts. To address this need, the focus of this dissertation thus far has largely been on GTAs and their individual perceptions of teaching (e.g., pedagogical discontentment and autonomy in Chapter 2). As found within the scoping review (Chapter 3), it is also essential to consider the instructional environment GTAs are a part of and the potential impact of these environments on graduate students' perceptions of teaching.
I specifically drew on self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017), which is described more in the Theoretical Frameworks section below but briefly introduced here. SDT is a broad theory that describes the importance of satisfying an individual's psychological needs so that they can feel motivated to enact particular behaviors and subsequently experience a sense of well-being while conducting those actions. As described by SDT, the psychological needs are competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Competence refers to an individual feeling effective in accomplishing tasks in their environment. Autonomy is an individual's perception of being able to make decisions related to tasks. Relatedness refers to having strong and caring relationships with others in collaborative tasks. Using this theory, GTAs' psychological needs can be explicitly explored to understand how they are (or are not) being satisfied in a particular instructional environment. Additionally, GTAs can integrate the values or beliefs of the instructional environment into their own personal beliefs to enact the beliefs and values of the environment. While SDT posits that competence, autonomy, and relatedness are critical psychological needs to support task motivation, cultures may not value these needs and create environments to support them. Ultimately, the culture impacts individuals' perceptions of the satisfaction or frustration of their psychological needs.
Since GTAs are part of a broader department teaching culture that can influence their environment, this proposed study draws on the ecological systems theory to operationally define departmental culture (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Reid & Gardner, 2020). Ecological systems theory describes differing levels of a cultural environment at the individual, microsystem, and exosystem levels. A single instructor (GTA or faculty member) is at the individual level of an instructional environment. The microsystem consists of the individuals and the environment with which an individual has regular, direct contact (e.g., other faculty, GTAs, and students). The exosystem comprises the broader department within which an individual works, but can also include individuals who are not regular personal contacts.
Due to the interconnected nature of STEM departments, both GTAs and faculty members are essential to consider when analyzing GTAs' psychological needs for teaching. Thus, this dissertation chapter includes the perspectives of both GTAs and faculty. I define faculty as individuals, other than GTAs, who teach in a STEM department (e.g., tenure-track faculty, contingent faculty, adjunct, etc.). Instructors are defined in this project as any individual who teaches in a department (GTAs and faculty; AAAS, 2023). In this chapter, I argue that a department's psychological needs (which I call cultural needs) can be considered to understand STEM departments' motivation to foster a Culture of Learning that is inclusive, collaborative, and growth-oriented. I anticipated that fostering a Culture of Learning would be achieved by supporting individuals in developing reflective practices to continually strive to improve their instruction (growth-oriented) of all students (inclusive) through interactions around teaching (collaborative; Henderson et al., 2011;Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005;Machost & Stains, 2023).
This study used an explanatory sequential mixed-methods research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017;Ivankova et al., 2006) to address the following research questions:
1. How do individuals perceive satisfaction or frustration for their psychological needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy in reflection?
2. How do individuals perceive satisfaction or frustration for their department's cultural needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy in reflection?
3. How do individuals perceive cultural integration or dissonance in their department for relatedness, competence, and autonomy in reflection?
4. When reflecting on their psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, how do individuals perceive the roles of people, power, structures, and symbols within the departmental teaching culture?
This literature review focuses on operationally defining the teaching culture of STEM departments. First, I define culture using the four frames model (Bolman & Deal, 2017;Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). Then, I describe the prior literature on STEM department teaching cultures to describe a Culture of Learning.
Though there are various definitions for culture (Langan-Fox & Tan, 1997), it can be defined as the shared assumptions of a group of individuals on "what is done, how it is done, and who is involved in doing it" (Tierney, 1988, p. 3). The four frames model is drawn upon in this study to describe STEM department culture as composed of four critical components that help define the shared assumptions of people, power, structures, and symbols (Bolman & Deal, 2017;Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). Though this framework was originally conceptualized in the business or organization management literature (Bolman & Deal, 2017), Reinholz and Apkarian (2018) have since used the framework to describe critical components of STEM department teaching cultures involved in institutional change efforts. This framework serves as a taxonomy of culture as it identifies four critical components of a department that might potentially impact the shared assumptions of the culture. Each component of the framework is described in more detail below.
This framework describes the importance of considering individuals within the department as having varying professional goals and identities (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018;Ryan & Deci, 2017). The people component assumes that people and organizations need one another, and their codependency is a key aspect of defining the organization's culture (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Organizations such as STEM departments support the careers and opportunities of individual instructors. Instructors also accomplish the department's goals by bringing ideas and individual strengths to their teaching. This frame also emphasizes the importance of individual perspectives and goals for teaching within the larger STEM departments and how these might combine to impact teaching culture (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). For instance, a GTA may teach in order to receive a tuition waiver and be more interested in developing a researcher identity. Another GTA, however, may teach because they enjoy supporting student learning and may be interested in developing a teacher identity.
Departments are also composed of individuals who interact with one another. The people component of the four frames model assumes that these interactions come with varying status based on an individual's professional positions or assigned roles (Bolman & Deal, 2017;Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). For instance, a department chair is in a position of power within the department compared to a GTA. As such, the people and power components can be meaningfully considered as a mutually-supporting "pair" (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018, p. 5).
Other aspects of a person's identity can also influence power dynamics (e.g., ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation; Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). Important decisions, such as funding, can be mediated by power dynamics in negotiations between individuals (Bolman & Deal, 2017). For instance, a GTA could have the idea to update a course activity but may not have the power or funding to enact the change.
Structures in the four frames model refer to the roles, practices, or responsibilities individuals have within the department that can influence interactions with one another (Bolman & Deal, 2017;Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). The structure component assumes that organizations can achieve particular goals by increasing the efficiency and specialization of individuals (Bolman & Deal, 2017). For instance, within a biology department, one instructor may have specific expertise in cell biology. The structure component indicates that this instructor should teach the cell biology courses to provide opportunities for the instructor to specialize in their teaching within their area of expertise. Structures can also include the formal positions of instructors within the department (e.g., adjunct, tenured faculty, GTAs, etc.) or policies such as the emphasis on teaching in tenure and promotion guidelines (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018).
Similar to the people and power components, the structures and symbols components can be considered as a pair to understand department culture (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018).
Symbols are the beliefs, values, and norms used to guide individuals' reasoning (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). These symbols "give meaning to the structures" present within departments (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018, p. 4) by providing a sense of purpose (Bolman & Deal, 2017). As such, the structure and symbol competence can also be considered as a mutually supporting pair (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). For instance, a symbol in a STEM department could be a preference or attitude toward using a specific teaching practice (Reinholz, Ngai, et al., 2019). Where instructors in the department may think the practice does (or does not) align with the purposes of teaching in their department. Additionally, people can experience or interpret cultural symbols in multiple ways (Bolman & Deal, 2017), as they might be difficult to articulate and communicate (Wenger, 1998). Therefore, as people leave and join the department, the meaning of symbols can be negotiated as individuals interact with one another (Wenger, 1998).
Departments within higher education are composed of many individuals (people) who can share assumptions (symbols) about who in the department teaches (power), what they teach (structures), and how they teach (symbols). Thus, STEM departments can develop a teaching culture that can change over time (Corbo et al., 2016;Reinholz, Matz, et al., 2019). Departments can also have embedded subcultures that could be influenced by each of the components of the four frames model (Reinholz, Matz, et al., 2019). For instance, a subculture could be based on position in the department (people and power), such as the GTAs or tenured faculty. A subculture could also occur when individuals teach the same or similar disciplinary courses.
Departments could also be considered as a subculture of the broader university. In this project, I specifically consider STEM departments not as a monoculture, but one in which smaller subcultures can exist. When new to the department, individuals can learn and incorporate aspects of the culture or subculture through socialization (Tierney, 1997). Some aspects of the culture might not promote teaching as a positive task, such as telling GTAs messages about spending time on teaching and how it will damage their ability to complete their research (Reid & Gardner, 2020). It is, therefore, important to consider how changes to the department culture can be initiated and sustained.
Prior research has attempted to describe STEM department teaching cultures in an effort to understand and support change for instructors toward evidence-based practices (Couch et al., 2024;Reinholz et al., 2021;Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). Yet, to enact change for undergraduate education, individuals need to work within their department culture to strengthen aspects that encourage positive changes in the teaching culture (Baldwin, 2009). One way that this project has found it useful to understand STEM departmental teaching cultures is across three dynamic descriptors. The teaching culture in STEM departments can be described on a scale from weedout to inclusive, isolationist to collaborative, and stagnant to growth (Figure 4-1). The aim of the broader project is to support STEM departments in developing cultures more aligned with the inclusive, collaborative, and growth ends of the continuum. A culture aligned with the inclusive, collaborative, and growth ends of the continuum can be described as a Culture of Learning (Murphy, 2024). Within each of the three descriptive scales, there could be particular people, power, structure, and symbol components that influence the department culture to be more aligned with one side or the other of the continuum. Each of these cultural continuums will be described in more detail below.
Weed-out cultures are a manifestation of the belief that the goal of STEM education is to find the "gems" or the "best" students in a population (Baldwin, 2009;Thiry et al., 2019).
Typically, a weed-out culture can promote a hostile and competitive environment, where instructors serve as a filter to remove students who are perceived as not belonging in STEM (Baldwin, 2009;Thiry et al., 2019). This contrasts with an inclusive culture where instructors shift their focus from "weeding-out" students to trying to support the learning of all students in their classrooms (Baldwin, 2009;Theobald et al., 2020). An inclusive culture does not seek to lower standards by including all students but rather seeks to support student learning by attending to their learning of the content and psychological well-being within the classroom (Theobald et al., 2020). Evidence-based instructional practices (EBIPs) are teaching practices that can support all students' learning. EBIPs are based on constructivist theories of learning, which describe that knowledge is "constructed" by individual students to incorporate new concepts and modify their existing understandings (Cooper, 2014;Driscoll, 2004). EBIPs can include supporting students to reason through talk and using formative assessments with the goal of understanding the student as an individual and clarifying the unique knowledge and experiences they bring to the classroom (Abell et al., 2018;Dirks et al., 2014). EBIPs address opportunity gaps among student groups (S. Freeman et al., 2014;Theobald et al., 2020), thereby supporting the learning of all students and creating a culture in which all students perceive their inclusion in a STEM field.
A stagnant culture does not continually change or advance its pedagogical approaches.
Stagnant cultures can be a result of the department prioritizing research, which can limit and discourage the time instructors spend on professional development around their teaching (Baldwin, 2009;Reinholz et al., 2018). By contrast, in a growth culture, instructors regularly engage in advancements of their teaching practices because they are reflecting and attempting to grow. Instructors can advance their pedagogical practices by analyzing their enactments and deeply reflecting on their rationale for aspects of their practice (e.g., using a particular activity or deciding to cover a concept or not; Reinholz et al., 2018). A growth culture can also support reflection in teaching practices, where instructors provide feedback on their colleagues' teaching practices (Bleiler-Baxter et al., 2021;Reinholz et al., 2018).
In an isolationist culture, instructors do not interact and collaborate with colleagues to support their teaching. In an isolationist culture, there is a focus on individualism, which can limit exchanges of ideas and practices around teaching (Gizir & Simsek, 2005;Reinholz et al., 2018). This also leads to limited opportunities for instructors to invite colleagues to observe and provide feedback on their teaching (Reinholz et al., 2018). On the other hand, in a collaborative teaching culture, instructors regularly receive support and feedback from their colleagues (Cox, 2004;Reinholz et al., 2018;Richlin & Cox, 2004). For instance, instructors could be regularly invited to observe and provide feedback on their colleagues' teaching (Bleiler-Baxter et al., 2021). Thus, regular interactions and developed relationships with colleagues can support each instructor's teaching practices in a collaborative culture. During collaboration in a Culture of Learning, participants feel safe sharing their thoughts and concerns without fear of being ridiculed (Murphy, 2024).
Changing STEM department cultures around instructional practices is challenging and requires continued attention to components of teaching culture that support or thwart instructors in enacting those practices (Borrego & Henderson, 2014;Corbo et al., 2016;Henderson et al., 2011). For instance, one longitudinal study found that a department initially made great strides toward instructors' use of EBIPs but "backslid" when departmental structural supports ended (e.g., funding, planned meetings; Corbo et al., 2016;Reinholz et al., 2019Reinholz et al., , p. 1135)).
One way to change STEM departmental cultures around instructional practices is to support instructors in developing as reflective teachers (Henderson et al., 2011). The goal of reflection is for instructors to "continually improve one's own efficacy and abilities as an educator" (Machost & Stains, 2023, p. 2). In this manner, instructors can use core reflection on their beliefs, identity, and mission to continually improve their own teaching (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005). If reflection occurs on a larger scale within the department, it could also impact the broader departmental culture. Thus, reflective individuals and departments may continually strive to support the learning of all students (inclusive culture), grow in their teaching practices (growth culture), and collaborate with their colleagues on teaching (collaborative culture).
This chapter sought to understand the baseline teaching culture in STEM departments before implementing an initiative designed around reflection to support a Culture of Learning, which is collaborative, inclusive, and growth-oriented. In particular, this study focused on including GTAs in research on STEM department teaching culture. Since in the literature, GTAs appear to largely be left out of the research on STEM departmental culture and its instructional change (e.g., Corbo et al., 2016;Couch et al., 2024;Herman et al., 2018). However, since GTAs teach within STEM departments, they are important individuals to consider as "newcomers" who must navigate and learn the teaching culture of their STEM departments (Wenger, 1998, p. 90).
In research, theoretical frameworks can draw attention to or obscure phenomena and, as such, are essential considerations in determining research designs (Mewborn, 2005; Spangler & Williams, 2019; Stinson & Walshaw, 2017). Theoretical frameworks can be distinguished into different levels based on Stinson and Walshaw's (2017) description of broad-, mid-, and groundlevel theories. Broad-level or high-level theories are often referred to as research paradigms based on larger philosophical traditions (e.g., set of characteristics, beliefs, or worldviews to describe the assumptions and orientations of individuals; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Luft et al., 2022; Mewborn, 2005; Spangler & Williams, 2019). Mid-level theories are more specific and determine the focus of the research study, while ground-level theories are used to analyze the data (Spangler & Williams, 2019; Stinson & Walshaw, 2017). The broad-level theory of interpretivism guided this study. The study is also guided by the mid-level theoretical frameworks of the psychological needs of SDT, ecological systems theory, and the four frames model of culture. The psychological needs and the four frames model are also used as groundlevel theoretical frameworks.
The theory of interpretivism frames this study to understand a phenomenon with an
acknowledgment that what we can know as researchers about knowledge and truth is subjective based on individuals' perspectives and experiences (Stinson & Walshaw, 2017). Therefore, this theory acknowledges that participants' and researchers' perceptions are subjective based on their experiences (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). In the context of this study, interpretivism is a useful perspective because the nature of knowledge, reality, and worldviews can vary widely across the participants within a single departmental culture. Interpretivism also seeks to "include richness" in its findings rather than make broad generalizations (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020, p. 41). For this chapter, I included richness of the data by providing relevant background and details from participants. Additionally, I did not seek to make broad generalizations about the entire population of GTAs or faculty across various contexts.
This study used SDT as a framework to describe and conceptualize the psychological needs of individual participants and consider the supportive and hindering features of instructors' department cultures, specifically for teaching (Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT is a broad theory describing how the features of particular contexts can facilitate motivation and subsequent feelings of wellness in individuals (Ryan & Deci, 2017). One idea within SDT includes the basic psychological needs theory. The psychological needs theory suggests that individuals need competence, autonomy, and relatedness to thrive within an environment (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Analogous to biological nutrients (e.g., amino acids, oxygen, and water) required for living, SDT is clear about the psychological needs being considered essential nutrients for an individual's growth and thriving within their context (Legault, 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017;Van den Broeck et al., 2010). This begs the importance of considering instructors' psychological needs within their department teaching culture to understand motivation related to instructional practices. These psychological needs and general descriptions in teaching contexts are described in more detail below. Each definition is then narrowed for this chapter to specifically consider each psychological need for four dimensions of teaching (planning, enacting, assessing student learning, and reflecting).
Competence describes an individual's need to feel effective at accomplishing a task and a sense of mastery for the task within various aspects of their life (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In instructional contexts, competence typically refers to an instructor's perception of feeling effective at accomplishing teaching-related tasks (Hardre, 2013). I specifically define competence as an instructor's need to feel effective at planning, enacting, assessing student learning, and reflecting on their teaching to support the learning of all students. The field would predict that supporting the learning of all students would require instructors to use EBIPs (Cooper, 2014;Driscoll, 2004;Freeman et al., 2014;Theobald et al., 2020). Therefore, I anticipated that instructors would likely need to use EBIPs in order to feel competent to support the learning of all students. Ryan and Deci (2017) also indicated that perceptions of competence can be "readily thwarted" by challenging tasks, consistently receiving negative feedback, and self-criticism or comparing oneself to others (p. 11). An individual's need for competence can be supported by providing some structure or scaffolds for tasks and positive feedback on their actions (Deci et al., 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017). Instructors' perceptions of competence could be supported by receiving positive feedback from colleagues and being provided with some scaffolded support for their instruction.
Autonomy describes the need for individuals to perceive being able to self-govern and make their own decisions (Legault, 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017). In other words, autonomy refers to an individual's need to act "as [the] origin rather than [a] pawn" in decision-making (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990, p. 673). In teaching, autonomy can refer to the degree to which instructors have control or choice to enact particular behaviors related to the curriculum, teaching practices, and assessment of student learning (Dillard et al., 2023;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017;Pearson & Moomaw, 2006). In this study, I specifically define autonomy as an instructor's self-governance to choose and advance their pedagogical practices (planning, enactment, assessment of student learning, and reflection). Environments can support autonomy by encouraging choice and selfregulation for completing tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In teaching, this indicates that instructors' perceptions of autonomy can be influenced by their department culture, including interactions with other instructors or administrators.
The psychological need for relatedness describes how individuals need to be socially connected or have close relationships with others (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Close relationships are defined as having trust and mutual caring for one another (Deci & Ryan, 2012;Van den Broeck et al., 2010). I specifically define relatedness as an instructor's need for supportive relationships with fellow instructors, administrators, and students (Klassen et al., 2012) to work collaboratively on aspects of their teaching practice (planning, enactment, assessment of student learning, and reflection). The need for relatedness drives individuals' initial desires to have close relationships with others. However, for relatedness to be satisfied, these relationships must also foster a sense of belonging within a group through contributions that are valued by the members (Ryan & Deci, 2017;Van den Broeck et al., 2010). To support perceptions of relatedness, instructors need to have trusting relationships with teaching colleagues. The connection among the psychological needs to lead to well-being, adapted from Legault (2017) and Deci and colleagues (2017) Note. The dark blue boxes indicate the psychological needs. The light blue boxes refer to potential supports and thwarts of each psychological need. The green box refers to the overall satisfaction or frustration of instructors' psychological needs. The grey boxes indicate important constructs to consider in SDT but are beyond the scope of this study.
Competence, autonomy, and relatedness can then be considered aggregated to indicate the satisfaction or frustration of an individual's psychological needs holistically (Deci et al., 2017;Legault, 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017), which is represented by the green box in Figure 4-2. It is important to note that the satisfaction or frustration of an individual's psychological needs can vary within contexts and over time (Ryan & Deci, 2017). For instance, different concepts and types of activities can be used in curricula, and instructors can feel more or less competent to teach particular concepts to all students. According to SDT, the need satisfaction of instructors' relatedness, competence, and autonomy can result in motivation for particular practices related to their teaching (Deci & Ryan, 2012;Legault, 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017;Van den Broeck et al., 2010). There may be individuals whose perceptions of their psychological needs do not align with what SDT would suggest is important for motivated action. For example, a more introverted individual may need collaboration according to SDT in order to be motivated to enact various challenging instructional methods. However, the person may not value collaboration, and thus, not seek it out (Ryan & Deci, 2017). In this manner, the value of working independently may not be conducive to need satisfaction according to SDT, even if the individual perceives satisfaction from working independently.
SDT specifies different types of motivation individuals can experience, represented on a continuum from autonomous to controlled motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Autonomous motivation occurs when individuals are motivated to engage in a task of their own choice and willingness (i.e., act with autonomy; Deci et al., 2017;Ryan & Deci, 2017). While autonomy is focused on an individual's perceptions of being able to self-govern or make decisions, autonomous motivation is focused on being motivated to perform a task (Van den Broeck et al., 2010). Even tasks controlled by external factors (e.g., those related to workplace expectations from supervisors) can also be autonomously motivated if individuals engage with the tasks willingly, often when they understand the purpose and value of the tasks (Deci et al., 2017). On the other hand, controlled motivation occurs when individuals perceive their actions to be directly influenced by others through rewards or threats (Deci et al., 2017).
I specifically framed motivation in this study around instructors' motivation for teaching in an inclusive (supporting the learning of all students), collaborative (with trusted teaching colleagues), and growth-oriented (continuously improving instruction) manner. For instance, instructors may feel autonomously motivated to use EBIPs when they understand the purpose and value of these practices to support the learning of all students. In contrast, instructors could experience controlled motivation if they feel forced to use EBIPs (by faculty, departments, universities, etc.) rather than authentically using these practices.
