The Practical Applications of Understanding

Graduate Teaching Assistant Motivation and

Identity Development

Rachel L. Kajfez

Department of Engineering Education

Virginia Tech

Blacksburg, USA

rlouis@vt.edu

Holly M. Matusovich

Department of Engineering Education

Virginia Tech

Blacksburg, USA

matushm@vt.edu

Abstract - As the field of Engineering Education continues to grow so does the number of research studies. In this ever developing field, it is important to understand the practical applications and implications of this growing body of work. This paper discusses the initial practical applications of one study designed to examine the motivation and identity development of Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs). Our hope is that by sharing the initial practical applications of our work in the work-in-progress format, we can better define the appropriate applications of this particular study but also contribute to the conversation of research to practice in Engineering Education.

Keywords - teaching assistants, motivation, identity, application

I. INTRODUCTION

Engineering Education is a growing and developing

discipline and research field; as Jamieson and Lohmann [1]

have discussed, to continue to move Engineering Education

forward with meaningful progress, we need to continue to

connect research and practice. This work-in-progress addresses

that key issue by presenting the initial practical applications

from a large research study about GTAs who are the future of

Engineering Education both in terms of research and practice.

At this time, this research is in the analysis phase, and we hope

that by presenting our findings in this format, we can gain

further insight into our research and applications. We also

hope to further contribute to the ever developing conversation

of research to practice by focusing our research on future

faculty who will be instrumental in connecting the two areas in

the years to come.

GTAs serve a variety of functions in engineering

classrooms. Many times they are the primary instructor for a

lecture or lab or they may be an assistant in the classroom,

helping to mentor students and support faculty [2]. Regardless

of their specific role, GTAs are often in direct contact with

undergraduate engineering students, creating the potential for

GTAs to have a significant impact on a student’s educational

experience. To create GTA development programs to best

prepare GTAs for their roles and optimize student experiences,

it is important to understand the experiences and needs of

GTAs from their own perspective. This work-in-progress

paper addresses the possible applications of a research study

currently examining GTA teaching experiences in first-year

engineering programs. The ultimate goal of that work is to

identify the key factors affecting GTA motivation to teach and

identity development as teachers. This paper focuses on the

specific applications of the findings.

II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This research is based in a theoretical approach that

combines motivation and identity. As previously described

[2], the theoretical approach uses Self-Determination Theory

(SDT) [3] as the motivational perspective and Possible-Selves

Theory (PST) [4] as the identity component. In the proposed

model, PST serves as the foundation for understanding an

experience where views of one’s future possible self influence

how we experience something. The SDT constructs of

competence, relatedness, and autonomy can then be examined

keeping in mind the individual’s view of their future self. In

our work, as defined by Ryan and Deci [3], autonomy includes

an individual’s feelings of decision making power and control,

competence addresses having appropriate knowledge, and

relatedness encompasses feelings of belonging to a

community. By using a combined theoretical perspective such

as the one described above, a holistic understanding of GTAs’

experiences can be developed taking into account both identity

and motivation which are both fundamental to who we are and

how we act in certain situations.

III. METHODS

Overall, this research employed a multi-phased mixed

methods design incorporating qualitative interviews and a

quantitative national survey with GTAs teaching in a variety of

first-year engineering programs. For the qualitative portion, 12

interviews, representing five different first-year engineering

programs, were coded using an a priori approach where the

major constructs of the theory served as the codes [5]. The

quantitative portion, which had 33 participants representing

seven different first-year engineering programs, was analyzed

using basic descriptive techniques due to the size of the sample.

978-1-4673-5261-1/13/$31.00 ©2013 IEEE

The main outcome from the project so far is a set of

teaching profiles that represent different clusters of GTA

participants based on SDT and PST constructs: specifically

identity, competence, autonomy, and relatedness. The clusters

were developed by statistically clustering the quantitative data

and subsequently examining the qualitative data in a mixed

methods approach. The profiles combine both the qualitative

and quantitative findings from the study through connecting

and mixing. Essentially, the profiles represent possible types

of graduate students that are working as GTAs in first-year

engineering programs. It is not our intention to suggest that all

GTAs only fit into specific groupings. Rather our intention is

to show that there are similarities and differences in students

that choose to be GTAs and thinking of them by profile could

help researchers and supervisors alike to develop strategies to

help prepare GTAs for their teaching roles. Additional

information about the methods (i.e., details on the analysis,

reliability, and validity concerns, etc.) will be provided in

future publications.

Below we discuss the first teaching profile developed as an

example of the initial findings from this work. We also provide

detailed examples of how that profile can be applied towards

reconsidering structures for GTA teaching appointments and

towards revising traditional GTA training programs.

IV. STRONG IDENTITY PROFILE

Based on the analysis, we discovered that the most salient

construct for determining the profiles was identity. With this in

mind, here we discuss the strong teacher identity profile that

emerged from our work.