The motivation an individual experiences can influence their behavior and well-being around specific tasks (teaching tasks in this context). For instance, particular behaviors could refer to the quantity or quality of the work completed by individuals (Deci et al., 2017). In this context, behaviors refer to any behavior or practice of an instructor during their planning, enactment, assessment of student learning, and reflection. Autonomously motivated individuals can perform better, learn better, and have higher perceptions of health or well-being related to their classroom practices (Deci et al., 2017). If instructors feel autonomously motivated, they subsequently may enact behaviors that create a positive feedback loop in supporting their psychological needs and well-being. A key focus of SDT is on the individuals' perceptions of their psychological needs within particular contexts. Throughout the literature on SDT, there are mentions of the role others can have in influencing an individual's perception of their psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
There is a tendency for individuals to integrate values and beliefs from their environment into their own previously established values and beliefs (Ryan & Deci, 2017). SDT posits that individuals who fully integrate the values and beliefs of their environment can autonomously enact behaviors aligned with these values and beliefs. Individuals tend to integrate values and beliefs in order to connect with others in the environment (i.e., attempt to satisfy their need for relatedness) and to feel competence for enacting the particular behaviors valued by a culture (i.e., attempt to satisfy their need for competence). The degree to which the behaviors are enacted by the individual through their own volition or not (controlled) influences the satisfaction of their need for autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
For instance, imagine that an introverted person joins a teaching culture that values and believes in their independence when reflecting on their instruction. This
In biology, an ecosystem comprises all the living organisms (e.g., plants, mammals, microorganisms, etc.) and their interactions with their non-living physical environment (water, soil, rocks, air, etc.;Phelan, 2014). Ecologists increasingly recognize the importance of a systems approach to understanding ecosystems, where one cannot divorce the individual organisms from the emergent properties that arise from their interactions and increasingly more complex organizational levels (Blew, 1996).
To adapt ecosystem theory to human sociological systems specifically, I drew on Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological systems theory and subsequent adaptations for instructors in higher education (Reid & Gardner, 2020). Specifically, I condensed the ecological systems theory into three levels that describe the ecosystems individuals in STEM departments are a part of related to their teaching roles: 1) the individual, 2) the microsystem, and 3) the exosystem (Figure 4-3; Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Reid & Gardner, 2020). While the other ecosystem levels described by Bronfenbrenner (i.e., mesosystem and macrosystem) are useful to consider, this study aims to understand instructors' perceptions (the individual level) of the people and structures they regularly interact for teaching (comprises the microsystem) and the broader department they are a part of (comprises the exosystem). While recognizing the complexity of multiple ecosystem levels, I streamlined this model to address specific components of teaching culture in STEM departments.
Ecological systems theory adapted from Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Reid and Gardner (2020) Specifically, the individual in ecological systems theory is considered an "active, growing human being" who interacts dynamically with their immediate settings and the more extensive settings they are embedded within (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 21). This study considers an instructor at the individual level. The microsystem comprises individuals interacting with others to perform roles and activities in a particular setting (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). For example, at the microsystem level, GTAs directly interact with others, such as students, other GTAs, and faculty members within their environment. Additionally, there can be particular structures of their teaching context, such as implicit or explicit expectations for what and how students are taught, which manifest through these direct interactions (Birt et al., 2019;Luft et al., 2004). The exosystem consists of structures and people that the individuals do not directly interact with but influence the overall setting the individual acts within (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In this context, the exosystem comprises the department and the indirect interactions instructors can have with others in the department regarding their teaching roles.
The interactions, activities, and roles in ecological systems theory can be described as the structural components of a broader culture of a group of people (Tierney, 1997). Thus, individual people (individuals) shape and are shaped by those they interact with in a subculture (microsystem), which, in turn, shape and are shaped by those indirect messages they receive from the larger departmental culture (exosystems). The four frames model and the goals for the department teaching culture described in the literature review are used to further describe the components of culture in STEM departments (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018). perceptions of their psychological needs for teaching. However, as described by both SDT and ecological systems theory, it is essential to consider the impact of an individual's environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Ryan & Deci, 2017) to support their psychological needs. Thus, in this study, two important departmental cultural levels can impact instructors' perceptions of their
The microsystem consists of people GTAs directly interact with for teaching, such as students, peer GTAs, and faculty members. The people component at the microsystem level emphasizes the importance of considering individual GTAs' goals, identities, and perceptions of their psychological needs for teaching within their subculture (Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018).
GTAs' microsystems are also composed of people with particular power dynamics. For instance,
GTAs could be perceived as having a higher power or position than their students. In contrast,
GTAs could be perceived as having less power than faculty members with whom they regularly interact about teaching. Particular power dynamics could support or thwart GTAs' perceptions of relatedness with others for teaching. Faculty members can have particular structures for GTAs regarding teaching, such as a required curriculum GTAs are expected to enact (Birt et al., 2019;Luft et al., 2004). A required curriculum could then lower GTAs' perceptions of autonomy (Akcayir et al., 2024;Birt et al., 2019;Goodwin et al., 2021;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017).
Having a required curriculum could also be representative of the faculty members' norms (or symbols) to support GTAs in their teaching positions. In this example, if the GTA does not value the required curriculum, they may perceive cultural dissonance (misalignment between their values and the faculty members' values to support GTAs) for the psychological need of relatedness.
The exosystem consists of people, such as the department chair, who do not directly (or rarely) interact with GTAs for teaching. Similar to the microsystem level, the people component at the exosystem level emphasizes the importance of considering individual GTAs' goals, identities, and perceptions of their psychological needs within the broader departmental culture.
Exosystems are also composed of particular power dynamics, as people in power (e.g., department chairs and committees) can influence the particular structures or responsibilities expected of GTAs in their teaching positions. For instance, there could be a particular structure where GTAs are expected to only spend twenty hours per week on all aspects of their teaching.
Symbols within the exosystem can also influence this department structure if there are perceptions that GTAs should spend more time on research rather than teaching (Reid & Gardner, 2020). If GTAs receive messages to limit the time they spend on teaching, this could thwart their perceptions of autonomy by limiting the advancement of their teaching and could cause cultural dissonance.
This chapter sought to describe the psychological needs of the broader exosystem (or department) teaching cultures that GTAs are in. While SDT has been described as a theory of motivation for individuals (Ryan & Deci, 2017), I argue that it can be valuable to consider the department's collective psychological needs, which I call the department's cultural needs, as an emergent property of its members' individual perceptions of those needs. In particular, analyzing a department's cultural needs could help researchers understand the potential for moving the teaching culture and practices toward a learning culture that emphasizes growth, inclusivity, and collaboration. A focus on the department's cultural needs also allowed me to consider individuals' integration into the departmental teaching culture. To my knowledge, SDT has not been used previously in the literature as a theory of motivation for departments (or other organizations). However, the literature on empowerment as a theory of motivation has described both psychological empowerment (individual motivation) and community empowerment (motivation of multiple individuals; Peterson & Zimmerman, 2004;Zimmerman, 1995).
Therefore, I similarly adapted the psychological needs (to be described as cultural needs) of SDT theory to the broader STEM department culture or the exosystem level (Table 4-1).
Instructor's perceived selfgovernance to choose and advance their pedagogical practices (e.g., I choose to change my teaching practices)
Department's perceived selfgovernance to choose and advance pedagogical practices (e.g., we as a department change our teaching practices)
At the department level, the cultural needs can be assessed along the scales of weed-out to inclusive, isolationist to collaborative, and stagnant to growth. This dissertation proposes that a weed-out STEM department culture is a manifestation of the frustration of instructors' need for competence to support all students in learning. An isolationist culture in a STEM department teaching culture is the manifestation of frustration of instructors' need for relatedness with teaching colleagues. A stagnant teaching culture is a manifestation of the frustration of instructors' need for autonomy to engage in pedagogical advancements.
This study sought to understand instructors' perceptions of their psychological needs at the individual and department levels. This study also sought to understand how instructors perceived people, power, structures, and symbols within their department. To address these research aims, I used explanatory sequential mixed methods where both quantitative and qualitative data were collected (Ivankova et al., 2006;Mills & Gay, 2016). Specifically, there were three phases of data collection and analysis. First, I collected and analyzed the quantitative data from survey responses. Second, I collected and analyzed the qualitative data from focus group interviews.
These data were analyzed separately prior to the third phase, where the quantitative and qualitative data were integrated to determine holistic conclusions of all the data. It is important to note that this mixed methods approach aligned with the interpretivist perspective (the broad-level theoretical framework of this study) since the participants' survey and interview responses represent their perspectives and not an objective reality about their department's culture (Creswell et al., 2006;McChesney & Aldridge, 2019). Additionally, these data were analyzed through my subjective understanding of the participants' responses (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020;Stinson & Walshaw, 2017). Below, more details are described regarding my positionality, participants, data collection, and analysis for this study.
Through my prior research experiences, I started to understand how each person's reality depends on their perspective and how they construct their reality (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020;Stinson & Walshaw, 2017). This perspective aligns with the interpretivist paradigm, the broadlevel theory that frames this work. Throughout this project, I intentionally attempted to be cognizant of each participant's experiences and perspectives. I also recognized that my prior experiences as a biologist, GTA, and education researcher influenced the findings of this chapter.
I identify as a white American female. I have been a biology GTA for five years (10 semesters), including four semesters as a GTA in the biology department included in this study. Therefore, I am familiar with the biology department in this study and have prior experience as a GTA, which could have influenced the interpretation of this data to some extent.
The participants of this study were individuals who teach within the Biology, Chemistry, To develop the survey for this study, I first reviewed the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction at Work Scale, commonly used in SDT research for non-academic work settings (Deci et al., 2001). Since instructors often hold various work roles related to research, teaching, and service, I initially changed the survey to reflect only their role as educators by substituting "teaching" for "work." However, teaching is multidimensional, leading to adaptations of the survey to reflect these different aspects. There were four distinct dimensions of teaching on the survey: 1) planning the curriculum, lessons, and instructional strategies, 2) implementing instructional strategies and managing the learning environment, 3) using formative and summative assessments to measure student progress and provide feedback, and 4) analyzing and reflecting on teaching methods and student outcomes to improve instructional effectiveness and foster growth (Abell et al., 2018). The survey also measured participants' psychological needs at the individual level and the broader teaching culture within their department.
The full survey has 51 items and was administered through Qualtrics (Appendix 4-1).
Three items collected demographic information about the participants, including which STEM department they are in, their position, and the length of time they have been in the department.
Twelve items focused on the individuals' perceptions of their psychological needs on a continuum for each dimension of teaching. Similarly, each item is rephrased slightly with a parallel item to understand the participant's perspective of the broader teaching culture within their department (Shi & Stains, 2021). Both the individual and department-level questions ask participants to indicate their perceptions of the current state of "what is occurring" in their own teaching and the department's teaching culture. The remaining 24 items ask participants questions about their personal preferences (i.e., "what do they want to occur") or desired state for each dimension of their teaching and their colleagues' teaching. These questions allowed me to understand participants' integration into the departmental culture to explore if participants' values are (or are not) aligned with the culture's values (Ngai et al., 2020;Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Since this chapter aimed to have implications for an intervention designed around reflection, I chose to specifically focus the survey analysis on the reflection dimension of teaching for each psychological need. See Figure 4-5 for an example of each of these items for the relatedness in reflection psychological need. Example survey items for the relatedness in reflection psychological need for participants A.) individual current state, B.) individual desired state, C.) department current state, and D.) department desired state The Likert scale for the survey items is 1-5. In Figure 4-5A, a value of 1 Likert scale unit indicated the participant reflects on their teaching independently. A value of 3 Likert scale units indicated the participant reported a neutral response. A value of 4-5 Likert scale units indicated the participant reported reflecting collaboratively with colleagues. This structure is the same for the items that pertain to competence and autonomy. To describe the analysis procedures I used to Additionally, across each department, the average value of all the participants' responses within a department to each item was calculated to get a sense of response reliability across each department. Each of the research questions was then addressed using the average response within the department instead of comparing within an individual participant. This analysis summarized how individuals and departments perceive their psychological needs as satisfied or frustrated within their departments.
The designed survey has undergone several revisions based on feedback from the larger NSF project research team, who are familiar with the project aims and SDT. Before collecting data from participants, the survey was also sent to the advisory board to provide feedback on the phrasing of the questions and alignment with the project aims. This process provided validity evidence based on expert responses (AERA et al., 2014). I also piloted the survey with instructors in the Engineering Technology department at MTSU. Through this process, I was able to obtain feedback from potential participants to provide validity evidence from a similar sample population. Video and audio recordings were taken using Zoom and Otter.ai to generate transcripts.
Transcripts were cleaned (checking for correctness, removing filler words, assigning pseudonyms). Transcripts were then uploaded to Dedoose for qualitative coding. I lead the coding process with four other researchers. Independently, each researcher deductively coded each transcript with the four frames model, ecological systems theory, and the psychological needs (Saldaña, 2013). Each transcript was then reviewed by another researcher. We met as needed to discuss the applied codes and determine consensus. I then reviewed each transcript and the applied codes. Example codes for each of the four frames at the individual and microsystem or departmental level are included in Table 4-2. I reviewed the codes applied to each of the four frames individually and inductively coded the excerpts.
Table 4-2 Example of deductive codes applied to transcripts Four Frames Example at the Individual Level Example at the Microsystem or Department Level People How individuals might be different or have diverse experiences from one another "I'm sharing some of what I responded with. So, I'm pretty sure when I responded to these questions, I responded very similarly to this where in practice, I work pretty independently when I teach here." (Paul, Mathematics FG 1) How individuals within the same department could have different or diverse experiences from one another "Yeah, I'd like to see that broken out between grad students and then faculty members, because if I was, I would be curious to see if I worked collaborating for my for my instruction, fell more towards the grad students and less towards faculty, just is interesting" (Darleane, Chemistry FG 3) Four Frames Example at the Individual Level Example at the Microsystem or Department Level Power No direct interaction or comparison among individuals but something that gives them power (or not) "I don't think I have enough experience with the Math Department to speak to that, even though I am teaching in the math department." (Debbie, Mathematics FG 1)
How interactions among people within the department are mediated by power, status, and positioning "You know, there's this kind of leadership aspect to it. If at some level, Chair level, or some other level, there's an initiative to change teaching in a certain way, you know, then, you know, likely there will be change, and there may also be some thoughts about the change." (James, Geosciences FG 2)
The roles, responsibilities, practices, and routines (the "real things) that individuals have for teaching "Yeah, for one of my courses for cell molecular biology during the pandemic. You know, I took the time to script every single class, and I broke each-each lecture down into 15 minute chunks based around an individual topic. And I recorded little videos to go with every single one of those." (Thomas,Biology FG 2) The roles, responsibilities, practices, and routines (the "real things) that a particular group has for their teaching "With 1410, we do group planning. And I say this because there is a range of collaboration that goes on with that." (Debbie, Mathematics FG 1)
The language, knowledge, myths, values, and vision an individual uses to guide their reasoning "Because it's like on even the very first day, and I say it all the time. I say, We're all in this together. You
The language, knowledge, myths, values, and vision the department uses to guide their reasoning "But if we're looking at averages, it looks like, on average, people are working mostly independently, with some collaboration, and they'd like for their environment to be slightly more collaborative, but not a lot more collaborative" (Paul Math FG 1)
The qualitative data analysis phase sought to provide a "thick" description of STEM department's teaching cultures (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). Multiple researchers coded the focusgroup transcripts to support reliable interpretations of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1986). As indicated by the interpretivist framings of this study, participants' understanding of their world is subjective and based on their prior experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2024). Subsequently, my interpretations of the participants' experiences could be influenced based on my own experiences and understanding. To provide evidence of fairness and ontological authentication in this study, I engaged in reflexivity to consider how my positionality could influence the research process to capture the participants' various perspectives and experiences (Creswell & Poth, 2024;Lincoln & Guba, 1986).
In explanatory sequential mixed methods, the qualitative data is used to help explain and interpret the findings from the quantitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). This data analysis in Phase 3 of this study integrated the quantitative and qualitative data to build written cases for each department that described the teaching culture in each department and how that culture served to meet the psychological needs of instructors when it comes to reflective practice in instruction. This phase relied on a triangulation of data sources (survey and focus group interview responses) to provide evidence of the trustworthiness of my claims (Lincoln & Guba, 1986).
Although this study uses a novel framework to understand and characterize department culture through the lens of SDT, there are a few limitations. A delimitation of this study is that the culture of four departments (biology, chemistry, geology, and mathematical sciences) of one university were studied. It is possible that a different STEM department at the same university or other universities could have different experiences and perspectives of their department culture.
In other words, these findings are not statistically generalizable to other similar contexts.
The focus group participants were presented with survey data from all four dimensions of teaching (planning, enactment, assessment of student learning, and reflection), while the focus of this chapter is specifically on reflection. As such, there are limitations to the connection that can be made across the survey and focus group findings. Within the focus group interviews, participants were shown the data using the language of the different continuums of culture (independent and collaborative, stagnant and growth, weed-out to inclusive), which was not included in the survey instrument. While this phrasing was chosen to quickly capture the essence of each side of the scale, it may have had unintended consequences on participants' interpretation of the data. For instance, the phrasing of a "weed-out course" is colloquially used in higher education spaces, which may have led the focus group participants to associate negative affect with the weed-out side of the scale.
Additionally, the focus groups had individuals of varying positions and power dynamics to better triangulate the perceptions of the teaching culture of a particular department. It is possible that participants were influenced by their position or experiences to share their experiences more or less openly during the focus-group interviews. When orienting participants in the focus group, I attempted to address this by explicitly describing how we anticipated they may have varying views and asked them to be respectful of one another in the conversation.
In this section, I describe the findings from the survey and focus-group interviews. The findings are organized based on the departmental cases (biology, chemistry, geosciences, and mathematical sciences). Within each department case, the findings for each of the research questions are subdivided by each of the three psychological needs. To address research questions one and two, if participants reported a difference between their current and desired state that was equal to or less than 1, I interpreted this finding to indicate the participant perceived satisfaction with their current state (or the department's current state). If the difference between the Likert scale units was greater than 1, I interpreted this finding to indicate the participant perceived frustration for their current state (or the department's current state). For research question three, if the participant perceived satisfaction at the individual and departmental levels, I interpreted this finding to indicate satisfied cultural integration. Similarly, if participants perceived frustration at the individual and departmental levels, I interpreted this as frustrated cultural integration. If the participant perceived satisfaction at the individual level but frustration at the departmental level (or vice versa), I interpreted this as cultural dissonance.
Each survey participant has been given a pseudonym based on the first letter of their department and a number (e.g., B1 is participant one in the biology department). Additionally, the department average Likert score for particular items is indicated with an "A" instead of a participant number (e.g., BA is the biology average). For the survey findings (research questions one, two, and three), I first share the results from the department average Likert score and then participants' individual responses. For research question four, I used the four frames model of culture to understand how instructors perceived the role of people, power, structures, and symbols within their departmental teaching culture, drawing from the focus group interview data.
The survey responses were anonymous and could not be connected to participants in the focus groups; thus, I assigned them separate pseudonyms (which I indicate before sharing the focus group findings for each department).
Most survey participants reported being professors (n = 12), teaching assistants (n = 6), or instructors (n = 4; Table 4-3). Additionally, most survey participants reported being in the biology department for many years. Only seven participants indicated teaching in the department for five or fewer semesters (Table 4-3).
Psychological Need of Relatedness in Reflection? Based on the participants' average response to the survey, participants tended to work independently when reflecting on their teaching (x̄ = 2.2; Table 4-3). The participants reported a relatively neutral Likert response for their desired state of reflection (x̄ = 3.0). The difference between the participants' current and desired state is less than one Likert scale unit (0.8, see final Row of Column 6 in Table 4-3). I have interpreted this finding to indicate the participants' perceived satisfaction with their psychological need for relatedness in reflection of their instruction (indicated with green in Column 6).
Table 4-3 Biology department's survey responses for relatedness in reflection Individual Level (RQ1) Department Level (RQ2) Position Semesters in Department Participant Current State* Desired State* Desired State -Current State † Current State* Desired State* Desired State -Current State † Professor 51 B1 1 2 1 3 -1 Instructor 6 B2 1 5 4 1 2 Instructor 19 B3 1 4 3 3 1 Teaching assistant 5 B4 1 1 0 3 0 Professor 72 B5 4 4 0 3 0 Professor 50 B6 1 1 0 3 0 Professor 60 B7 2 2 0 3 0 Professor 60 B8 1 4 3 2 2 Teaching assistant 2 B9 3 2 -1 3 0 Teaching assistant 2 B10 5 5 0 4 1 Assistant professor 12 B11 1 2 1 1 3 Lecturer 52 B12 3 3 0 3 0 Professor 60+ B13 1 1 0 1 0 Instructor 4 B14 5 5 0 5 0 Desired State -Current State † Current State* Desired State* Desired State -Current State † Teaching assistant 14 B15 2 1 -1 2 0 Teaching assistant 1 B16 4 5 1 3 2 Instructor 16 B17 5 5 0 2 3 Professor 23 B18 1 3 2 2 2 Professor 46 B19 1 1 0 1 0 Lecturer 2 B20 4 4 0 4 0 Professor 60+ B21 1 4 3 3 2 Professor 27 B22 2 3 1 2 1 Professor 60 B23 1 1 0 3 0 Teaching assistant 4 B24 2 3 1 3 1 Professor 23 B25 2 5 3 1 4 Associate professor 62 B26 3 3 0 3 0 Average 2.2 3.0 0.8 2.6 3.5 0.
Seventeen participants (65%) reported they tended to work independently when reflecting on their teaching, three respondents (12%) reported neutral responses, and six (23%) perceived that they worked primarily collaboratively when reflecting on teaching (see Column 4 of Table 4-3). Ten participants (39%) expressed a desire to work independently when reflecting, five reported neutral responses (19%), and eleven (42%) reported wanting to work more collaboratively for teaching reflection (see Column 5 of Table 4-3). Most participants (77%) perceived satisfaction with their current state (a difference of one or less Likert scales between their current and desired state, indicated with green in Column 6 of Table 4-3). A few participants (23%; B2, B3, B8, B18, B21, B26) perceived frustration with their current state (indicated with red in Column 6 of Table 4-3). For these participants, they reported reflecting on their teaching independently but wanted to work more collaboratively.
The participants, on average, perceived the department working independently when reflecting on their teaching (x̄ = 2.6; Table 4-3, last row, Column 7). On average, the participants also reported a desire to work more collaboratively when reflecting on their teaching (x̄ = 3.5; Table 4-3, last row, Column 8). The difference between the participants' average current and desired states is less than one Likert scale unit (0.9, Table 4-3, last row, Column 9). I have interpreted this finding to indicate perceived satisfaction in the biology department for the psychological need of relatedness in their reflective practice. Ten participants (38%) perceived the department working independently when reflecting on teaching, thirteen (50%) reported neutral Likert responses, and three (12%) perceived the department working collaboratively when reflecting on their instruction (see Column 7 of Table 4-3). Four (16%) participants expressed a desire for the department to work between their individual and departmental perceptions of the psychological need of relatedness.
These participants were satisfied with their own reflective practices, but did not think the department's need for relatedness in reflection was being met. One participant (B3; 4%) perceived frustration at the individual level for their psychological need of relatedness in reflective practice (they reflect independently for their instruction but wanted to reflect collaboratively) but were satisfied at the department level (reported a neutral response but wanted the department to reflect slightly more collaboratively; bottom left cell of
Table 4-4). I interpreted this finding to indicate that participant B3 also experienced cultural dissonance for their psychological need of relatedness in reflection in the biology department. RQ4: When Reflecting on Their Psychological Need for Relatedness, How do Individuals Perceive the Roles of People, Power, Structures, and Symbols within the Departmental Teaching Culture? In the biology focus groups, there were a total of eleven participants in three focus groups. The first focus group was composed of Carl, Janaki, Lynn, Robert, and Casey. The second focus group was composed of Ruth Ella, Rita, and Thomas. Barbara, Rachel, and Rosie were in the last focus group. Carl, Rosie, Ruth Ella, and Barbara hold instructor or lecturer positions. Janaki, Lynn, Robert, and Casey are GTAs. Rachel and Thomas are tenure-track and tenured professors, respectively. When reflecting on the collaboration for instruction in the biology department, Barbara stated: Although it's funny that I use[d] the word collaborative. You know, when I said that, I did think that [it] really has a lot to do with what we teach. Because I teach a lot of labs, I teach almost exclusively labs, and we have multiple sections of them. And thus, we make sure that we have consistency across the sections, because you don't want this student who's got me doing this and this student who's got [faculty member] doing this, but they're supposed to be the same thing. So, I thought about that when I said it, I was like, you know what? I bet that's not true for everybody, but it really is for my situation because of that. (Barbara, Biology Focus Group 3, 18:28)
In this quote, Barbara described how the particular department structure of having multiple sections for laboratory courses allowed her to work more collaboratively with her colleagues.
She, however, did recognize that this may be unique to her experience (people) and not representative of the whole biology department. As described by Barbara, there were likely individuals in the biology department who worked independently on their teaching. One participant, Thomas, described his experience:
primarily work independently, certainly when I'm teaching human anatomy and physiology lectures. You know, I don't talk to the other instructors about what I teach, how I teach. I don't necessarily like that, because I come from a prior culture where there's a huge amount of collaboration in teaching. Courses are split between multiple instructors, and people teach in accordance to their expertise across that course, and there's also collaboration as well in terms of how exams are graded, there's this moderation. It's like that. There's standardization between sections. You can get a radically different experience here depending on whose section of course that you take, I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that situation. I guess that's why I would like to see more collaboration. (Thomas, Biology Focus Group 2, 13:07)
In Thomas' experience, he "primarily" worked independently for his teaching, but expressed a desire for more collaboration within the department to give students similar experiences even in courses with multiple sections (structure and symbol). To meet this goal, Thomas described that "it can and should be driven by the course coordinators for our multi-section courses. I think that they need to take a leadership role there [to] get people together and talk about what could be done collaboratively" (23:02). Based on their position in the department (structure), Thomas described that collaboration should be led by the course coordinators of the multi-section biology courses (power). For a course-based undergraduate research course, Carl described working collaboratively with all of the instructors and the course coordinator "all in the sake of keeping things consistent, even for the students" (Biology Focus Group 3, 29:27).
The excerpt below is an exchange from two GTAs discussing collaboration within their weekly preparation meetings:
Robert: Sorry for this, but I'm wondering how much collaboration actually goes on in a meeting you're supposed to go to. I guess it does in a meeting that you're required to go to. Lynn: You're like, get me out of here at four o'clock. You have four o'clock on a Friday. The worst. Robert: So, I imagine that there is a degree of collaboration. Lynn: Collaboration to shut up. (Robert and Lynn, Biology Focus Group 1, 27:38)
From this excerpt, Lynn does not appear to value the opportunity for collaboration within the weekly preparation meetings and later described how working independently made her "happier" (23:43). Since she attends the weekly meetings with the mindset of "collaboration to shut up,"
she does not appear to value collaboration as an important avenue to support her teaching (symbol). Other GTAs, Janaki and Casey, expressed similar sentiments of "liking to work independently" for their teaching (Casey, Biology Focus Group 1, 22:48). This exchange indicates that even though Thomas expressed a desire for more collaboration on teaching within the biology department, this sentiment was not expressed by all participants.
Collaboration in the biology department can be limited due to their "wide range of expertise" (Rita, Biology Focus Group 2, 20:03). For instance, Rachel stated, "I've got a couple of classes that I'm the only person teaching that course. I'm obviously going to work independently and not very collaboratively, because there's nobody" (Rachel Biology Focus Group 3, 19:01). In these quotes, participants described how departmental structures influenced the number of sections offered for courses that could then limit their collaboration for their teaching (symbol). One focus group mentioned that collaboration can also be challenging in the biology department because the "old guard" and others in the department that have the mentality of "this is the way we've always done it" (Barbara, Biology Focus Group 3, 31:08). The "old guard" appeared to have power over the departmental norms for collaboration in biology department, leading to less collaboration in the department (symbol).
When reflecting on her experience with collaboration, Rita stated:
I mean, I'd love to see like [professional learning communities] within the department for these big, [general education courses]. But even for somebody to facilitate that, it's going to take time, and that's not really a resource that many people have. And then even just getting that started, it's like a lot of things, you kind of start here with expectations and as the semester goes and people get busy, it just kind of goes down, down down, down. And then before you know, the semester is over, and the goals weren't even halfway met.
(Rita, Biology Focus Group 2, 23:57)
Rita described how she would love to have departmental structures in place to support collaboration for teaching but recognized the limited time instructors have to dedicate to collaboration. Limited time for collaboration was also described by Rachel and Rosie.
When asked about how the department's collaboration for teaching could be supported,
In order for the department to do something about it, it has to be seen as a major problem first, because the department is always dealing with putting out multiple fires. So, when people are comfortable doing what they're doing, they often don't see the need for more change, especially if it's going to take a lot of effort. And I think it would. (Thomas Focus Group 2,24:49) This quote from Thomas indicates that even though he desired to have more collaboration in the department, it likely will be a challenging endeavor requiring "a lot of effort" after it is seen by the department as a problem to be addressed (symbol).
I interpreted these findings to indicate that within the biology department, there are structures in place for collaboration for certain courses (i.e., weekly preparation meetings for GTAs), but this is inconsistent across the biology department, which results in different experiences for individuals. Participants used differing symbols to reason about their experiences for collaboration with this biology department (e.g., the number of course sections influenced their ability to collaborate). Additionally, participants expressed mixed feelings and attitudes towards collaboration (people). For instance, Thomas expressed a desire for more collaboration, while Lynn, Janaki, and Casey wanted to work more independently in their teaching. Within the biology department, there were limited instances where power was expressed by the participants. 45). The participants also expressed a desire to be competent to use reflection to support the learning of all students (x̄ = 4.7; bottom row, Column 5, Table 45).
The difference between the participants' average current and desired state is less than one Likert scale unit (0.4), which I interpreted as perceived satisfaction for the participants' competence in reflection for their instruction (indicated with green in the bottom row, Column 6 of Table 45).
One participant perceived not being competent in reflection to support the learning of all students (4%), two participants reported neutral responses (8%), and twenty-three participants reported being competent in reflection to support the learning of all students (88%; Column 4 of Table 4-5). All twenty-six participants in the biology department (100%) expressed a desire to be competent in reflection to support the learning of all students (Column 5 of Table 45). Most participants (92%) reported a difference of less than or equal to one Likert scale unit between their current and desired state, which I interpreted as perceived satisfaction for competence in reflection to support the learning of all students (indicated with green in Column 6 of Table 4-5).
Two participants perceived frustration (reported a difference greater than one between their
Table 4-5 Biology department's survey responses for competence in reflection Individual Level (RQ1) Department Level (RQ2) Position Semesters in Department Participant Current State* Desired State* Desired State -Current State † Current State* Desired State* Desired State -Current State † Professor 51 B1 4 4 0 3 4 Instructor 6 B2 5 5 0 3 3 Instructor 19 B3 2 4 2 3 4 Teaching assistant 5 B4 5 5 0 3 3 Professor 72 B5 4 4 0 3 3 Professor 50 B6 5 5 0 3 3 Professor 60 B7 4 4 0 3 3 Professor 60 B8 5 5 0 4 4 Teaching assistant 2 B9 3 4 1 4 4 Teaching assistant 2 B10 5 5 0 2 5 Assistant professor 12 B11 4 5 1 3 5 Lecturer 52 B12 4 5 1 3 5 Professor 60+ B13 5 5 0 5 5 Instructor 4 B14 4 5 1 5 5 Desired State -Current State † Current State* Desired State* Desired State -Current State † Teaching assistant 14 B15 4 4 0 4 0 Teaching assistant 1 B16 4 5 1 4 1 Instructor 16 B17 5 5 0 3 2 Professor 23 B18 3 5 2 3 2 Professor 46 B19 5 5 0 4 1 Lecturer 2 B20 5 5 0 4 1 Professor 60+ B21 5 5 0 3 2 Professor 27 B22 4 5 1 4 1 Professor 60 B23 4 4 0 3 0 Teaching assistant 4 B24 4 4 0 3 1 Professor 23 B25 5 5 0 2 3 Associate professor 62 B26 5 5 0 4 1 Average 4.3 4.7 0.4 3.4 4.3 0.
† If there is a difference between the participants' desired actions and actions that is greater than 1 or less than -1, I interpreted this to indicate the participants' perceptions of competence are frustrated. Perceived frustration is represented by a red background. If there is a difference between the participants' desired actions and actions between or equal to -1 and 1, I interpreted this to indicate the participants' perceptions of competence are satisfied. Perceived satisfaction is represented by a green background. Reflecting on Their Psychological Need for Competence, How do Individuals Perceive the Roles of People, Power, Structures, and Symbols within the Departmental Teaching Culture? When interpreting the data on the biology department's reported competence, Robert stated "such a narrow range up there too. I mean, that's surely a solidarity of mind with regard to that." (Biology Focus Group 1, 37:44). In other words, Robert
interpreted the data presented in the focus group to indicate that participants in the biology department are competent and want to be competent to support the learning of all students (symbol). Similarly, Thomas states "that's why we came to an R3 or an R2 rather than a R1, because we all care about teaching" (Biology Focus Group 2, 36:18). In this quote, Thomas describes his rationale (symbol) that the university structure for research activity indicates the people in the department care about supporting the learning of their students.
Rosie stated, "I wonder if they're confident in what they are doing and not thinking about all students" (Biology Focus Group 3, 37:43). Participants also expressed shock about how high the department's report of confidence was. There were sentiments of "no way that people are that confident" (Lynn, Focus Group 1, 44:41), "I'm actually surprised that the other one is that high" (Rachel, Focus Group 3, 37:30), and that "screams over confidence to me" (Thomas, Focus
Group 2, 28:50). There was also shock in the focus groups for a survey participant (an outlier) who indicated they did not want to be confident to support the learning of all students. When presented with this data, Carl exclaimed:
think someone's trolling you on the right there. Why wouldn't they want to be confident in -where they just being -I don't think that's very sincere...Who doesn't want to be -at least, that's my guess. Not that it matters if that's how they genuinely feel. (Carl, Biology Focus Group 1, 36:54) These data indicate the participants' acknowledgement that individuals can have various experiences and perspectives within the departments' teaching culture (people). The quotes also showed the participants expressed disbelief and shock towards others' reported competence to support the learning of all students (power). Rita also reflected on her competence to support all students in her anatomy and physiology course: So, I can look at it as content wise, I feel confident. Teaching wise, the actual teaching of it, I'm less confident because the classes are usually quite large. Yeah, there's no way to facilitate any kind of active learning or anything like that. (Rita, Biology Focus Group 2, 30:29) This quote describes how Rita perceived competence (power) based on her content knowledge of anatomy and physiology, but perceived lower competence (power) to support students in her actual teaching practices. Rita perceived her limited power to support the learning of all students due to the large course sizes (structure) hindering her ability to use active learning strategies (symbol). Similarly, Thomas stated: I work hard on my teaching. I do put time, thought, and effort into it, but because of my experiences -we keep coming back to human anatomy and physiology -it has a really high DFW rate...there is a subpopulation in that class that I do not seem to be able to reach. I don't think anyone can, because we end up with like a bifurcated population, students that do incredibly well and those that struggle desperately. So, I am not confident that I am supporting those students in the bottom of the pack. I think we're fighting forces that are difficult for our faculty to deal with, you know, some silly social media addiction. Students that have to, have to have a job by working many, many hours outside of school. They are hard to support, and I can't confidently say that I'm supporting them adequately. (Thomas, Biology Focus Group 2, 28:50)
Thomas described how he felt lower perceptions of competence (power) to support all students in the anatomy and physiology course due to outside "forces" with students that are challenging to address as an instructor (symbol).
The type of course taught (Lynn, Focus Group 1, 38:51) can influence the class size, making it a "no-go" for using evidence-based practices (Thomas, Focus Group 2, 34:52).
Additionally, the position of the instructor in the department (Robert, Focus Group 1, 38:34) and responsibilities for research could influence participants' time to be competent to support the learning of all students (Rita, Focus Group 2, 38:36). In each of these instances, the participants reported structural influences as the rationale (symbol) for biology instructors to be competent in supporting the learning of all students.
One focus group discussed how survey participants may have reported being competent because "with help from the [disability access center], it's covered" (Rachel, Focus Group 3, 37:51). This quote indicates that Rachel wondered (symbols) if the department may perceive competence (power) to support the learning of all students when provided with the university structure of a disability access center. When reflecting on accessibility, Rosie stated:
And that was one of the things that I think COVID did wonderful things for us is that, I know some of our faculty turn off the recordings (laughter), but I love that everything is recorded. As a student, if I had a migraine, knowing that I could go back and watch it.
And I've talked to some of our students, and they'll go back and watch the videos, either at increased speed, right at, or at slower speed, and watch it with closed captions. And so there's a lot more access. (Rosie, Biology Focus Group 3, 39:36)
In the excerpt below, Barbara and Rachel describe their rationale for supporting a weed-out culture:
Barbara: One of my courses, absolutely is a weed-out course, and I want it to be, because these are potential doctors, and you don't want some of these people being doctors. It's as flat out as that. Yeah, and that sounds horrible. Rachel: And nurses Barbara: And nurses, I mean -Rachel: Doctors going to be nurses -Barbara: I mean, I want [human anatomy and physiology] to be a weed-out course. I do because, you know, I know we use that term, but because there are some people who just -and there's no shame. There's no shame at all. But there's some people who just think, this is what they want to do, but then realize, "oh no, this is not for me." And that is, that is what college is for. It's for figuring out what you want to be when you grow up.
Rachel: And for a lot of them, we do them a favor, because they think they want to do it, but they have no clue how, you know, first the education, but also the job. (Barbara and Rachel,Biology Focus Group 3,34:06) In this data, Barbara and Rachel describe their rationale (symbol) for why there could be a need for some courses to encourage a weed-out culture in the biology department. Later in this conversation, Rosie pushes back on Rachel and Barbaras' statements by suggesting "There is a difference in weed-out for those who don't want to do the work and those that need a little extra support. And with that support they can get there" (Focus Group 3,35:57). This indicates that Rosie views her rationale (symbol) to support all students differently (people) compared to Barbara and Rachel. This focus group also described how there is the "old idea of how many can I fail? Like almost taking it as a badge of honor" (Barbara,Focus Group 3,36:14). Instructors who believed in this "old idea" are "very rare now" (Barbara, Focus Group 3, 36:14), but
indicates that a weed-out culture (symbol) could have been prominent within the biology department previously.
Ruth Ella expressed a sense of confusion about the departmental data on competence. She stated:
I mean, overall confident about supporting all students. Just, I don't know. I would think that will come from a collaborative kind of place, and so to have confidence in working with lots of different types of students, but not as desirous of working with your colleagues, seems interesting. (Ruth Ella, Biology Focus Group 2, 28:12)
In this quote, Ruth Ella indicates that she believes (symbol) instructors would be competent to support all students in learning (power) if they were working collaboratively with their colleagues. As she saw, however, in the first section of the interview on relatedness, participants in the biology department tended to report working independently for their teaching. Ruth Ella, therefore, expressed confusion in trying to reconcile her conflicting perceptions (people) with the departmental data. Similarly, Casey described how collaboration allowed her to hear that other GTAs also had low class averages on an anatomy and physiology practical, which was "super helpful for [her] confidence" (Focus Group 1, 51:38). In this quote Casey describes how hearing the results of others' exam scores allowed her to increase her competence (power) for her teaching.
I interpreted these data for the biology department's competence in reflection to support the learning of all students to indicate there are different experiences in the department (people).
Participants' perceptions of competence (power) could be influenced by the course they were teaching, help from the disability access center, and collaboration (symbol). One focus group also described a desire for the anatomy and physiology course (structure) to function as a weed-out course (symbol).
Psychological Need of Autonomy in Reflection? The participants in the biology department tended to perceive using reflection to modify their instruction each semester (x̄ = 3.9; last row of Column 4 of Table 4567). The participants also expressed a desire to use reflection to modify their instruction each semester (x̄ = 4.3; last row of Column 5 of Table 4567). The difference between the participants' current state of modifying their instruction and desired state is less than one Likert scale unit (0.4; last row of Column 6 in Table 4567). I interpreted this finding to indicate that most participants in the biology department perceived satisfaction with using reflection to modify their instruction each semester (indicated with green in the law row of Column 6 in Table 4567).
Three participants reported not using reflection to modify their teaching (12%), two participants reported a neutral response (8%), and twenty-one participants perceived using reflection to modify their instruction (80%; Column 4 of Table 4567). One participant expressed a desire not to use reflection to modify their teaching each semester (4%), one participant reported a neutral response (4%), and twenty-four participants reported a desire to use reflection to modify their instruction each semester (Column 5 of Table 4567). Most participants in the biology
Table 4-7 Biology department's survey responses for autonomy in reflection Individual Level (RQ1) Department Level (RQ2) Position Semesters in Department Participant Current State* Desired State* Desired State -Current State † Current State* Desired State* Desired State -Current State † Professor 51 B1 4 4 0 2 2 Instructor 6 B2 5 5 0 2 1 Instructor 19 B3 3 4 1 3 1 Teaching assistant 5 B4 5 5 0 3 0 Professor 72 B5 4 4 0 3 0 Professor 50 B6 2 4 2 3 0 Professor 60 B7 4 4 0 3 0 Professor 60 B8 4 4 0 4 0 Teaching assistant 2 B9 4 4 0 5 -1 Teaching assistant 2 B10 4 5 1 2 3 Assistant professor 12 B11 4 4 0 3 0 Lecturer 52 B12 4 4 0 3 1 Professor 60+ B13 1 1 0 1 0 Instructor 4 B14 5 5 0 5 0
Department's Cultural Need of Autonomy in Reflection? Participants tended to perceive the biology department as using reflection to modify their instruction each semester (x̄ = 3.0; last row of Column 7 in Table 4567). The participants also expressed a desire for the biology department to use reflection to modify their instruction each semester (x̄ = 3.9; last row of Column 8 in Table 4567). The difference between the participants' perceptions of the current state and desired state of the department is less than one Likert scale unit (0.9; last row of Column 9 in
Table 4-7). I interpreted this finding to indicate that participants tended to perceive satisfaction for the biology department's use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester (indicated with green in Column 9 of Table 4-7).