Based on the interviews, individuals who make up the

strong teacher identity profile believe that teaching is integral

to who they are. They also believe that teaching is something

you do beyond the confines of a classroom taking place in

many aspects of life. For this group of GTAs, teaching is a

natural fit and is something they feel they were meant to do.

As Wesley, a first time GTA, said:

“Just being conservative, but um, it’s all, it goes along with the fact that [being a teacher is] part of who I am. […] I always knew I had to you know, teach in order to be happy…”

From this quote, we see that Wesley has a strong connection to

teaching, believing it is something he has to do in life.

Additionally, in keeping with PST, these GTAs more often

than not want future careers to involve teaching in some direct

capacity. Many cite being future faculty members as part of

their ideal job after graduation.

V. APPLICATIONS OF THE PROFILE

Based on the profile described above, these individuals want

to teach in the future and see it as a strong part of who they are.

For these types of GTAs, programs should be developed that

help foster advanced teaching experiences for these individuals

so they can continue to develop their skills as teachers. The

current development programs that are reported most

commonly in the Engineering Education literature are universal

in the sense that they do not consider individual identity or

motivation needs. To supplement the current training, we

suggest that strong teacher identity GTAs take part in programs

such as the Preparing the Future Faculty [6] or get involved in

Engineering Education PhD programs or certificate programs

to further supplement their teaching in the classroom. In these

types of programs, students get to hone their teaching practices,

but they are also exposed to educational theory and literature

further supporting their interest and knowledge about teaching.

Looking towards early career faculty development literature

also provides examples of how GTAs could continue to

develop and progress in their teaching abilities. A recent

example would be the work by Felder, Brent, and Prince [7]

who explore instructional development programs, best

practices, and recommendations with regard to adult learner

motivation.

We also suggest that GTAs meeting the strong identity

profile be given increased responsibilities in their programs and

be considered for advanced roles where they can serve as role

models and mentors to other GTAs providing support and

encouragement as needed. By serving in advanced roles,

GTAs would not only impact the learning of their students,

they would also impact the learning and development of their

fellow GTAs. This impact could ultimately help to contribute

to improving the quality of Engineering Education as a whole.

In K-12 teacher education, similar approaches have been taken

where K-12 teachers are involved in leadership roles to help

with overall education reform at the school and district level

(e.g., [8-9]).

We would like to clarify that the recommendations above

are targeted at the strong identity profile, but they may also be

suitable for GTAs in other profiles as well. These

recommendations serve as a starting point for understanding

GTA experiences but are by no means the only

recommendations for supporting their experiences. To fully

understand a GTA’s experience, we suggest they take the

survey we have created related to motivation and identity to

better understand themselves and their own beliefs. These

initial results should be used as a starting off point as we

believe the profiles are fluid and GTAs can easily move

between them given teaching appointments.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

The overall purpose of the study is to better understand the

teaching experiences of GTAs involved in first-year

engineering programs examining their motivation and identity.

However, this paper serves to set the stage for applications and

implications from that work. By presenting this research in a

work-in-progress format, we are able to open this topic of

research to practice for formal discussion. We plan to use the

results of presenting this paper to influence the applications and

implications of this research beyond the first profile and

beyond first-year engineering programs. In the future, we plan

to expand this research beyond engineering examining the

motivation and identity of GTAs in a variety of disciplines.

Additionally we hope to develop this research providing

information about the connection between GTA motivation and

identity and student motivation, identity, and achievement.

Finally, we believe that the audience for this work includes

anyone who is a TA, uses TAs, or is new teacher in general.

REFERENCES

[1] L. H. Jamieson, and J. R. Lohmann, “Creating a culture for scholarly and

systematic innovation in engineering education: Ensuring U.S.

engineering has the right people with the right talent for a global

society,” American Society for Engineering Education. Washington,

D.C.: American Society for Engineering Education, 2009.

[2] R. A. Louis, and H. A. Matusovich. “Work-in-progress: Describing the

responsibilities of teaching assistants in first-year engineering

programs.” Paper to be presented at the 42th Annual Frontiers in

Education Conference, Seattle, WA, 2012.

[3] R. M. Ryan, and E. L. Deci, “Self-determination theory and the

facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being,”

American Psychologist, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 68-78, 2000.

[4] H. Markus, and P. Nurius, “Possible selves,” American Psychologist,

vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 954-969, 1986.

[5] M. Q. Patton, “Qualitative research & evaluation methods,” (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.

[6] K. R. Csavina, “The preparing future faculty program at Arizona state

university and its role in preparing graduate engineering students for the

professoriate,” Paper presented at the 109th American Society for

Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Montreal,

QB, 2002.

[7] R. M. Felder, R. Brent, R., and M. J. Prince, “Engineering instructional

development: Programs, best practices, and recommendations. Journal of

Engineering Education, vol .100, no. 1, pp. 89-122, 2011.

[8] S. Kurtz, “Teacher leadership,” Leadership, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 12-38,

2009.

[9] J. Wynne, “Teachers as leaders in education reform,” ERIC Digest,

2001.