Seven participants reported the biology department not using reflection to modify their instruction each semester (27%), fourteen participants reported neutral responses (54%), and five participants reported the biology department using reflection to modify their instruction each semester (19%; Column 7 in Table 4567). Only one participant expressed a desire for the biology department to not use reflection to modify their instruction each semester (4%; Column 8 in Table 4567). Eight participants reported neutral responses (31%), but most participants expressed a desire for the biology department to use reflection to modify their instruction each semester (65%). Most participants (69%) perceived satisfaction for the department's low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester (indicated with green in Column 9 of Table 4567). Some participants (31%), however, perceived frustration for the department's low use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester (indicated with red in Column 9 of Table 4567).
N/A Note: N/A indicates there were no participants who fell into the category.
Individuals Perceive the Roles of People, Power, Structures, and Symbols within the Departmental Teaching Culture? Many participants in the biology focus groups described they modified their instruction each semester. There were qualifiers, however, for participants to actually undergo full modifications of their instruction. For instance, Barbara stated:
If you looked at this in history, history is not, you know the names and dates are not changing. And so I really remember thinking about that because, I was like "well I don't modify my teaching as far as the information goes. But I would like to think that I get better because of things that change in the way I present it, or the way I explain it. (Barbara,Biology Focus Group 3,47:43) In this quote, Barbara describes how she does not focus on changing the content of the course but changes her enactment each semester (structures). Later in the interview, Barbara described how she was limited in the modifications she could make since they "have the standard across the [course]" (Biology Focus Group 3, 51:06). Therefore, there was another course structure that influenced Barbara's modifications of her teaching each semester. Rita described her experience with modifying her instruction each semester: I do mine every semester, and I wish I didn't. It's not that I don't want to. I want to modify my teaching to improve, but it's like I have to look at everything and go over and redo things, and it drives myself crazy to be honest, and there's very little time to do it. So, I'll start the semester with these ideas. But most of the time, it's just a matter of just tweaking small things, because I don't have the time to go look and implement these ideas. (Rita, Biology Focus Group 2, 41:45) Rita described how even though she modifies her instruction each semester, she "drives [her]self crazy" with the modifications and the limited time to complete them (structure). Additionally, Rita expressed the sentiment of "wishing" she did not have to modify her instruction and was "envious of those who have their notes from the first shot or way back when" since it was a "life of leisure" to teach off their notes (Focus Group 2, 43:27). This was also expressed by Rachel, who stated, "I do modify my teaching each semester, but I never want to undergo the pain" (Biology Focus Group 3, 47:30). In these quotes, participants indicated they viewed modifications of their teaching as something "painful" or that they would rather not do (symbols).
To me it looks like I want to modify until I get it exactly how I want it, and then I'll leave it alone. Because that's kind of how I feel about, I don't know, probably my courses. It's also just a personality thing in general. I want to tweak something until I think I get it exactly how I want it, and then I just want to leave it. I think that's more human nature than it is necessarily this is the right or wrong approach. (Carl, Biology Focus Group 1, 53:56) Carl indicated in this quote that he wants to modify the structures of his instruction, until he gets something "exactly" right and then "leave it alone" (symbol). He also mentioned that this rationale is a "personality thing" and "human nature" (people).
Later in this focus group, Lynn also described her approach to modifications. She stated: My jobs' not to do that. So that's just what I think on it. And I have, like the mentality of I'm tired of teaching now and done with it...[If someone had] like a sunnier disposition on teaching and students than I do, you would definitely have to -like probably all three of you are modifying more than me. I'd be like, nope, you know, like its just the type of person. (Lynn, Biology Focus Group 1, 1:07:50) Lynn expressed the sentiment that she is different from other instructors since she does not have a "sunny disposition" (people), which is similar to Carl's comment about modifications being a "personality thing" (people). She also stated that it is not her "job" to modify her instruction (symbol) because time spent modifying is "less time for research, that's like, less time for research, [and] the longer that I'm going to be here. The longer I'm here, the grouchier GTA I'm going to be" (Biology Focus Group 1, 59:24). I interpreted these quotes to indicate that Lynn viewed her primary role in the department as a researcher and her "grouchiness" led her to not want to modify her instruction (symbol).
Thomas stated, "modifying new teaching takes a lot of time and effort, and tenure-track folks just simply do not have time" (Biology Focus Group 2, 40:36). Thomas described that due to limited time (structure) and external pressures (power) in the department, tenure-track instructors may not engage in modifications of their teaching (symbol). Additionally, as Carl described, "it's not like everyone's asking [you to] completely overhaul your course" (Focus Group 1, 1:04:03). I interpreted these quotes that Carl does not perceive power, structures, or departmental norms (symbols) as influential for the modifications he makes to his teaching each semester.
When considering modifications for teaching within the biology department, Thomas stated:
I think some of us maybe don't necessarily know how to change our courses to improve them. Sometimes there are courses that come up at the [learning and teaching center], and I'll attend them, and they will talk about best practices. And I will incorporate little bits of those, if that doesn't take me too much time and all that. But I think if we had more support, if there was more collaboration to lighten the load of making big changes, I could probably do it more frequently. (Thomas,Biology Focus Group 2,40:36) This data indicates that Thomas perceived that some individuals in the department do not know how to modify their instruction (power). He also indicated that courses at the learning and teaching center (structures) can encourage him to make small modifications (symbol). Thomas also indicated a value for collaboration to support instructors to make more frequent modifications to the department's instruction (symbol).
Thomas and Rita discussed the influence of the biology education research faculty within the department. I love and respect our bio ed faculty, but I don't feel that my feelings are universal across our department, certainly with some of our older faculty. I think that there might be a little bit of hostility and resentment there. So, if they are for a thing, these older folks are against it and resistant to it. How pervasive is that? I don't know. (Thomas,Biology Focus Group 2,48:14).
Thomas described that there are some tensions between biology education faculty and some of the "older faculty" (power). Rita expanded on this tension: Before these programs started here, or [discipline-based education research (DBER)] was even heard of in this department, some of the faculty that would be considered bio ed there was always kind of a little bit less respect for them, as is how I would put it. And I think it has shifted for the better since the department has grown and people are coming from different backgrounds and so forth, but it is still there. And to be honest with you, it's not just here in this department. It seems to be biology culture thing from the whole. So you will go to other recent, other institutions, unless they have a really huge DBER, and that's one of their main areas, you will see that there is misnomer that bio ed people don't work as hard, their research isn't as important. A lot of times it was they didn't bring the money, but that's not really true anymore. (Rita,Biology Focus Group 2,49:11) Rita described that the tension between the biology education researchers and other faculty can be explained by a lack of respect (power). She also described that this has "shifted for the better" as new people have joined the department from various backgrounds (people). Rita also described that she thinks this tension is common across the entire biology culture (symbol). Ruth Ella connected the role of biology education researchers to instructors making modifications to their instruction. I do think that those ideas would be reflected in whether or not you think it's important to modify your teaching…If I don't value the people who are trying to figure out, how do we modify and improve our instruction, then I probably don't necessarily have a lot of value in modifying and improving. (Ruth Ella, Biology Focus Group 2, 51:04)
Here Ruth Ella described that if faculty in the department do not have respect or value (power) for biology education research(ers), they probably also do not perceive value for modifying or improving their instruction (symbol).
Within the biology department, there tended to be discussion regarding particular power dynamics in the department. For instance, there are power dynamics present based on the faculty's research interests. There is also nobody in the department requiring instructors to modify their instruction (power). Participants also mentioned time constraints (structure) required to enact modifications to their instruction, and that modifications can be "painful" (symbol).
Across the biology department, survey participants commonly perceived working independently for their reflection and wanted to reflect independently (last row of Columns 4 and 5 of Table 4-3). Participants' perceptions of reflection in the department were similar, though there was a slightly higher desire for the department to work more collaboratively for reflection (last row of Columns 7 and 8 in Table 4-3). In the focus group, there were varying perceptions of the value of collaboration. Lynn expressed a desire to work independently for her instruction, even though as a GTA, she was required to attend weekly meetings (structure). Thomas expressed a desire to work more collaboratively for his instruction and indicated that this should be driven by the course coordinators of multi-section courses (power). At the department level, participants perceived satisfaction for their relatedness in reflection (last row of Column 9 in Table 4-3). Thus, many participants in the biology department perceived either satisfied or frustrated cultural integration (65%; top left and bottom right cells of Table 4-4). There were a few participants who perceived cultural dissonance in the biology department for their relatedness in teaching reflection (15%; top right and bottom left cells of Table 4-4). This could be due to single-section courses (structure), as the participants mentioned that since there was nobody else teaching the course, collaboration was limited (symbol). Both Ruth Ella and Casey connected collaboration to competence. Ruth Ella expected instructors to perceive competence to support the learning of all students when they collaborated with others (symbol). Casey described an instance in her teaching where collaboration supported her competence (power).
The participants in the biology department tend to report competence in reflection to support the learning of all students at the individual (x̄ = 4.3; last row of Column 4 of Table 45and department levels (x̄ = 3.4; last row of Column 7 of Table 45). Participants also expressed a desire to be competent in reflection at the individual (x̄ = 4.7; last row of Column 5 of Table 45and department levels (x̄ = 4.3; last row of Column 8 of Table 45). In the focus groups, the participants were also shocked at how high their colleagues reported their competence to support the learning of all students (power). On average, the participants perceived satisfaction for their competence in reflection need at the individual and department levels (equal to or less than one Likert scale unit between the participants' reported actions and desired actions; last rows of Column 6 and 9 of Table 45). As such, most participants perceived satisfied cultural integration (69%; top left cell of Table 4-6) for the alignment of their perceptions at the individual and department levels for competence in reflection. A few participants (23%; top right cell of Table 4-6) perceived cultural dissonance for perceiving satisfaction for competence in reflection at the individual level but frustration at the department level (greater than one Likert scale unit between the participants' reported actions and desired actions). Rita described how the large class sizes (structure) meant she could not use active learning practices that would support the learning of all students (symbol). One focus group discussed how they want their course to function as a weed-out course since "you don't want some of these people being doctors" (Barbara, Biology Focus Group 3, 34:06; symbol).
The survey participants in the biology department tended to perceive using reflection to modify their instruction at the individual (x̄ = 3.9; last row of Column 4 of Table 4- Table 4-7). Most participants reported a difference between their current use of reflection to modify their instruction and desired use of reflection as less than or equal to one Likert scale unit. I interpreted this finding to indicate that most participants perceived satisfaction for autonomy at the individual (92%; Column 6 of Table 4567) and department levels (69%; Column 9 of Table 4567). In the focus groups, however, participants described modifying their instruction, but did not always want to modify their instruction (Rita and Carl). Lynn also indicated that she did not perceive it was her job to modify her instruction (symbol). Most participants within the biology department also experienced satisfied cultural integration for the alignment of their satisfaction at the individual and department levels (61%; top left cell of Table 45678). Thirty-nine percent of participants perceived a misalignment between their perceptions of autonomy and the individual and department levels (top right and bottom left cells of Table 45678). I interpreted these findings to indicate that some participants in the biology department perceived cultural dissonance for their use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester. Additionally, limited time and a lack of departmental expectations (structures) appeared to be influential barriers for instructors to not modify their instruction (symbol). Additionally, Thomas mentioned that collaboration could help "lighten the load" of making modifications, which would allow him to do it more frequently (symbol). Within the biology department, focus groups mentioned the impact that collaboration could have on their competence and autonomy.
Most participants in the chemistry department reported being a professor (n = 7) or a teaching assistant (n = 9; Table 456789) on the survey. Half of the participants reported five semesters or less of teaching in the department (n =10; Table 456789.
Psychological Need of Relatedness in Reflection? On average, the chemistry department perceived working slightly collaboratively for reflection (x̄ = 3.3; last row of Column 4 of Table 456789). The participants also expressed a desire to work collaboratively for reflection (x̄ = 4.1; last row of Column 5 of Table 456789). There is a 0.8 Likert scale units difference between the participants' reported actions and desired actions, which indicates that participants, on average, tended to perceive satisfaction for relatedness in reflection (last row of Column 6 of Table 456789).
Five participants reported reflecting independently (25%), seven reported neutral responses (35%), and eight participants reported reflecting on their instruction collaboratively (40%; Column 4 of Table 456789). Fifteen participants (75%) reported a desire to reflect on their instruction collaboratively, four reported neutral responses, and one participant reported a desire to reflect on their instruction independently (5%; Column 5 of Table 456789). I interpreted these findings to indicate that most participants (80%) perceived satisfaction (reported a difference between their current state and desired state of equal to or less than one Likert scale unit) for their relatedness in reflection psychological need (indicated with green in Column 6 of Table 456789). Some participants perceived frustration (reported a difference between their current state and desired state of greater than one Likert scale unit) for their relatedness in reflection psychological need (indicated with red in Column 6 of Table 456789). These participants reported low use of collaboration in reflection and desired to reflect on their instruction more collaboratively with colleagues.
The participants perceived the chemistry department, on average, as working independently for their reflection (x̄ = 2.7; last row of Column 7 of Table 456789). Participants did report a desire for the department to work more collaboratively for reflection (x̄ = 4.1; last row of Column 8 of Table 456789). The difference between the participants' reported actions and desired actions for the department is greater than one Likert scale unit (1.4; last row of Column 9 of Table 456789), which I interpreted to indicate perceived frustration in the department for relatedness.
Eleven participants perceived the department working independently for their reflection (55%), five reported neutral responses (25%), and four participants perceived the department working collaboratively for reflection (20%; Column 7 of Table 456789). No participants reported a desire for the department to work independently for reflection, three participants reported neutral responses (15%), and seventeen participants reported a desire for the department to work collaboratively for reflection (85%; Column 8 of Table 456789). Half (50%) of the participants reported differences in their perceptions of the departments reported and desired actions that were greater than one Likert scale unit, which I interpreted as perceived frustration for the department's relatedness need (indicated with red in Column 9 of Table 456789). These participants expressed a desire for the department to reflect more collaboratively than they perceived the department was working. The other participants (50%) perceived satisfaction with their perceived current state of the department (working independently for reflection, neutral, or working collaboratively for reflection; indicated with green in Column 9 of Table 456789).
Department for Relatedness in Reflection? Many participants in the chemistry department perceived satisfaction at both the individual and department levels (45%; top left cell of Table 45678910). I interpreted this finding to indicate that many participants in the chemistry department perceived satisfied cultural integration for their relatedness in reflection need. Three participants (15%) perceived frustration at both the individual and department levels, which I interpreted as perceived frustrated cultural integration (bottom right cell of Table 4-10) for reflection on their instruction. Thirty-five percent of participants perceived satisfaction at the individual level, but frustration at the department level (top right cell of Table 45678910). I interpreted this finding to indicate these participants perceived cultural dissonance for their relatedness in reflection need.
One participant (5%) perceived frustration at the individual level but satisfaction at the department level, which I interpreted as perceived cultural dissonance for the participants' relatedness for reflection on their instruction.
Table 4-10 Cultural integration and dissonance for the chemistry department's relatedness in reflection Department Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) Individual Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Satisfied Cultural Integration: Participants perceived satisfaction for their reflection and the department's reflection by working independently or collaboratively C3, C7, C8, C10, C11, C12, C13, C14, C16 Cultural Dissonance: Participants perceived satisfaction for their reflection by working independently or collaboratively but perceived frustration for the department working independently or collaboratively CA, C1, C4, C5, C6, C17, C18, C19
the general chemistry laboratory and was the secondary instructor for an organic chemistry laboratory section. She appeared to have some concerns for her position (power) by calling herself "kind of a little helper." Later in the discussion, Alma elaborated on this by stating "I kind of have to rely on Janet most of the time. And that kind of makes me feel like I'm not really, there's no need for me to be there if she knows everything" (Chemistry Focus Group 1, 13:16). From this quote, it appears that Alma has concerns about her role in the supporting the course and students (power), since she has to "rely on" Janet. She then indicates that there is "no need" for her to be secondary due to her reliance on her peer GTA (symbol).
Based on the data shown in the focus groups, Darleane was interested to see it "broken down between grad students and then faculty members, because I would be curious to see if I worked collaboratively for my instruction, fell more towards the grad students and less towards faculty"
(Chemistry Focus Group 3, 18:26). I interpreted this quote to indicate that Darleane perceived certain positions in the department would experience or perhaps desire collaboration in the department differently than others (people). In opportunities for collaboration on instruction, Heidi stated, "I only push so much because I'm not tenured, and I think that, like the lab coordinator, pushes so much because he never feels comfortable doing that (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 30:15). In response, Melanie stated:
He's [a laboratory coordinator] in a stronger position now than he was. But it was an insane situation, which is why I wanted you guys to have permanent jobs. [Darlene: and we thank you for that.] Insane situation to try to have people managing, coordinating, pushing faculty in a direction who were contract to contract. That's insane. (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 30:30)
These quotes from Heidi and Melanie indicate that there are influential power dynamics between position types within the department. Additionally, these power dynamics appeared to have led to the departmental structure that provided more power traditionally "temporary" teaching positions (e.g., laboratory coordinators and lecturers). Darleane described a recent interaction with a colleague in the department:
This year, somebody was standing in my office, another faculty member, and the words came out of their mouth that two people on a [department] committee were not tenured and not tenure-track, and so they could control them and make them do things. I don't know if they forgot who I was, because I just put down my pen and looked at [them] and waited for that to catch up. Then they went, "oh!" They scurried out of my office, and I didn't talk to [them] for two weeks, because every time I saw them, they scurried away.
(Darleane, Chemistry Focus Group 3, 31:48)
In this experience, Darleane described how a faculty member openly described having more power over individuals in the department who were not tenured or on the tenure track but also used that power to manipulate and control their colleagues.
When reflecting on collaboration in the department, Heidi stated: "I think there are people who want to work collaboratively. There just may not be like structures in place to make that easy" (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 19:00). Here Heidi describes how particular people in the chemistry department may value and want collaboration but may have experience trouble due to departmental structures that act as barriers (symbol
). One example of a structure individuals may experience was described by Darleane: Sometimes people can't imagine how to work more collaboratively, particularly if they're the only person who teaches a class. So, I think there's a lot of "how to work collaboratively?" It's hard to judge. I think people don't know how to do it. (Darleane, Chemistry Focus Group 3, 19:41) In this quote, Darleane describes that if an instructor is teaching the only section of a course (structure), they may have trouble "imagining" or determining how they could work collaboratively for their instruction (symbol). Irene described her experience with collaboration in the department: When I've tried to have conversations with other professors about what they're teaching or how they're teaching it, it's almost like they view it as offensive. Like my question is somehow negative when I'm just like "so where are you?" I just wanted to know. (Irene, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 16:18)
Based on Irene's experience, there are certain people in the chemistry department who value working independently for their instruction and perceived collaboration as "offensive." This could potentially be due to a perception that "working independently will mean that you're resourceful. You can use information and find solutions for yourself, when occasion demands for it" (Oluwole, Chemistry Focus Group 2, 16:51). In other words, people may view collaboration for teaching as unnecessary because they can find solutions independently (symbol). There could also be influences of power in this data if Oluwole perceived that collaborating or asking others for help would make instructors lose their power. Oluwole himself described having a different perception of the value of collaboration. He stated:
I actually think we [himself and Ganiyu] probably share the same position concerning this, and that is fact that we are internationals. In this quote, Oluwole described how his personal experiences being an international graduate student (people), led him and Ganiyu to find value in collaboration as they navigate a new culture within the chemistry department and the United States (symbol). Later in the interview, Ganiyu agrees with Oluwole's sentiment by stating, "I'm not a stand-alone man" (Chemistry Focus Group 2, 18:43). This quote provides evidence that Ganiyu also values collaboration for his instruction while navigating a new culture (symbol).
Tashiana reflected on the desire for collaboration within the chemistry department:
If you are seeking out collaboration or being supported, you will see that you will get that. If you're not, you're going to be good all by yourself, so you'll be working independently. And I think that's just what I see...whichever way it's like both exist, and you kind of just go through the routes that you think is most helpful for you, and you think it's most convenient. (Tashiana, Chemistry Focus Group 3, 21:15)
Tashiana described here that she believes within the chemistry department, whether individuals work collaboratively or independently is dependent on if the individuals (people) "seek out" collaboration (symbol). However, as Maria describes, there can be influences to the department's desire to collaborate on their instruction:
I mean everyone's gonna be busy, and I feel like you're never really working on the same thing at the same time. Just kind of hard to ask someone else for help, or how would you do this? Or whatever. Like you really have to go out and try to seek the help. If that makes sense, like you can't just simply ask a question. (Maria, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 11:49)
Based on Maria's quote, limited time (structure) may influence collaboration on teaching since everybody has different responsibilities and schedules when they plan or reflect on their teaching (symbol).
Participants also reflected on the discipline of chemistry, Alma stated: I would assume maybe that the other um, the other groups have more niches that it's hard to collaborate with each other on. Because it's like with chemistry, I mean, take Organic Chemistry, for example. Like someone might not be doing exactly what you're doing, but small aspects of what they know won't be able to help you in some way. (Alma, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 18:54)
Shortly after, Maria elaborated on Alma's comment:
Once you're even in the upper division, our analytical chem and physical chem classes, they overlap. So we've been talking about similar stuff this entire semester, and the same thing last semester in organic, they overlapped a lot. And so I feel like chemistry kind of overlaps a lot more than -I was a biochem major, so I took a lot of biology classes and there are so many niches. They're all so specific. So if you went into an immunology classroom or same thing in a microbiology class, they're gonna be so different from each other that it doesn't really matter what we're doing in those two different classes (Maria, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 19:54)
In these quotes, Alma and Maria described how they view the overlapping, sequential nature of chemistry content in the courses (structure) that may allow instructors to collaborate more than in other departments (symbols). Maria also contrasts chemistry with her prior experiences in levels for lower levels of competence in reflection (frustrated cultural integration, bottom right cell of Table 4-12).
Some participants perceived satisfaction at the individual level, but frustration at the department level (25%), which I interpreted as perceived cultural dissonance for these participants (top right cell of Table 456789101112). Two participants (C16, C20; 10%) perceived frustration at the individual level but satisfaction at the department level (bottom left cell of Table 4-12). Both of these participants perceived lower competence in reflection at the individual level (but desired to have more competence) compared to their perceptions of competence at the department level. I interpreted these findings to indicate that these participants also perceived cultural dissonance in the chemistry department for competence in reflection.
Table 4-12 Cultural integration and dissonance for the chemistry department's competence in reflection Department Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) Individual Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State)
CA, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10, C11, C14, C18, C19
C1, C2, C12, C13, C17 colleagues, due to their experience, may have reported higher perceptions of competence (power) compared to herself (symbol and people), but she felt like the tools she has are insufficient for her to feel competent at this time in her career.
When interpreting the department's reported data, Heidi stated, "So, I'm surprised. I'm surprised it's higher -I'm well, am I though? Am I really surprised that people have a false sense of confidence? (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 35:00). Later in the discussion, Melanie stated, "our colleagues [are] nothing if not confident" (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 35:36). Similarly, Alma stated, "I wonder if that was the situation, they were just overestimating themselves" (Chemistry Focus Group 1, 26:00). There was also shock in the focus groups for a survey participant (an outlier) in the college who indicated on the survey they did not want to be confident to support the learning of all students. When presented with this data, Darleane stated, "Maybe they didn't read the question" (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 47:11). I interpreted these quotes to indicate the participants' acknowledgement that individuals can have various experiences and perspectives (people) towards others' reported competence to support the learning of all students (power).
Also, Darleane provided a potential explanation of the data where the participant didn't read the question correctly (symbol).
Participants also described how their competence to support the learning of all students could be increased. Angie stated, "I owe it to collaboration as to why I feel the level of confidence that I do" (Chemistry Focus Group 1, 26:58). Maria specifically described that collaboration with laboratory coordinators supported her competence "because they were there to let me ask those questions and explain things to me (Chemistry Focus Group 1, 28:25). I interpreted these data to indicate the participants perceived the psychological need of relatedness as highly intertwined to support their perceived competence to teach all students (symbol). Angie expanded on this:
A very valuable part of collaboration, also is just kind of reminding yourself that you're not expected to be perfect or all knowing and that we're all just people. You get to share your strengths and supplement your weaknesses, kind of thing. Like you're just everybody has something new to bring to the table. So I really like that. And it's, it's, it's really helpful to remember that even if you are a faculty member who's been teaching for many, many years, you don't remember every single thing there is about your course and every single concept you teach. You have to go review yourself, and you're constantly learning new things every day. (Angie, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 30:29)
Angie described in this quote how individual people can have varying strengths to support their instruction, and that having collaborative structures can "supplement your weaknesses" (symbol). Additionally, Angie described that despite experience, people can still continue to learn and review concepts (power).
Oluwole and Ganiyu stated the following quotes when interpreting the survey data. Oluwole stated:
I do think it's very possible to come across someone that says I'm not currently confident to support all students. For example, the way we understand one another is very different.
In my whole class, some students even find it difficult to hear what I'm saying. So when an instructor kind of goes through that kind of experience in the person's private corner, he might admit to himself that, okay, currently I'm not able to support all the students, even though I want to. Yeah, so, and we also can't ignore the private issues people might be going through. Oluwole, Chemistry Focus Group 2, 42:29)
In this quote, Oluwole described how being an international GTA can influence his interactions with his students (symbol), which can lead him to perceive lower competence to support student learning (power). Later in the focus group, Ganiyu stated:
So I believe the reason why, if the reason why not most people, they want to say, though they cannot, want to be confident to support all student learning, is actually because of the stress that is involved in it…Now imagine the case that you need to go into the mind of the student…So the process of saying you want to go through the mind of the student to know, how are they seeing things, may be sometimes tedious, time-consuming, and stressful. And because of that, everybody wants to run away from it. (Ganiyu, Chemistry Focus Group 2, 49:25)
Here, Ganiyu describes how instructors may feel lower competence (power) because it is "stressful" to understand and address how students are understanding a concept (symbol).
Similarly, Heidi described her experience with trying to support student learning:
With the [other instructors she works with] they struggle with the motivation of students, and they get frustrated, and they're like, "I don't know what to do." So we just have conversations of like, we do everything we can to build an environment where we're taking the information we have about what they like or how this works best in research, and we build the environment, but they still have to meet you there, and we can continue to assess that, like say, Okay, if they're so focused on points, maybe we change the way we grade. But a lot of those things are super big overhauls. So, it's not like it's a simple task, either. (Heidi,Chemistry Focus Group 3,38:42) In this quote, Heidi described how the instructors she works with can experience lower perceptions of competence (power) due to students' motivation (symbol). She also suggested that if students are focused on their grades, instructors could change their course grading structures.
However, she also recognized the time commitment (structure) for this process as changing grades is a "big overhaul" (symbol). Tashiana described her challenges in supporting student learning, "because it just it feels like for every student, there has to be a different or unique approach to things and it just feels like the goal post is moving" (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 39:51). In this quote, Tashiana described that she could feel lower perceptions of competence (power) due to the "unique" needs of each student (symbol). She also described her past and experiences with competence to support the learning of all students:
It will be interesting to see how this splits across GTAs and faculty, because when I was a GTA, I would say I am more confident in supporting student learning maybe because the class is quite smaller and you can attend to students one-on-one. So I know that if I'm conversing with the students, and know how to approach or where the student is at, is different than when you have a whole huge you know, more students in front of you…When I was a GTA in grad school, I'd probably say it was more confident, and I think it's because I didn't have as much control. So, it's like I was confident in my ability discipline of chemistry, position type, and how stressful or time-consuming it can be (symbol).
There were also discussions in the focus group about their colleagues reporting being over competent to support the learning of all students (power and symbol). The participants also described the importance of collaboration (relatedness; structure) to increase their competence to support the learning of all students (symbol). [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. I interpreted this finding to indicate most participants tended to perceive satisfaction for their use of reflection to modify their instruction since the difference between their current action and desired actions was less than one Likert scale unit (0.3; last row of Column 6 of Table 4-13).
One participant reported not using reflection to modify their instruction (5%), six participants reported neutral responses (30%), and thirteen participants reported using reflection to modify their teaching (65%; Column 4 of Table 4-13). Most participants expressed a desire to use reflection to modify their instruction (90%), though two participants reported neutral responses (10%; Column 5 of Table 45678910111213). Only one participant (C16; 5%) reported a difference between their current actions and desired actions that was greater than one Likert scale unit. I interpreted this finding to indicate participant C16 perceived frustration for their low use of reflection and expressed a desire to use more reflection to modify their instruction (indicated with red in Column 6 of Table 4-13). Therefore, most participants in the chemistry department (95%)
Department's Cultural Need of Autonomy in Reflection? Participants tended to perceive that the chemistry department used reflection to modify their instruction (x̄ = 3.1; last row of Column 7 of Table 45678910111213). The participants also expressed a desire for the department to use reflection to modify their instruction (x̄ = 4.3; last row of Column 8 of Table 45678910111213). The difference between the participants reported that their current and desired state is greater than one Likert scale unit (1.2; last row of Column 9 of Table 45678910111213). I interpreted this finding to indicate the participants tended to perceive frustration for the chemistry department's use of reflection to modify their instruction for teaching. Six participants perceived the department not using reflection to modify their instruction each semester (30%), nine participants reported neutral responses (45%), and five participants perceived the department using reflection to modify their instruction (25%;
Column 7 of Table 4-13). Most participants expressed a desire for the department to use reflection to modify their instruction (80%), though some participants did report neutral responses (20%; Column 8 of Table 4-13). Most participants (60%) perceived satisfaction with the department's low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction (indicated with green in Column 9 of Table 45678910111213). Forty percent of participants reported a difference greater than one Likert scale unit between their current and desired state for the department's use of reflection to modify their instruction. I interpreted this finding as perceived frustration for the department's use of reflection to modify their instruction (indicated with red in column 9 of Table 4-13).
Department for Autonomy in Reflection? Most participants tended to perceive satisfaction for their low or high use of reflection to modify instruction at the individual and department levels (55%; top left cell of Table 4-14) which I interpreted as satisfied cultural integration for their autonomy in the chemistry department. 40% of participants perceived satisfaction at the individual level (reported high use of reflection to modify their instruction and expressed a desire to use reflection to modify their instruction), but perceived frustration at the department level (reported low use of reflection to modify instruction in the department but expressed a desire for the department to use reflection to modify their instruction). Based on these findings, these participants perceived cultural dissonance for their autonomy within the chemistry department (top right cell of Table 4567891011121314). One participant (C16; 5%) perceived frustration at the individual level (reported a neutral response, but expressed a desire to use reflection to modify their instruction) but satisfaction at the department level (perceived the department using reflection to modify their instruction, and expressed a desire for the department to use reflection to modify their instruction), which I also interpreted as cultural dissonance for this participants' autonomy
Table 4-14 Cultural integration and dissonance for the chemistry department's autonomy in reflection Department Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) Individual Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Satisfied Cultural Integration: Participants perceived satisfaction for their low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester and the department's low or high use of reflection to modify instruction each semester Cultural Dissonance: Participants perceived satisfaction for their low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester but perceived frustration for the department's low or high use of reflection to modify instruction each semester Department Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) C1, C3, C8, C9, C10, C11, C14, C17, C18, C19, C20 CA, C2, C4, C5, C6, C7, C12, C13, C15 Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State)
Participants perceived frustration for their low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester but perceived satisfaction for the department's low or high use of reflection to modify instruction each semester
Integration: Participants perceived frustration for their low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester and the department's low or high use of reflection to modify instruction each semester N/A Note: N/A indicates there were no participants who fell into the category.
Perceive the Roles of People, Power, Structures, and Symbols within the Departmental Teaching Culture? Darleane mentioned that she would be "interested to see what grad students responded, because grad students don't get any control when they're teaching labs about modifying anything" (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 50:25). Here Darleane described that due to the GTAs position in the department (structure) they should not feel power to modify their instruction (symbol). When reflecting on instructors' modifications to their instruction, Angie stated: I feel like modifying your teaching is something that professors who are not primarily involved in research are really good at. And professors who have grant funding and they're more involved in research, kind of don't. That's not why they're here, you know. I've taken classes from professors who are researchers before they're teachers, and their curriculum is from 2014 and still contains the same typos. (Angie, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 41:37)
In this quote, Angie described how the departmental position instructors hold (structures) and identity (people) may influence the modifications made to their instruction (symbol). Maria explained that instructors may not modify their instruction because they are "set in their ways, like this worked for me a while ago, why wouldn't it work now" (Chemistry Focus Group 1, 40:00)? Based on individuals' (people) prior experiences, Maria described that instructors may not feel the need to modify their instruction because it worked in the past (symbol).
Tashiana described her reasoning for making modifications to her instruction. She stated: I am modifying my teaching every semester, but this is just a second one, and I'm still thinking of modifying it again. Just because you're looking, you're thinking, you're reflecting on how to better support students, right? I had one of our colleagues say to me that….oh, it's because I'm still new, and after a while, I'll just settle in and just get my things…So this person said that, "oh, I've had my stuff for the past couple of years. You know, these don't change a lot, so there's no need of tweaking anything. So it works generally." And I honestly believe this person was just trying to encourage me in their own ways. But thinking about not modifying your teaching in a long while, I don't think that is very supportive to students. (Tashiana, Chemistry Focus Group 3, 51:36)
Here, Tashiana described an interaction she had with another colleague in the chemistry department. Based on this interaction, Tashiana heard that once she gains more experience with her instruction (structure), there will not be a need for modifications (symbol). She, however, disagreed with her colleagues' advice (people) and instead wanted to focus on making modifications to support her students' learning (symbol). Irene also reflected on her reasoning for modifying her instruction. She stated, "so I think one of the reasons I modify my teaching all the time is because the only way I'm gonna make it fun is if I continuously change it" (Chemistry Focus Group 1, 44:35). Irene describes modifying her instruction (structure) to make teaching a fun experience for herself (symbol).
The participants reflected on challenges to enact modifications in their instruction. For example, Darleane stated: I think that's [making modifications] really hard for people who are all by themselves, right? We think about the faculty that have no one to go to, I think that becomes really incredibly hard to continually find ways to modify if there's nobody to bounce [ideas off of]… I was by myself for a lot of years. And so what I found is that going to either workshops or conferences that were education-focused really helped me get around people who had new and interesting ideas that I had never thought about. I could dig around the journals, even though my journal program limited there, with much greater journal access here. But there's something about that taking so much time to try to dig through and read through, and I get and visualize it, as opposed to seeing somebody talk about that. I don't think we can understate how much education conferences and education workshops help keep faculty from becoming stagnant in what they do. (Darleane, Chemistry Focus Group 3, 52:26) Darleane explained (symbol) that instructors could become "stagnant" in their instruction without collaborators (people), time dedicated to reading in journals or attending conferences (structure).
Heidi also reflected on the modifications she made to her instruction: I'm modifying every semester, I'm modifying way too much for my own sanity. I am spending too much time modifying. And I think if I did work a bit more collaborative, collaboratively, or spent some of that time talking to other people instead of just kind of trying to put things together quickly myself, that could help me. But that is like a flaw I have sometimes, like, instead of reaching out, you're just having to do it myself really quick. (Heidi, Chemistry Focus Group 3, 55:46) Heidi described that while she would like to work collaboratively to support her making modifications to her instruction (people), she often has limited time (structure) to make modifications, which limits her actively seeking out collaboration (symbol). Gainyu also described workload as an important factor for instructors' modifications to their instruction because they don't "have a whole lot of time for anything" (Chemistry Focus Group 2, 59:51).
These data show the interactive nature of relatedness and autonomy for these instructors teaching. Angie described how instructional modifications could be supported: I feel like there does need to be some sort of incentive to care about your teaching and whether it's working or not. And then also, I don't know, some sort of data to tell you, "hey, it's not working, and people are unhappy with it." So there needs to be some sort of incentive to, look at it again and make changes. (Angie, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 41:37) Angie described how she would like more feedback (structures) in place for instructors to gain a better understanding of their instruction and allow them to see where modifications could be made (symbols).
When reflecting on the survey items, Heidi stated, "I also wonder what our colleagues interpreted modifying as like, if you're modifying your exams every semester, is that modifying your teaching (Chemistry Focus Group 3, 56:58)? Similarly, Maria stated: "So this question is also a little bit confusing because are you modifying your content? Are you modifying them, or just your teaching style (Maria, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 45:53)? She later explained, "if you're talking about faculty, they probably took it more like content. But if you're talking to a GTA, they probably took it more like your teacher style, because they don't have control over the content" (Maria, Chemistry Focus Group 1, 47:27). These quotes indicate that particular people can interpret questions on the survey differently based on their prior experiences and teaching positions (structures). For instance, Maria explained that someone in a GTA position (structure) would likely interpret the survey questions as pertaining to their teaching practices (people) because GTAs do not have power over the course content (symbol).
The focus groups in the chemistry department described sentiments in the department that instructional modifications may not be made by all instructors in the chemistry department. Some participants also described modifying their instruction too much, but collaborating with others could support them to make modifications. Participants also described how the survey items could be interpreted differently based on the definition of "modify" (people), but could also be dependent on the position in the department (structure).
The participants tended to perceive working independently for reflection at the individual (x̄ = 3.3; last row of Column 4 of Table 456789) and departmental levels (x̄ = 2.7; last row of Column 7 of Table 456789). At both levels, the participants tended to report a desire to work collaboratively for reflection (x̄ = 4.1 for both the individual and department levels; last rows of Column 5 and 8 of Table 456789). The chemistry department had a unique departmental structure in place for GTAs to co-teach and collaborate with one another. The difference between the participants' reported actions and desired actions at the individual level was less than one Likert scale unit (0.8; last row of Column 6 of Table 456789), which I interpreted as perceived satisfaction.
At the department level, however, the difference was greater than one Likert scale unit (1.4; last row of Column 9 of Table 456789), which I interpreted as perceived frustration for the department's relatedness need. Despite the average indicating perceived frustration at the department level, most participants (45%; top left cell of Table 4-10) perceived satisfied cultural integration for relatedness in reflection. Fifteen percent of participants perceived frustrated cultural integration where they perceived satisfaction for their relatedness in reflection psychological need but were frustrated with the department's relatedness (bottom right cell of Table 4-10). A few participants in the chemistry department (40%; top right and bottom left cells of Table 4-10) perceived cultural dissonance for their psychological need of relatedness. In collaborative contexts in the department, power dynamics based on position were discussed. Participants also mentioned that it would be difficult for instructors of a single-section course to collaborate (symbol). On the other hand, Irene attempted to collaborate with fellow instructors of the same course, and they Four participants indicated working independently for reflection (G2, G3, G5, and G6), one participant reported neutral responses (G1), and one participant reported working collaboratively for reflection (G4; Column 4 of Table 4-15). Most participants indicated they would like to work more collaboratively than they currently are, with one participant (G5) who indicated they worked independently and wanted to work independently for reflection (Column 5 of Table 456789101112131415). Though participants tended to report wanting to work more collaboratively than their current actions, no participants reported a difference greater than 1 on the Likert scale in any of their responses. As such, I have interpreted this finding to indicate the participants' perceived satisfaction with their psychological need of relatedness for reflection (indicated with green in Column 6 of Table 4-15).
Department's Cultural Need of Relatedness in Reflection? On average, the participants perceived the department working independently for their reflection (x̄ = 2.8; last row of Column 7 of Table 456789101112131415). These participants also reported a desire for their department to be more collaborative in their reflection (x̄ = 3.8; last row of Column 8 of Table 456789101112131415). There is a difference of 1 on the Likert scale between the participants' average response of their department's current and desired state, which I have interpreted to indicate perceived satisfaction for the department's relatedness for reflection (last row of Column 9 of Table 456789101112131415). Three participants reported the department working independently for reflection (G2, G3, and G6), two participants reported neutral responses (G4 and G5), and one participant reported the department working collaboratively for reflection (G1; Column 7 of Table 4 -15). Most participants reported neutral responses for their desired state of reflection in the department (66%; G2, G3, G5, and G6; Column 8 of Table 4 -15). Two participants reported a desire for the department to work When reflecting on the geosciences' collaboration for teaching, David stated, "this department in particular is very understaffed relative to other departments on campus, so we're just all kind of like holding on, trying not to fall off" (Geosciences Focus Group 1, 9:29). This quote from David indicates that instructors have high workloads due to limited staff in the department (structures) which can limit the department's collaboration. For instance, Luke stated, "everybody's kind of doing their own thing" (Geosciences Focus Group 2, 13:18).
Similarly, James described, "currently, we have a lot of faculty working independently, we don't necessarily know what's going on in each other's classrooms" (Geosciences Focus Group 2, 8:45). I interpreted these quotes to indicate within the geosciences department there is a departmental norm to work independently for their instruction (symbol). Later in the focus group, James stated:
There are some departments on campus that may talk to themselves too much, they're always having this social event, or that social event, or this person's throwing a party or whatever. We're like at the other end of the spectrum, our faculty have not been talking to each other enough (James, Geosciences Focus Group 2, 21:23)
In this quote, James described how the norm (symbol) to work independently in the geosciences may not be similar across the university (people).
James also reflected on what he would like for his psychological need of relatedness in the department:
I would be interested in working more collaboratively with others. I've been a part of one collaboration to develop an online course that was authentically collaborative. I mean, that course, you get these modules from this person, these modules were from this person, these modules were from me, and we got a fourth person to contribute a very little bit. And I would be interested in more of that kind of thing, but there isn't much of that kind of thing. Hasn't been much of that kind of thing going on. It's fascinating to me that the story of these two graphs is that people feel isolated, that they don't want to be and it just goes to, how many people in the department know that nearly everyone else also wants the same thing? (James, Geosciences Focus Group 2, 8:45)
In this data, James described a previous collaborative experience for instruction (people) and expressed a desire to collaborate with others in the department more (symbol). Based on the survey participants' responses, James described being "fascinated" with the data and wanted to know if other instructors knew that others had a desire to work on their instruction more collaboratively. From this quote, it appears that James (and others) in the department may perceive being "isolated" and the only ones who desire collaboration for their instruction (people). As the data showed James, however, there are many people in the department who desire collaboration for their instruction (symbol). Alice wondered if the desire for collaboration in the geosciences department could come "from being such a small department and having a lot of work (Alice, Geosciences Focus Group 1, 15:03). I interpreted this quote to indicate Alice thinks the size of the department (structure) could cause instructors to want to be more collaborative (symbol).
David reflected on a recent process in the department:
We're doing some of that right now, because we're in the middle of a major restructuring, and redesigning everything, not every class, but we're changing our majors around. We currently have two majors and six tracks…But we're going to have one major and three concentrations. (David,Geosciences Focus Group 1,10:37) In the second focus group, Luke provided additional details on the restructuring process. He stated:
And so we actually have more conversations across classes to see, how is this previous class preparing students for the subsequent classes. Then also more broadly outside of that sequence, it's just what are some of the core contents that we're all covering and the sole core skills that we're all covering and repeating across our curriculum. And if we find places where that's not happening, we can work together to kind of build in some of that in all of our courses. (Luke, Geosciences Focus Group 2, 13:18) These quotes described the curriculum redesign process is currently a departmental structure for collaboration to address the sequential nature of the courses (symbol). David also shared his thoughts on the collaborative nature of the redesign: So, we're kind of reshuffling everything and having a lot of conversations about who's teaching what and how and why and how it fits in and stuff. But I think we could be more explicit about the actual act of teaching or collaboration. (David,Geosciences Focus Group 1,10:37) In this quote, David described his perspective (people) that the curriculum redesign (structure) could have more discussion about the "actual act of teaching" (symbol).
Luke also shared, "I don't even think it has to be anything too formal to kind of help start some of this [collaboration]. A lot of faculty and one-on-one conversations this year just expressed a desire for brown bag lunches (Luke, Geosciences Focus Group 2, 20:17). Here Luke described that there could be many opportunities in the department for collaboration (structure).
Luis also described his experience with collaboration as a GTA: Because it was my first time teaching, so I had to, I didn't know, I didn't have any idea what to do. So he was the first one teaching on that Tuesday. So I went to his class every Tuesday to see how he's teaching, and then I did, I learned from that. You always still have something to learn when you start teaching. So I don't know how he did it, but I mean, it definitely helped me out. Now I know how to teach. (Luis,Geosciences Focus Group 1,19:38) In this quote, Luis described when he first started teaching he "didn't have any idea" how to teach (power). To support his instruction, he began observing a colleague, whom he was able to learn from, to support his instruction (symbol).
Within the geosciences department, the size of the department and the high workload of the instructors (structure) appeared to limit the participants' collaboration on teaching. The focus groups did express a desire for there to be more collaboration on teaching within the department. Table 456789101112131415161718). I interpreted these findings to indicate these participants perceived cultural dissonance for their competence in reflection to support the learning of all students. Two participants (G2 and G6; 33%) perceived satisfaction at both the individual and department levels (top left cell of Table 456789101112131415161718). These participants perceived satisfied cultural integration for their competence to use reflection to support the learning of all students. One participant perceived frustration at the individual level (G4; reported neutral response but expressed a desire for competence in reflection) but perceived satisfaction with the department's competence in reflection (bottom left cell of Table 456789101112131415161718 Table 4-18 Cultural integration and dissonance for the geosciences department's competence in reflection Department Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) Individual Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Satisfied Cultural Integration: Participants perceived satisfaction for their reflection and the department's reflection by having low or high competence to use reflection to support the learning of all students G2, G6 Cultural Dissonance: Participants perceived satisfaction for their reflection by having low or high competence to use reflection to support the learning of all students but perceived frustration for the department's low or high competence to use reflection to support the learning of all students
GA, G1, G3, G5
and "recruit" students to be involved in geosciences (symbol). When analyzing the survey data for the department, Luke expressed a sense of "happiness" to see his colleagues reporting competence to support the learning of all students. When Luke saw the survey data from the college, he stated:
I'm still just shocked that people self-report such high levels of confidence with something like that. I really am. I mean, you see confidence building over time, since we've been more focused on this in the STEM disciplines, but this still seems pretty high to me. (Luke, Geosciences Focus Group 2, 26:37)
These data from Luke indicate that individuals can have various experiences and perspectives (people) towards others' reported competence to support the learning of all students (power).
Alice also reflected on her perceptions of competence to support the learning of all students.
She stated:
I was thinking about how I don't actually know what the students are learning in lecture. I just teach the lab. And I did ask about that last semester. I was like, "should I have a copy of the slides or the textbook or something?" They said, "no you kind of have everything you need to the lab." And so, the students would sometimes assume that I must be an expert in all of the subject matter.
So, this semester, I started out, "I'm not taking this one [the lecture]. I don't know what you're learning. I know I teach the lab. If you have questions about the lab please ask me. But if it's about the lecture, I can't help you, ask your professor." I don't know, it felt like I lost some credibility sometimes because students would be like, "Well, explain why this happens?" And I go [confused look]. (Alice, Geosciences Focus Group 1, 21:17)
Alice described in this quote how her perceptions of competence (power) could be influenced when students asked her questions from the lecture (symbol), which she was not responsible for teaching (structure). Luis also described his perceptions of competence. He stated, "I like when they ask questions, it's really nice to be able to answer the questions or whatever they don't know" (Luis, Geosciences Focus Group 1, 27:35). Luis' perceptions of competence (power) could be supported when students asked him questions, he knew the answer to (symbol).
In the discussion, David also shared his perspective on weed-out courses. He stated:
The weed out course, I think that's just so backwards to the idea of what education is supposed to be.
It's not supposed to be punishing. It's not supposed to be like hurting you and saying you're not good enough. It's supposed to say, "Oh, what happened? Why weren't you able to do this and see if we can figure it out and move forward?" And I think that we don't want to say this -but thanks to COVID, the university and our department, and I think all education took a massive leap forward in terms of accessibility. (David, Geosciences Focus Group 1, 24:20) I interpreted this quote to indicate that David disagrees with weed-out courses and would like education to focus on student learning by focusing on determining how to "move forward" (symbol). Additionally, David mentioned the influence of COVID-19 on the accessibility of education to many students (structure).
The geosciences focus group participants tended to describe instances where they did not feel competent to support the learning of all students (power). Alice described that her lower perceptions of competence (power) could occur when she had interactions with students about the content in the lecture, since she taught the laboratory course (structure). Luke expressed shock at how high the other departments reported their competence to support the learning of all students. Participants also described how they did not want their course to function as a weed-out course but would rather support student learning. Table 4-19). The participants also expressed a desire to use reflection to modify their instruction (x̄ = 4.5; last row of Column 5 of Table 4-19). The difference between the participants' current and desired state is less than one Likert scale unit (0.3; last row of Column 6 of Table 4-19), which I interpreted to indicate perceived satisfaction for the participants' use of reflection. Analysis of the participants' responses individually showed that all participants in the geosciences department perceived satisfaction with their high use of reflection to modify their instruction (indicated with green in Column 6 of Table 4-19). No participants in the geosciences department perceived frustration for low or high use of reflection.
participants perceived satisfied cultural integration in the department for their autonomy in reflection. Two participants (G4, G5; 33%) perceived satisfaction at the individual level for using reflection to modify their instruction. These participants, however, perceived frustration for the department's lower use of reflection. I interpreted this to indicate that 33% of participants perceived cultural dissonance for perceiving satisfaction at the individual level but frustration at the department level (top right cell of Table 4567891011121314151617181920.
Table 4-20 Cultural integration and dissonance for the geosciences department's autonomy in reflection Department Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) Individual Level Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Cultural Integration: Participants perceived satisfaction for their low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester and the department's low or high use of reflection to modify instruction each semester GA, G1, G2, G3, G6 Cultural Dissonance: Participants perceived satisfaction for their low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester but perceived frustration for the department's low or high use of reflection to modify instruction each semester G4, G5 Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) Cultural Dissonance: Participants perceived frustration for their low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester but perceived satisfaction for the department's low or high use of reflection to modify instruction each semester But, yeah, so I'm curious in our department... I mean, there's a pretty big spread, but it seems like in general, they want to change more overall. Maybe that's something like I mentioned before about the workload issue. There would be more exploration or trialing of things if we had more time to put, you know, energy into that. (David,Geosciences Focus Group 1,36:58) In this quote, David described that the high workload within the geosciences department (structure) limits the time instructors can use to modify their instruction (symbol). Luke elaborated on this idea:
You know, we dropped from a lot of people feel that they [modify], but they don't want to be. And I get that that's a lot when you're teaching a 3/3, 4/4, whatever it might be, our department has an extremely heavy teaching load because we're pretty low-staffed, and we generate a lot of [general education] courses. And so, just the idea of every semester feeling like you have to modify your teaching, it becomes an endless pursuit of something. Perfection? I don't know what it might be. I'm not saying I agree with that, but I understand how some people might say "I do, but I don't want to be." I understand that, because that's a pretty heavy burden, depending on what you're teaching. (Luke, Geosciences Focus Group 2, 29:02) Here, Luke described how the increased teaching load in the geosciences department (structure) can potentially make modifying instruction feel like an "endless pursuit of perfection" (symbol).
Additionally, since Luke specifically described how "some people" in the department may feel this way, there is a possibility that others may not share similar opinions or experiences within the geosciences department (people). Later in the focus group, Luke stated: I feel like some of the junior faculty, in all honesty, with the research pressure and some of the other pressures they have, could very well be in the boat of, "I'm changing a lot. I don't want to be changing so much," because it may be driven by "I don't have enough time dedicated for these other very important things that I need to do for tenure and promotion like research." (Luke,Geosciences Focus Group 2,31:41) Based on the position an instructor has in the department (structure), Luke described how pressures for research (power) can lead faculty to limit modifications to their instruction (symbol). As James reflected on the modifications instructors made to their instruction, he stated: There's this kind of leadership aspect to it. If at some level, Chair level, or some other level, there's an initiative to change teaching in a certain way, you know, then, you know, likely there will be change, and there may also be some thoughts about the change. And feeling about the change. In the absence of that, it's kind of individual time constraints, individual motivations. (James, Geosciences Focus Group 2, 41:18) As James described, instructors likely would make modifications to their instruction if those in leadership positions expected modifications (power). He described that individuals may have varying thoughts, feelings, and opinions about the expectations (people). Additionally, without leadership intervention, instructional modifications are based on individuals' thoughts, time, and motivations (people).
When interpreting the survey data, Luke stated: I kind of wonder, like, how did people interpret this when they were they more content focused. Do I feel like I have to update my content and assignments every single semester, or am I just updating some examples, or just kind of updating the way that I teach based on student feedback? I think knowing what triggered in their mind when they read this would be interesting to know. (Luke,Geosciences Focus Group 1,34:54) In this quote, Luke described how he thought different participants could interpret the survey questions in various ways (people).
Here, James described his reasoning for updating the examples in his curriculum (structure) to be within the lifetime of a traditional college student (symbol).
Alice described how her teaching group uses their weekly meetings (structure) to discuss where students struggled and collaborate to consider "what questions maybe need to be modified (Geosciences Focus Group 1, 41:36; structure and symbol). Luis also described his perspective on instructional modifications in the laboratory course he taught: I think professors need to change a little bit, just like you said, just a little bit. Because what I noticed in this lab that I teach some of the students, come with an answer already, everything, from the book. And I asked [faculty member], they told me they've been using this book for twenty years. They changed everything every now and then, and I don't remember how often. I mean, it would be a lot of work too as well, I understand that. But, yeah, I don't know how to avoid that. Someone who has more experience. Some of the students came with the answers. I guess they got the answers from previous semesters. It sort of depends on the student, right? If you want to learn, you don't do that. If you don't want to learn, you will continue doing this. (Luis,Geosciences Focus Group 1,38:53) Luis noticed that some students arrived at class with the answers to the activity. He discussed this situation with a faculty member who indicated they only change the curriculum occasionally (structure and symbol). Luis described how not all students do this, but it is "dependent on the student" (people). He also specifically mentioned not knowing "how to avoid" this situation and then stated, "someone who has more experience." I interpreted this quote to indicate that Luis may feel lower perceptions of competence to address this situation (power) and would expect someone in a leadership position to make changes to the curriculum (power).
Within the geosciences department, the participants described how they would prefer making smaller-scale changes to their instruction (as opposed to large radical changes) each semester (symbol). The participants described how this could be a result of their department being understaffed (structure and symbol). They also described a desire to update examples in their courses or content for courses where new findings are regularly occurring (e.g., climate change; structure and symbol). James also described how there is no one in a position of power influencing instructors to make modifications to their instruction.
The participants in the geosciences department tended to report working independently for reflection at the individual (x̄ = 2.4; last row in Column 4 of Table 4-15) and department level (x̄ = 2.8; last row in Column 7 of Table 456789101112131415). The participants in the focus groups commonly brought up the understaffed situation within the department (structure). For instance, limited staff meant the instructors had high workloads (structure), which limited their time (structure) to collaborate with one another (symbol). Participants tended to report desires for the department to work more collaboratively at the individual (x̄ = 3.2; Column 5 of Table 4-15) and department level (x̄ = 3.8;. The differences between the participants' reported actions and desired actions at the individual and department levels, however, were less than or equal to one Likert scale unit (individual = 0.8; department = 1.0; last rows of Columns 6 and 9 of Table 4-15), which I interpreted as perceived satisfaction at both levels. James appeared to be excited about the data showing that the department wanted to work collaboratively for their instruction and asked, "How many people in the department know that nearly everyone else also wants the same thing" (Geosciences Focus Group 2, 8:45; symbol)? The department is currently redesigning their majors, which has facilitated collaboration on instruction. Most participants in the geosciences department (83%; top left cell of Table 4-16) perceived satisfied cultural integration, meaning they perceived satisfaction for relatedness in reflection at the individual and department levels. One participant (17%; top right cell of Table 4-16) perceived cultural and symbol). All of the participants perceived satisfaction with their use of reflection to modify their instruction at the individual level . Most participants (67%) perceived satisfaction for the department's high use of reflection to modify their instruction (Column 9 of Table 45678910111213141516171819). There were, however, two participants who perceived the department as using less reflection to modify their instruction than they would like (Column 9 of Table 45678910111213141516171819). As a result, these participants (33%) perceived frustration for their autonomy at the department level. I interpreted these findings to indicate that most participants (67%) in the geosciences perceived satisfied cultural integration for their autonomy (top left cell of Table 4- 20). Though 33% of participants perceived cultural dissonance due to perceived satisfaction for their use of reflection at the individual level, and frustration at the department level (top right cell of Table 4567891011121314151617181920.
Most participants in the mathematics department reported on the survey as being a GTA (n = 9) or a professor (n = 7; Table 456789101112131415161718192021). Ten participants reported teaching in the department for five or less semesters (Table 4- † If there is a difference between the participants' desired actions and actions that is greater than 1 or less than -1, I interpreted this to indicate the participants' perceptions of relatedness are frustrated. Perceived frustration is represented by a red background. If there is a difference between the participants' desired actions and actions between or equal to -1 and 1, I interpreted this to indicate the participants' perceptions of relatedness are satisfied. Perceived satisfaction is represented by a green background.
professors but actively talk to them a lot when I teach. (Paul, Mathematics Focus Group 1, 23:01) Paul described how he reached out to other instructors, obtained their teaching materials (structure), and then adapted the curriculum for his teaching (symbol). Throughout his teaching, he felt supported during this collaboration because he often discussed his teaching with the other instructors (symbol). Jo and Harish described their experience with collaboration in the department. They stated:
Harish: Since we have a diversity in terms of the topic or courses that we teach, some of the courses there are only a few people. So, they may not have enough people to collaborate or discuss in terms of the content. But in terms of the method, I think you can talk with any anybody. So, I think it must be affected by that. Jo: I agree with what Harish is saying, the "I work independently," is more towards I work independently than collaboratively, because so many of the courses that we teach are singletons, or they're pretty well established. (Harish and Jo,Mathematics Focus Group 3,21:30) Here, Harish and Jo describe the importance of the course context (structure) for collaboration in the mathematics department (symbol). Particularly for the "singleton" courses (structure), it may be more difficult for instructors to collaborate based on the content (symbol). However, as Harish explained, "you can talk with anybody" about the teaching practices being used in any course (symbol).
There was commonly a discussion about "what kind of collaboration are we talking about" (Debbie, Mathematics Focus Group 1, 25:41) in the survey. For instance, Cathleen described her interpretation:
And I remember when I was working these [filling out the survey] I wonder if she means one-to-one for real-time conversation. Because mathematicians tend to think writing down the proof is collaborating, because if I read your math, then I've collaborated with you. I've seen how you were thinking all documented. It's an out-of-time and space collaboration. So I think, I collaborate on everything, I collaborate with people from the 1700s. That's the approach I take. (Cathleen,Mathematics Focus Group 3,27:34) anything, so I haven't really interacted outside our department" (Mathematics Focus Group 2, 24:06). Due to her position (structure), Emmy did not feel she had enough experience or interactions with others in the college (people) to comment on the similarities or differences between the mathematics department culture and other departmental cultures (symbol).
Another influential factor for collaboration in the mathematics department is the building.
Currently, the building is undergoing remodeling, which has displaced individuals across campus. Jo described this: I think, I think this, though, is one of our difficulties, just for this moment, like when we're all in the same space, I think we do, like I would catch [faculty member] walking down the hall and say, "Hey, [faculty member], we've got common students. Let's talk about some things." But some of the responses, I think, that you might be getting for this could be skewed a little bit by the fact that we're scattered all around right now. So ask us these questions a year after we're back in [the math building], and you might get different responses, because I'm feeling very isolated. (Jo,Mathematics Focus Group 3,33:06) Here, Jo described the department building as an important structure to the collaboration in the department (symbol), which may have influenced participants' survey responses. Emmy stated: So, while there are a lot of full-time temp faculty, some of whom have been here for over 25 years. And that we're still referred to as temporary, but whatever. I feel like being outside our own building has kind of already, it's just intensified what was already there for those of us who are not, we're not voting members of the faculty. We're not decision makers, but we get a lot of decisions made about us. So that part can be a little bit hard. (Emmy,Mathematics Focus Group 2,9:40) In this quote, Emmy described how her position in the department (structure) means she is not a "decision maker" in the department (symbol and power). Additionally, since the department is scattered across the university (structure), she believes this has only "intensified" the power dynamics between position types (symbol).
When interpreting the survey data, Dorothy described: I think in all of our main disciplines, chemistry, physics, math, we have education faculty built into those departments, and so we're seeing this diversity on there. Those faculty are really helping to pull up some of the people who might be more, you know, introverted in working on their projects and therefore less interested in being collaborative in their classes, for a variety of reasons. That would just be one, you know, collaborating on their classes and so but, but I will say, I believe, from my long experience, 25 years now, I think that in general, there's continued to be more collaboration among the research faculty related to teaching so and I've seen that in multiple disciplines. (Dorothy,Mathematics Focus Group 2,25:15) In this quote, Dorothy described that the education researchers in some departments (structure) help to foster collaboration with others in their departments for teaching (symbol).
Within the mathematics department, participants mentioned how the discipline of mathematics (structure) could have influenced survey participants' responses (symbol). There was also discussion of how individual people could have responded differently since they have unique experiences (symbol). Participants also described the influence of the mathematics building on their collaboration (structure) and how the remodeling has reduced collaboration for teaching. Emmy also mentioned the influence of power dynamics based on her position in the department, which has been intensified since the remodeling started. Reflecting on Their Psychological Need for Competence, How do Individuals Perceive the Roles of People, Power, Structures, and Symbols within the
Departmental Teaching Culture? When the survey data was shared in the mathematics focus groups, there was a sense of surprise from some participants at how high survey participants reported their competence to support the learning of all students. For instance, Dorothy stated, "I'm pleasantly surprised" (Mathematics Focus Group 2, 29:43). Similarly, Paul stated, "I'm surprised at how high that bar is" (Mathematics Focus Group 1, 37:39). Dorothy described that she was surprised because supporting the learning of all students is "a monumental job, and I feel like I'm never good enough at it" (Mathematics Focus Group 2, 33:07). In this quote, Dorothy described how she does always feel competent to support the learning of all students (power)
because it is a "monumental job" (symbol). Emmy, stated: I'm not at all surprised. Honestly. Are you kidding me? The math department is filled with hubris. We all think we know exactly what we're doing all the time. Whether that's true is a question. I feel like, and I don't know if this is true in all of the sciences or in all of academia, but I have definitely found in the math department that -and not just this math department -but all mathematicians I've interacted with period that there is a there's a premium on confidence, precision, efficiency, and all of those things. You know, a good proof is an elegant proof, not one that wanders around a bit, and all of those kinds of things… When I saw this question on the survey, I thought, I wonder if this is actually going to get answered honestly. I wonder if we're going to be really honest about how we feel about students with differing needs in our classrooms, and whether or not we're all aware that we have those students and that they need something else from us. I don't know, that's what I thought about when I was, when I was taking the survey. So I'm not at all surprised by this. I'm just wondering how accurate it is. (Emmy, Mathematics Focus Group 2, 29:59)
In this quote, Emmy described how mathematicians tend to have a "premium on confidence"
(power) that could influence their perceptions of supporting all students (symbol).
The participants also mentioned questions about how the survey items could be interpreted.
For instance, Debbie stated, "So I focus more on this idea of support, what does it actually mean to support" (Mathematics Focus Group 1, 39:51). Cathleen stated "Part of me is going absolutes are very, very, suspicious. All and never, are not places I wanna be." (Mathematics Focus Group 3, 47:23). Dorothy stated: I think it's very complicated, and it's just hard to know, which component of this. Is it the word "confidence?" Is it the word "support?" Is it the word "all?" Is it the word "learning?" You know, where people might be thinking on this issue? (Dorothy, Mathematics Focus Group 2, 37:54) I interpreted these quotes from Debbie, Cathleen, and Dorothy to indicate that instructors within the mathematics department could have various experiences and perspectives which influenced their survey responses (people). Jo described her experiences with supporting the learning of all students: I understand the lower end, though, on that left one, because I think that we're all encountering students that have difficulties with what they're supposed to be learning in our classes, that we don't necessarily know what to do with. So, I'm confident in my ability to support students, but we're seeing more and more variation in what it takes to support the students, and sometimes, like, I have a student that comes in that I haven't encountered before, and so I don't really know what their [needs are]. (Jo, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 42:05).
In this quote, Jo described how she has the competence to support students in learning (power).
However, she also expressed instances where she could have lower competence (power) due to the various ways students may need support (symbol).
Cathleen reflected on her competence to support the learning of all students. She stated, "There isn't enough time to support" (Mathematics Focus 3, 42:41). Jo elaborated:
But I also respect the fact that, as faculty members, we have lots of responsibilities. Our responsibilities are not only teaching. There are lots of other things there too. And so, I want to be confident, but can I realistically get there? (Jo, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 46:03)
Jo and Cathleen described that instructors have other responsibilities and limited time (structure), which can impede their competence to support the learning of all students (symbol).
Spencer reflected on the competence to support the learning of all students. He stated, "I teach theoretical math courses. They're very difficult courses to teach, so it's very challenging to get across certain material to students, so that might explain why math is a little lower"
(Mathematics Focus Group 2, 1:00:07). In this quote, Spencer described that the difficulty of the mathematics content (structure) can influence instructors' perceptions of competence (symbol).
Dorothy also mentioned the influence of online courses. She stated:
This semester, I'm teaching nearly 80 students started off in online classes that I have, and I've already, you know, written the chair and said: You know, I just need to give you a warning. You know how hard this class is, and you know the online version's harder, and I've worked harder than I have ever worked before, for these, I got 60 students in this. It's a [probability and statistics] online. And I've worked, and I have more people, it feels like anyway, that I don't know if they're going to make it. (Dorothy, Mathematics Focus Group 2, 33:07) Here, Dorothy described how her experience teaching an online course (structure), which is more challenging for students, can lower her perceptions of competence to support student learning (symbol). She even described telling the department chair her concerns about the students' course grades (power). Dorothy did share later in the discussion that "our university, for, since the first times I've been here, has worked very hard to support students with documented disadvantages" (Mathematics Focus Group 2, 33:07). In this quote Dorothy described how the university structure of a disability access center is a helpful resource for instructors to support student learning (symbols). Neena stated: When I completed this survey, I put a mark that I am confident in supporting all students in learning, because there are so many opportunities. I believe you have professors' office hours, our teaching, and preparing work, so students can come and get help. If you do not take that advantage, you can not succeed…I think all of our professors are ready to help, but you just have to take it. (Neena, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 59:36)
Neena perceived that there are many opportunities for students to facilitate their learning (structures), which allowed her to feel competent to support student learning (symbol).
Additionally, the mathematics department "talks about teaching" (Jo, Mathematics Focus
Group 3, 52:20). Sophie elaborated on this:
And that probably makes a difference when you know you're not the only one that's facing certain struggles. Or you know you get ideas on how to deal with those struggles that increases your confidence that you can do something about it, or that you're not alone out on an island. (Sophie, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 52:31)
Here, Sophie described how instructors' perceptions of competence (power) can be supported through collaboration with others (symbol). Harish commented:
I think that is one of the unique advantages we have in being in the math department, the diversity in all different aspects. And when you get into the conversation and have somebody who's expert in the field is always there to find some possible solutions with that, and then, which is possibly helping us to get even more confident in terms of learning a various aspect of STEM engagement, teaching metrics and the content itself. (Harish, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 54:48)
As Harish states, there is a wide variety of expertise within the mathematics department (people), which, during collaboration, can support instructors to gain more competence in supporting the learning of all students (symbol).
For the mathematics department's perceptions of competence to support the learning of all students, the participants mentioned shock or surprise at how high the survey participants reported their competence (power). The participants mentioned that collaboration with their colleagues on teaching could support their perceptions of competence (symbol). Dorothy specifically described how teaching online courses (structure) could decrease her perceptions of competence to support the learning of all students (power), enough to email the department chair about her students' grades (power). Additionally, participants described limited time to support all students (structure) and teaching theoretical mathematics courses (structure), which could influence the participants' perceptions of competence (symbol). Table 4-25). They also expressed a desire to use reflection to modify their instruction each semester (x̄ = 4.5; last row of Column 5 of Table 4-25). The difference between the participants' current and desired state of reflection was less than one Likert scale unit (0; last row of Column 6 of Table 4-25), which I interpreted to indicate the participants tended to perceive satisfaction for their use of reflection. Two participants reported low use of reflection to modify their instruction each semester (8%), but most participants reported using reflection to modify their instruction each semester (92%; Column 4 of Table 4-25). Most participants expressed a desire to use reflection to modify their instruction each semester (88%; Column 5 of Table 4-25). Three participants (M2, M16, and M18; 12%) reported a difference between their current use of reflection and desired use of reflection greater than one Likert scale unit, which I interpreted as perceived frustration for autonomy (indicated with red in Column 6 of Table 4-25). Participants When Reflecting on Their Psychological Need for Autonomy, How do Individuals Perceive the Roles of People, Power, Structures, and Symbols within the Departmental Teaching Culture? When reflecting on the modifications Debbie has made to her instruction, she stated: I am constantly self-reflecting about every single thing that I'm doing in class, because my goal is to get my students where they need to be, and part of that falls on me to make sure that I'm being reflective about what they're doing. (Debbie, Mathematics Focus Group 1, 54:38) In this quote, Debbie described that she constantly uses reflection to analyze her instruction and support student learning (symbol). In response to Debbie, Paul stated: I teach pretty similarly from semester to semester and course to course. But I do, in practice, do modifications sometimes without even thinking about it. I just it's like, however it unfolds this semester versus a different semester…That's something I don't reflect on that much, but I feel I should reflect on more, what worked and what didn't work this semester, how the next semester changes, but I could probably reflect more and do even more modifications. That's just me personally. (Paul, Mathematics Focus Group 1, 56:06)
Here, Paul described how he makes modifications to his instruction "without even thinking about it" (symbol). Paul also mentioned that he should reflect more to make additional modifications to his instruction (symbol). He mentioned that this is "just him personally," which I interpreted to indicate Paul acknowledged that others in the mathematics department may have different experiences or opinions (people).
When reflecting on the modifications she has made, Sophie stated:
The fundamental theorem of calculus is the fundamental theorem of calculus. You can't modify that. On the other hand, the way you present it to students. If I'm teaching an applied calculus course, that's 90% pilots, or in aviation, in some way, a lot of my contextualization will go towards aviation. On the other hand, you know, if you're in a class where people are going to teach and they're going to be engineers, and then you broaden your contextualization to draw them in with interest. (Sophie, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 1:03:09) Sophie described how the content of the course does not change (structure), but she can change the contextualization of the content to fit student interests (symbol). Spencer also reflected on his experiences with modifications. He stated: I do know there are faculty in our department who will lay out their entire courses at the beginning. I don't really believe I'm at that point yet, because I'm just in my third year here, so a limited time to teach each course that I've done. (Spencer,Mathematics Focus Group 2,50:01) In this quote, Spencer described how other instructors in the department have their courses planned out at the beginning of the semester. He, in contrast, does not have that experience (people), because he has only had a "limited time" to teach the courses (symbol). Dorothy stated: I'm actually a person who answered this as I modify my teaching all the time. And I know people, this happens to be in other disciplines, with their D2L stuff, and they already have their whole semester perfectly going along. And yes, I'm aspiring to be that, but I can't seem to get that. And so I don't want to modify my teaching as much as I do. Part of this is because I'm teaching those online students. If I could get something that would help me teach all those students better, I would be so happy that I could stay with it, and why can't I be there? I want to be at a place where I don't need to feel like I need to modify it all the time. So maybe I'm an unusual observation in this, because I'm currently teaching a lot of online. (Dorothy, Mathematics Focus Group 2, 46:57) Similar to Spencer, Dorothy described that she modifies her instruction often compared to other instructors. She "aspires" to be like the instructors who do not modify their instruction, if she were able to find "something" that would help all students learn (symbol). She also mentioned that her situation may be "unusual" compared to others in the mathematics department (people) since she is currently teaching many online courses (symbol).
When reflecting on the survey items, Jo stated: I almost wanted to answer these [survey items] for separate courses. So when you say, I want to modify my teaching, there are some courses that we have the ability to do more of that in. I'm not going to go in and teach a 1410 course and completely up end that curriculum, because there are other people teaching that same course, and they're going into 1420 after that. And so there's some common expectation. But then my singleton courses, yeah, I look at those every year when I teach them, and think about, how does this need to be different from what I did before? (Jo, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 1:01:45)
In this quote, Jo described how she is able to make more modifications in her "singleton" courses (structure) because there are no "common expectations" (symbol). Emmy reflected on her ability to make modifications for her instruction. She stated: I will say that though there's not a lot, there are some, lot of intentional collaborations for the courses that I teach. I do feel free to ask questions, challenge policies, investigate why we're using this problem or that on the departmental final things like that. So I do feel free to ask questions that might lead to modifications, whether or not I have the cache to actually change anything myself at the departmental level. (Emmy, Mathematics Focus Group 2, 49:01) Emmy described that during opportunities for collaboration (symbol), she does feel able to ask questions or challenge policies (power). She was not sure whether she had the "cache" for the department to actually make changes based on her feedback (power).
Harish reflected on making modifications: It just seems so fast that you have to modify every semester, even at the beginning of the semester, something you plan. Then at the end of semester, you feel like, oh, maybe there is something there. Maybe I should talk about this other than what I had planned at the beginning of the semester. (Harish, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 1:04:52)
In this quote, Harish described how there is limited time (structure) at the beginning of the semester to make modifications to his instruction (symbol). Cathleen also described that: I think of all the sections [the facilitators] brought up [in the interview], this is the one that the university most, on purpose or not on purpose, this is suppressed. Your teaching is suppressed because of the practicalities of all the things you've got to do. (Cathleen, Mathematics Focus Group 3, 1:02:29) Cathleen explained that due to all of the responsibilities instructors have (structure), making modifications is "suppressed" at the university (symbol).
Within the mathematics department, participants tended to reflect on particular structures that influenced the modifications they made to their instruction, such as limited time, teaching experience, and the particular course or the content (symbols). Additionally, Emmy described how her position in the department influenced the modifications she was able to make to her instruction. Dorothy also described her reasoning for not wanting to modify her instruction once
On the survey, the participants in the biology and geosciences department perceived satisfaction with their independent reflective practice at both the individual and department levels. I interpreted this finding to indicate, on average, participants perceived satisfied cultural integration within the biology and geosciences department. Prior literature found that instructors tended to work independently on their teaching (Andrews et al., 2016;McCourt et al., 2017). McCourt et al. (2017) also found that while collaboration on teaching does not frequently occur, biology faculty did want to collaborate and converse about their instruction. This finding contrasts with the biology and geosciences reported desire to continue working independently for their reflection.
The participants in the chemistry and mathematics departments perceived satisfaction with working collaboratively (although only slightly) for reflection when considering their individual practices. The participants tended to perceive frustration in the chemistry and mathematics departments when considering working independently on instructional reflection at the department ecosystem level. I interpreted this to indicate, on average, participants perceived cultural dissonance for relatedness in instructional reflection within the chemistry and mathematics departments. Across the biology, chemistry, and mathematics focus groups, participants mentioned the importance of the course (structure) for collaboration (symbol). They commonly perceived that it was more challenging to collaborate for the "singleton courses" (Jo, Mathematics Focus Group, 21:30; structure). One participant in the mathematics department, Harish, indicated that despite the course content, instructors can always collaborate on their teaching practices (symbol). A systematic literature review on peer observation of teaching in higher education found that instructors who participated in observations of colleagues in other disciplines were able to focus more on teaching practices as opposed to the course content (Corcelles-Seuba et al., 2025). Therefore, interdisciplinary peer observation may support faculty to recognize that they can collaborate and learn from one another about teaching, regardless of the course content they are teaching.
An influential factor for the geosciences collaboration was their workload, since the department is currently understaffed (structure), there was a lack of time for collaboration on their teaching (structure and symbol). Time constraints have been commonly cited in faculty professional development literature (e.g., Bleiler-Baxter et al., 2021;Corcelles-Seuba et al., 2025). The participants from the geosciences department did express a desire for more collaboration on their teaching within the department, in addition to their current collaboration to redesign their majors and courses (structure). Participants in the biology and chemistry departments also mentioned limited time to dedicate to collaboration on their instruction.
Within the biology department, there was a sense of need to collaborate to keep things consistent across multiple sections of the same course (Carl; symbol). In Chapter 3, my review of the literature found that an emphasis on consistency was a frustration expressed by GTAs (Birt et al., 2019;Wheeler et al., 2015;Zhu & Alsup, 2024). The GTAs in biology focus groups tended to perceive wanting to work more independently, while faculty appeared to desire more collaboration (people). GTAs in the chemistry department reported working collaboratively for their instruction, but faculty expressed working more independently and had a desire to work more collaboratively (people). Lynn specifically she mentioned she wanted to spend less time on teaching and that working independently for teaching made her happier. This could be due to antagonistic messages of a conflict between research and teaching in the biology department regarding how GTAs should spend their time (Reid & Gardner, 2020).
A particularly influential factor for the mathematics department's instructional collaboration was that their building was undergoing remodeling (structure). This resulted in the mathematics department instructors being scattered across the university and feelings of isolation from their colleagues. There was no other remodeling occurring in the other departments; thus, this was a unique influence for the mathematics department (people). The mathematics department also described how their discipline views collaboration as reading one another's work, which could influence how they view collaboration in their teaching (e.g., borrowing materials can be collaborative; symbol). Dorothy also discussed the influence of the education research faculty (structure) supporting collaboration on teaching in the departments (symbol).
The influence of education researchers on their colleagues' teaching and collaboration for teaching has also been found in the literature with biology faculty (Andrews et al., 2016). Both the chemistry and mathematics participants mentioned influential power dynamics that influenced collaboration among different position types.
The biology, chemistry, and geosciences departments perceived satisfaction with their high levels of competence to support the learning of all students at both the individual and departmental levels. I interpreted these findings to indicate that these departments tended to perceive satisfied cultural integration. The mathematics department, however, was satisfied with their high levels of competence at the individual level but frustrated at the department level (reported competence to support the learning of all students but expressed a desire for even higher perceptions of competence). Therefore, the mathematics department perceived cultural dissonance for their competence to support the learning of all students.
Within each department, there were sentiments of shock or surprise from the participants at how high their colleagues within their own department or the college reported their competence (power and people). This may be because the participants viewed their competence in teaching as lower compared to their other responsibilities, such as research (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012).
Participants in the biology, chemistry, and mathematics departments described how collaboration can be a useful way to foster an instructor's competence to support the learning of all students (symbol). This finding is corroborated in the literature on faculty professional development, where participation supported instructors' perceptions of competence in a variety of disciplines (Stupnisky et al., 2018). The idea of collaboration being a way to foster instructors' competence was not discussed in the geosciences department focus groups.
A focus group in the biology department was the only group to express a desire for one of their departmental courses (in this case, anatomy and physiology) to function as a weed-out course because they perceived a concern for some students becoming doctors or nurses (symbol).
Traditionally, anatomy and physiology courses have functioned as a weed-out or "killer class," though recent efforts seek to shift this perspective (Lunsford & Diviney, 2020, p. 3). The biology, geosciences, and mathematics departments discussed how the COVID-19 pandemic increased student accessibility to class resources to support their learning (structure). There were also discussions in these focus groups about relying on assistance from the disability access center to support student learning (structure). This finding conflicts with the prior literature on accessibility during and after COVID-19. Gin and colleagues (2021) found that shortly after the transition to online instruction during the pandemic, students experienced struggles accessing their previously established accommodations from instructors for their disabilities. A year later, these researchers found that more than half of the students still were not receiving the appropriate accommodations from their instructors (Gin et al., 2022). This prior literature speaks to the challenges students with disabilities can still face in courses post-pandemic, even if instructors (such as those within the focus groups of the biology, geosciences, and mathematics departments) perceive they are supporting these students.
Participants from the focus group interviews described examples of supporting students with disabilities. There were two mentions by Luke and Thomas of supporting students who were of low socioeconomic status. While these interpretations are included within a goal of an inclusive culture to support the learning of all students, they are not representative of all students. For instance, participants did not mention supporting students of historically marginalized groups who commonly experience disparities in education (Theobald et al., 2020).
It is possible that the participants in the focus group interviews do not believe that marginalized groups need to be supported. Though it is possible that, due to the political climate in the United States, participants did not feel comfortable sharing their opinions regarding these students during a recorded interview. Additionally, supporting students with disabilities may have been the most prevalent experience the participants had and wanted to share in the interviews. While these ideas were not brought up in the chemistry focus groups, there were discussions about trying to create a classroom environment to support all students (structure and symbol).
Tashiana, a participant in the chemistry department, also described how the instructors' position (structure) can influence their competence (e.g., perceived more competence as a GTA since she had limited control, but lower perceptions of competence as a faculty member; power and symbol).
The biology and geosciences departments perceived satisfaction with their use of reflection to modify their instruction at both the individual and department levels. I interpreted this finding to indicate the participants in these departments tended to perceive satisfied cultural integration for their autonomy. The chemistry and mathematics departments perceived satisfaction with their use of reflection to modify their instruction at the individual level, but they perceived frustration at the department level (reported using reflection to make modifications but expressed a desire for even more modifications). I interpreted these findings to indicate that the participants in the chemistry and mathematics departments, on average, tended to perceive cultural dissonance for their autonomy.
Across all of the departments' focus groups, there was discussion of instructors' limited time (structure) as influential for making modifications to their instruction (symbol). This was particularly prevalent for tenure-track faculty (structure) who have research pressures. Lynn in the biology department did not view modifications to her instruction as part of her job (symbol).
In the chemistry department, participants mentioned that GTAs (structure) do not have the power to modify their instruction (symbol). Quite a few studies have also found that GTAs have limited control to modify their instruction (Chapter 3; Akcayir et al., 2024;Birt et al., 2019;Goodwin et al., 2021;Kajfez & Matusovich, 2017). Cathleen in the mathematics department described that making modifications to their instruction was the most suppressed (out of collaboration, competence, and autonomy) by the university (symbol) due to all the responsibilities instructors have (structure). In the chemistry and mathematics departments, participants described sentiments that once they have taught a course a few times (structure), there will be less of a need to modify their instruction (symbol).
Table 4-28 Findings through the lens of self-determination theory Psychological Need Lens of SDT Participant Perceptions Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) Relatedness Need Satisfaction (Current State = Reflect Collaboratively) Perceived Satisfaction & Collaboration in Reflection is Valued Participants were satisfied with their higher levels of collaboration in reflection, aligning with need satisfaction for collaboration posited by SDT B5, B10, B14, B16, B17, B20 CA, C3, C4, C6, C7, C10, C12, C16, C18 G4 MA, M1, M2, M4, M10, M12, M15, M18, M19, M20, M23, M25, M26 Perceived Frustration & Collaboration in Reflection is Not Valued Participants were frustrated with their higher levels of collaboration in reflection, even though SDT would posit they would be satisfied N/A Need Frustration (Current State ≠ Reflect Collaboratively) Perceived Satisfaction & Collaboration in Reflection is Not Valued Participants were satisfied with their lower levels of collaboration in reflection, even though SDT would posit they would be frustrated BA, B1, B4, B6, B7, B9, B11, B12, B13, B15, B19, B22, B23, B24, B26 C1, C5, C8, C11, C13, C14, C17, C19 GA, G1, G2, G3, G5, G6 M3, M5, M7, M8, M9, M11, M13, M17, M21, M22, M24 Perceived Frustration & Collaboration in Reflection is Valued Participants were frustrated with their lower levels of collaboration in reflection, aligning with need frustration posited by SDT B2, B3, B8, B18, B21, B25 C2, C9, C15, C20 M6, M14, M16 Psychological Need Lens of SDT Participant Perceptions Perceived Satisfaction (Current State ≈ Desired State) Perceived Frustration (Current State ≠ Desired State) Autonomy Need Satisfaction (Current State = Use Reflection to Modify) Perceived Satisfaction & Using Reflection to Modify Instruction is Valued Participants were satisfied with their higher levels of using reflection to modify their instruction, aligning with need satisfaction posited by SDT BA, B1, B2, B4, B5, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B14, B15, B16, B17, B19, B20, B21, B22, B24, B25, B26 CA, C2, C3, C4, C5, C6, C7, C10, C12, C13, C14, C15, C18, C20 GA, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6 MA, M1, M3, M4, M6, M7, M8, M9, M10, M11, M12, M13, M14, M15, M17, M19, M20, M21, M22, M23, M24, M25, M26 Perceived Frustration & Using Reflection to Modify Instruction is Not Valued Participants were frustrated with their higher levels of using reflection to modify their instruction, even though SDT would posit they would be satisfied M2, M18 Need Frustration (Current State ≠ Use Reflection to Modify)
Instruction is Not Valued Participants were satisfied with their lower levels of using reflection to modify their instruction, even though SDT would posit they would be frustrated B3, B13, B23 C1, C8, C9, C11, C17, C19 M5
Valued Participants were frustrated with their lower levels of using reflection to modify their instruction, aligning with need frustration posited by SDT B6, B18 C16 M16 Note: N/A indicates there were no participants who fell into the category In the biology department, most participants (54%) perceived satisfaction for their lower levels of relatedness in reflection. Through the lens of SDT, however, these participants experienced need frustration. I interpreted this to indicate that the biology department, on average, does not value relatedness in reflection. The findings were similar for the geosciences department, where 83% of participants perceived satisfaction for their lower levels of relatedness in reflection. The chemistry (40%) and mathematics (46%) departments tended to perceive satisfaction with their higher levels of relatedness in reflection. Through the lens of SDT, these participants experienced need satisfaction. I interpreted this to indicate that the chemistry and mathematics departments, on average, do value relatedness in reflection for their teaching.
The biology (88%), chemistry (65%), geosciences (83%), and mathematics (92%) departments tended to perceive satisfaction with their higher levels of competence in reflection to support the learning of all students. Through the lens of SDT, these participants experienced need satisfaction. I interpreted this to indicate the biology, chemistry, geosciences, and mathematics departments, on average, value competence in reflection to support the learning of all students. For autonomy, the biology (80%), chemistry (65%), geosciences (100%), and mathematics (84%) departments perceived satisfaction in using reflection to modify their instruction. Through the lens of SDT, these participants experienced need satisfaction. I interpreted this to indicate the biology, chemistry, geosciences, and mathematics departments, on average, value using reflection to modify their instruction.
Based on participants' statements in the focus group about the various interpretations of the survey items, it may be useful to conduct a study specifically aimed at gathering validity and reliability evidence for the interpretation of data collected from this instrument (AERA et al., 2014). Additionally, some participants expressed shock or surprise at their colleagues' responses to the survey. This could potentially be due to self-selection bias of the participants who may have tended to report lower perceptions of relatedness, competence, and autonomy compared to their department. Participants in the focus groups tended to provide examples of supporting students with disabilities. Future research could specifically focus on unpacking instructor perceptions of supporting all students and if these were just the relevant examples instructors thought of. Additionally, as described by Korthagen and Vasalos (2005), there are different levels where reflection can take place, including the environment, behaviors, competencies, beliefs, identities, and missions of the individual. This study did not seek to unpack how participants interpreted the use of "reflection" in the survey. Thus, future research can seek to address this in future studies. I also did not seek to understand how participants naturally reflected at different levels during the focus group discussions of their department's teaching culture, which could be addressed in future studies.
Participants in the focus groups tended to perceive a desire to engage in collaboration to support their instruction, including their support of all students and modifications to their instruction. It is possible that participants made connections between collaboration, competence, and autonomy in this study because collaboration was the first topic discussed in the focus groups. However, I still argue that participants perceiving a connection among the psychological needs is positive for future initiatives to support the development of a Culture of Learning.
Additionally, from the survey and focus group interviews, participants tended to perceive value for their relatedness, competence, and autonomy in teaching. A notable exception to this, however, was from the survey data from the biology and geosciences relatedness for teaching.
These departments, on average, did not appear to value collaboration in reflection. Yet, both the biology and geosciences departments perceived cultural integration for working independently on their reflection. Across the components of a Culture of Learning (collaborative, inclusive, and growth-oriented culture), the findings from this study indicate that the chemistry and mathematics departments currently have more of a Culture of Learning for teaching compared to the geosciences and biology departments. This finding has important implications for understanding why changing departmental teaching cultures may be challenging. For instance, Reinholz and colleagues (2021) found in a systematic review of change in higher education, that many initiatives were designed around a community of practice. Communities of practice necessarily require collaboration for individuals to learn through participation (Wenger, 1998). Yet, if cultures such as biology and geoscience tend not to value collaboration with colleagues, initiatives to enact widespread change designed around collaboration may not be achieved. In this study, all four departments tended to perceive value for competence (use of reflection to support the learning of all students) and autonomy (use of reflection to modify their instruction). Therefore, initiatives designed to first unpack instructors' values related to teaching may be more fruitful sites for implementing change. For the biology and geosciences departments, it may be more fruitful to support instructors in their use of reflection to support the learning of all students and to modify their instruction.
This study sought to explore instructors' perceptions of the satisfaction or frustration of their psychological needs for teaching. To achieve this goal, this study used a novel framework to understand and characterize department teaching culture through the lens of SDT, ecological systems theory, and the four frames model of culture. In particular, this framework described a desire to foster a Culture of Learning within STEM departments that is focused on collaboration,
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I work independently to plan for my instruction o o o o o I work collaboratively to plan for my instruction I want to work independently to plan for my instruction o o o o o I want to work collaboratively to plan for my instruction Instructors in my department work independently to plan for their instruction o o o o o Instructors in my department work collaboratively to plan for their instruction I want instructors in my department to work independently to plan for their instruction o o o o o I want instructors in my department to work collaboratively to plan for their instruction 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I am not confident in planning lessons/courses to support all students in learning o o o o o I am confident in planning lessons/courses to support all students in learning I do not want to be confident in planning lessons/courses to support all students in learning o o o o o I want to be confident in planning lessons/courses to support all students in learning Instructors in my department are not confident in planning lessons/courses to support all students in learning o o o o o Instructors in my department are confident in planning lessons/courses to support all students in learning I do not want instructors in my department to be confident in planning lessons/courses to support all students in learning o o o o o I want instructors in my department to be confident in planning lessons/courses to support all students in learning 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I use the same approach to planning lessons/courses each semester o o o o o I modify my approach to planning lessons/courses each semester I want to use the same approach to planning lessons/courses each semester o o o o o I want to modify my approach to planning lessons/courses each semester Instructors in my department use the same approach to planning lessons/courses each semester o o o o o Instructors in my department modify their approach to planning lessons/courses each semester I want instructors in my department to use the same approach to planning lessons/courses each semester o o o o o I want instructors in my department to modify their approach to planning lessons/courses each semester 5. For the questions below, please generally consider the undergraduate courses you have taught (or are currently teaching) in your department within the past academic year. Throughout this survey, "instructors" refers to anybody in your department who teaches (e.g. adjunct faculty, GTAs, tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty, etc.). For the following questions, please consider classroom practices such as implementing instructional strategies and managing the learning environment. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I independently teach my courses o o o o o I share teaching responsibilities for my courses I want to independently teach my courses o o o o o I want to share teaching responsibilities for my courses Instructors in my department teach independently for individual courses o o o o o Instructors in my department share teaching responsibilities for individual courses I want instructors in my department to teach independently for individual courses o o o o o I want instructors in my department to share teaching responsibilities for individual courses 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I am not confident in my teaching practices to support the learning of all students o o o o o I am confident in my teaching practices to support the learning of all students I do not want to be confident in my teaching practices to support the learning of all students o o o o o I want to be confident in my teaching practices to support the learning of all students Instructors in my department are not confident in using teaching practices to support the learning of all students o o o o o Instructors in my department are confident in using teaching practices to support the learning of all students I do not want instructors in my department to be confident in using teaching practices to support the learning of all students o o o o o I want instructors in my department to be confident in using teaching practices to support the learning of all students 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I use the same teaching practices each semester o o o o o I modify my teaching practices each semester I want to use the same teaching practices each semester o o o o o I want to modify my teaching practices each semester Instructors in my department use the same teaching practices each semester o o o o o Instructors in my department modify their teaching practices each semester I want instructors in my department to use the same teaching practices each semester o o o o o I want instructors in my department to modify their teaching practices each semester 6. For the questions below, please generally consider the undergraduate courses you have taught (or are currently teaching) in your department within the past academic year. Throughout this survey, "instructors" refers to anybody in your department who teaches (e.g. adjunct faculty, GTAs, tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty, etc.). For the following questions, please consider student assessment practices such as the use of exams, individual assignments, group assignments, projects, etc. to measure student progress and provide feedback. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I work independently to design student assessments for my courses o o o o o I work collaboratively to design student assessments for my courses I want to work independently to design student assessments for my courses o o o o o I want to work collaboratively to design student assessments for my courses Instructors in my department independently design student assessments for individual courses o o o o o Instructors in my department collaboratively design student assessments for individual courses I want instructors in my department to work independently to design student assessments for individual courses o o o o o I want instructors in my department to work collaboratively to design student assessments for individual courses 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I am not confident in using a variety of formats to assess the learning of all students o o o o o I am confident in using a variety of formats to assess the learning of all students I do not want to be confident in using a variety of formats to assess the learning of all students o o o o o I want to be confident in using a variety of formats to assess the learning of all students Instructors in my department are not confident in using a variety of formats to assess the learning of all students o o o o o Instructors in my department are confident in using a variety of formats to assess the learning of all students I do not want instructors in my department to be confident in using a variety of formats to assess the learning of all students o o o o o I want instructors in my department to be confident in using a variety of formats to assess the learning of all students 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I use the same student assessment strategies each semester o o o o o I modify my student assessment strategies each semester I want to use the same student assessment strategies each semester o o o o o I want to modify my student assessment strategies each semester Instructors in my department use the same student assessment strategies each semester o o o o o Instructors in my department modify their student assessment strategies each semester I want instructors in my department to use the same student assessment strategies each semester o o o o o I want instructors in my department to modify their student assessment strategies each semester 7. For the questions below, please generally consider the undergraduate courses you have taught (or are currently teaching) in your department within the past academic year. Throughout this survey, "instructors" refers to anybody in your department who teaches (e.g. adjunct faculty, GTAs, tenure-track faculty, tenured faculty, etc.). For the following questions, please consider reflective practices such as analyzing and reflecting on teaching methods and student outcomes to improve instructional effectiveness and foster professional growth. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I reflect on my teaching independently o o o o o I reflect on my teaching with colleagues I want to reflect on my teaching independently o o o o o I want to reflect on my teaching with colleagues Instructors in my department reflect individually on their teaching practices o o o o o Instructors in my department work collaboratively to reflect on their teaching I want instructors in my department to reflect individually on their teaching practices o o o o o I want instructors in my department to work collaboratively to reflect on their teaching 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I am not confident I can reflect on my teaching to support the learning of all students in future enactments o o o o o I am confident I can reflect on my teaching to support the learning of all students in future enactments I do not want to be confident in reflection on my teaching to support the learning of all students in future enactments o o o o o I want to be confident in reflection on my teaching to support the learning of all students in future enactments Instructors in my department are not confident in reflecting on their teaching to support the learning of all students in future enactments o o o o o Instructors in my department are confident in reflecting on their teaching to support the learning of all students in future enactments I do not want instructors in my department to be confident in reflecting on their teaching to support the learning of all students in future enactments o o o o o I want instructors in my department to be confident in reflecting on their teaching to support the learning of all students in future enactments 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) I do not use reflection to modify my teaching each semester o o o o o I use reflection to modify my teaching each semester I do not want to use reflection to modify my teaching each semester o o o o o I want to use reflection to modify my teaching each semester Instructors in my department do not use reflection to modify their teaching each semester o o o o o Instructors in my department use reflection to modify their teaching each semester I do not want instructors in my department to use reflection to modify their teaching each semester o o o o o I want instructors in my department to use reflection to modify their teaching each semester 3. An alarm will go off at 15 minutes so we can move on to the next section 5. What questions do you have? Relatedness 1. For the next 15 minutes, we are going to be talking about whether your department thinks you teach more independently or collaboratively. 2. Orient to the scale. 3. Share data: a. Orient to box and whisker plots: i. "x" is the mean ii. Horizontal line indicates the median iii. Vertical lines indicate the range of the data iv. Any "dots" indicate outliers b. Can you share what you noticed in this data? c. What about your department's teaching culture could explain these findings? 4. Orient to the CBAS data. a. We don't want this to be perceived as a competition between departments; we are really trying to understand your unique department culture that may not happen in other departments. b. What do you notice about this data? c. What occurs in your department that may not happen in other departments to help explain these results? 5. If needed: Share the department data i. Orient to the department data. 1. Can you share what you noticed in this data? 2. What about your department's teaching culture could explain these findings? ii. Orient to the CBAS department data. 1. What do you notice about this data? 2. What occurs in your department that may not happen in other departments to help explain these results? 6. If time: What do you think could support your department to achieve the desired outcome of being ___________________? 7. Is there anything else about your department's relationships for teaching that you would like to share? Competence 1. Next, we are going to review data from your department's confidence to support the learning of all students. 2. Share data: a. Can you share what you noticed in this data? b. What about your department's teaching culture could explain these findings? 3. CBAS data. a. What do you notice about this data?
or thwart their psychological needs, and how TPD programs could impact their psychological needs. I found that GTAs tended to express high perceptions of competence, variable levels of autonomy, and variable relatedness. GTAs tended to report high perceptions of relatedness with the students they teach and peer GTAs, as well as low perceptions of relatedness with faculty.
TPD programs appeared to generally have positive impacts on GTAs' perceptions of teaching competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which could lead to a potential outcome of further engagement in TPD programs by reifying autonomous motivation for teaching.
One of the findings of this study is that there is a plethora of research addressing GTAs' perceptions of competence. There were, however, far fewer articles that intentionally addressed and studied GTAs' perceptions of their autonomy and relatedness to others in their instructional context. Therefore, an area for future research would be to conduct studies specifically to understand GTAs' perceptions of autonomy and relatedness within their respective contexts. In I specifically drew on ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and the four frames model (Bolman & Deal, 2017;Reinholz & Apkarian, 2018) indicated they are satisfied with not using reflective practices to modify their instruction. I hypothesize that an individual who does not want to modify their instruction would likely not want to engage in TRIOS, where they could learn about instructional practices that could be implemented in their classroom practice (which would require modifications that this participant does not want to make).
Participant M2 is satisfied with reflecting on their instruction collaboratively and their competence in reflection to support the learning of all students. This participant is frustrated for using reflection to modify their instruction (they would like to modify their instruction less than they currently do). Therefore, participant M2 values relatedness and competence but does not value autonomy. Since participant M2 does value collaboration, I hypothesize that they may participate in TRIOS and continue collaborating with colleagues on their instruction. This hypothesis is aligned with studies that indicate instructors may be motivated to engage in professional development when they see an opportunity to collaborate on their instruction (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012;McCourt et al., 2017). Additionally, I hypothesize that the participants' desire not to use reflection to modify their instruction could be interpreted in two ways. First, participant M2 would not engage in TRIOS because they do not want to learn about instructional practices that could be implemented into their classroom practice (thus requiring modifications they do not want to make). Second, the participant may engage in TRIOS because they hope to learn about instructional strategies they could implement (and modify their instruction), but once implemented, would not need to be modified again.
Of these selected participants, participant M1 is the only participant to perceive satisfaction and value all three psychological needs. Since all three psychological needs are satisfied, I hypothesize that this participant may experience motivation to engage in TRIOS to continue meeting their psychological needs. Participant M1, however, may see no need to engage in TRIOS since their needs are already met. Participant M6 perceived frustration for reflecting on their instruction independently (they would like to collaborate) and for their competence in reflection to support the learning of all students (they would like to develop more competence).
Participant M6 is satisfied for their use of reflection to modify their instruction. I hypothesize that participant M6 likely would engage in TRIOS to support their desire to collaborate with colleagues on their instruction. Additionally, this participant may view TRIOS as an opportunity to support (increase) their competence in using reflection to support the learning of all students, which may also lead this participant to engage in TRIOS.
perceive the mathematics teaching culture to be currently (satisfied cultural integration). I hypothesize that enacting an initiative designed to change the culture they are satisfied with may cause discomfort for these individuals. As a result, they likely would not want to be leaders. Maybe would their value for collaboration (at the individual and departmental levels) to act as a leader in their department to support the use of reflection to modify instruction with their colleagues.
Participant M1 reported being an assistant professor with 32 semesters of experience teaching in the department. While this participant has teaching experience in the department, influential power dynamics may limit their leadership.
Participant M2 perceived cultural dissonance for relatedness (satisfied for reflecting collaboratively but was frustrated with the department reflecting independently) and autonomy (frustrated for using reflection to modify but was satisfied with the department not using reflection to modify their instruction). I hypothesize that participant M2 may draw on their desire for collaboration to occur at the departmental level. However, this hypothesis is complicated by the participants' desire not to use reflection to modify their instruction at the individual level and their satisfaction with the department not using reflection to modify their instruction. Therefore, participant M2 may not be willing to act as a departmental leader for an initiative that may support reflection to enact changes in their colleagues' instruction. Additionally, participant M2 is a GTA with one semester of teaching experience in the department. As such, it may also be challenging for the participant to act as a departmental leader. Participant M6 reported frustration for relatedness in reflection. They also perceived cultural dissonance for competence and autonomy. I hypothesize that this participant may act as a departmental leader in the ACT-STEM project because they perceive cultural dissonance for desired states aligned with the project's goals. This participant is frustrated with the department's lack of reflection to modify their instruction and tendency to reflect independently. At the individual level, the participant is only satisfied with their use of reflection to modify their instruction. Therefore, participant M6 does not appear to experience the satisfaction of their psychological needs, which may limit their empowerment to act as a departmental leader. Acting as a departmental leader, however, would occur after participation in TRIOS, where the participant could gain support and satisfy their psychological needs. This participant is a lecturer with 48 semesters of teaching experience in the mathematics department. Similar to participant M1, there may be influential power dynamics that could limit their leadership. While there are multiple factors that could contribute to these participants' departmental leadership, I hypothesize that participant M6 may act as a departmental leader to support culture change to states that align with their personal beliefs and goals.
An important factor for participants to act as departmental leaders for ACT-STEM within their department is that they must first engage in TRIOS. Thus, Table 5-3 combines my proposed hypotheses for who may be likely to engage in TRIOS (Table 5-1) and who may be likely to act as a departmental leader (Table 5-2) to consider both aspects. The overlap of these hypotheses indicates that participants M1 and M6 would most likely engage in TRIOS and act as departmental leaders. However, participant M2 may also be likely to engage and act as a leader.
Ultimately, these are all hypotheses based on my experiences and current data analysis. When TRIOS is implemented with participants in the fall, we can use the survey from Chapter 3 to begin testing these hypotheses to explore who tends to participate in TRIOS and may be interested in acting as a departmental leader. It will also be valuable to explore what we could do to support individuals from "likely would not" or "maybe" to "likely would" engage in TRIOS or act as a departmental leader.
This dissertation has three distinct projects and thus chapters on motivation related to teaching. However, these findings can be viewed as complementary to support the field's understanding of motivation to support efforts to create a Culture of Learning in departments.
For instance, in Chapter 2: GTAs' Engagement in Teaching Professional Development, I hypothesized that GTAs (such as Ben) with high perceptions of autonomy and pedagogical discontentment may experience motivation for changes to adopt new practices or engage in professional development. This finding is aligned with findings from Chapters 3 (Scoping Review of GTAs' Psychological Needs) and 4 (Departmental Teaching Culture), due to the emphasis in SDT on autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Without autonomy to change an aspect of their instructional practice, GTAs and faculty alike likely will not change much of their practice.
The findings of this dissertation and the theoretical framing indicate the importance of instructors' autonomy in their teaching. Thus, there are a few implications of this work for practitioners or those supervising GTAs. Though GTAs expressed that prescribed curricula thwarted their autonomy (Chapter 3), I do not claim that prescribed curricula are "bad" because they may not support GTAs' autonomy. Rather, prescribed curricula can reduce pressures on must experience pedagogical discontentment with their colleagues' practices in order for there to be meaningful changes in the departmental teaching culture. Thus, the theoretical framings of each chapter included in this dissertation have unique, yet important parallels and distinctions that can continue to frame future work (Spangler & Williams, 2019).
To support departmental change efforts, it will be essential to explore how to productively surface pedagogical discontentment while still supporting instructors' self-efficacy to increase motivation to enact change in instructional practices or act as a departmental leader.
One avenue that has been explored to surface instructors' pedagogical discontentment is through reflection (Freeman et al., 2025;Southerland et al., 2012). Therefore, individuals who participate in TRIOS may be supported to engage in core reflection (Korthagen & Vasalos, 2005) to surface pedagogical discontentment and experience motivation to continue participating in TRIOS, change their instructional practices, or act as a departmental leader. Faculty, therefore, can seek to provide opportunities to GTAs to support reflection and foster pedagogical discontentment. If instructors reflect on their teaching collaboratively, it will be essential to foster a culture where individuals feel psychologically safe to share their concerns and challenges (i.e., need to have a sense of relatedness; Murphy, 2024;Ryan & Deci, 2017). Therefore, practitioners should prioritize building relationships and trust with one another in TPD context.
In this dissertation, I conducted three studies on GTAs' motivation to engage in TPD. I specifically utilized two theories of motivation (pedagogical discontentment and selfdetermination theory) to address the aims of each study. These two theories of motivation examined different data sources to provide unique contributions to the overall dissertation aims.
Many of the findings provide unique insights into supporting GTAs and faculty (in Chapter 4) to
perceived satisfaction for their low or high use of reflection to modify their instruction (indicated with green in Column 6 of Table4-13).