Undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) are associated with increased student performance and belongingness. Yet, when given a choice, not all students leverage UTA-facilitated opportunities equally.
Objective
This study explores motivational and contextual factors that underlie individual differences in students’ willingness to attend UTA facilitated supplemental workshops and the impact of such engagement on their achievement.
Method
Undergraduates (N = 112) in research and statistics courses completed measures of help-seeking, social fit, and expectancy value three times across the semester. Responses were compared to students’ attendance records, exam scores, and open-ended responses evaluating benefits and challenges of working with UTAs.
Results
Given the choice, a majority of students chose to attend workshops and consistent participation was positively correlated with exam performance. Yet help-seeking intentions, social fit, value beliefs, and perceived obstacles rather than incentives or perceived costs explained individual differences in workshop participation itself.
Conclusion
UTAs can improve peer’s achievement but simply providing students with opportunities to interact with UTAs is inadequate. Scaffolding active participation in UTA-led workshops requires addressing students’ motivational orientations.
Teaching Implications
To improve participation in peer-led opportunities, UTAs and faculty must generate an integrated model emphasizing value, normalizing help-seeking, and working to remove barriers.
AllenP. J.TontaK. E.HaywoodS. B.PereiraR. M.RobertsL. D. (2019). Predicting peer-assisted study session attendance. Active Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417735613
2.
AlpayE.CutlerP. S.EisenbachS.FieldA. J. (2010). Changing the marks-based culture of learning through peer-assisted tutorials. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790903202983
3.
AmesR.LauS. (1982). An attributional analysis of student help-seeking in academic settings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(3), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.3.414
4.
BergeyB.W.ParrilaR.K.LarocheA.DeaconS.H. (2019). Effects of peer-led training on academic self-efficacy, study strategies, and academic performance for first-year university students with and without reading difficulties. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56(January), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.11.001
5.
BlackA. E.DeciE. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
6.
ButlerR. (2007). Teachers’ achievement goal orientations and associations with teachers’ help seeking: Examination of a novel approach to teacher motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241
7.
CampbellC. G.TaylorT. Z. (2020). Assessing student learning and knowledge transfer using principles of team-based learning and bridge assignments in large introductory statistics classes. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 6(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000167
8.
CavazosR. M. R.BrewerK. (2021). Making large classes feel small: An examination of student interactions with undergraduate teaching assistants. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 7(4), 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000290
9.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
10.
DraneD.SmithH. D.LightG.PintoL.SwaratS. (2005). The gateway science workshop program: Enhancing student performance and retention in the sciences through peer-facilitated discussion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(3), 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-7199-8
11.
DriverP.CaldwellT. (2022). Leveraging undergraduate teaching assistants for student learning and help-seeking (supplemental materials) (Version2). UTA Effectiveness, Figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19834429.v2
12.
EcclesJ. S.WigfieldA. (2020). From expectancy-value theory to situated expectancy-value theory: A developmental, social cognitive, and sociocultural perspective on motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61(4), 101859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
13.
FilzT.GurungR. A. R. (2013). Student perceptions of undergraduate teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 40(1), 48–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312465864
14.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley
15.
GafneyL.2001. Workshop evaluation. In GosserD. K.CracoliceM. S.KampmeierJ. A.RothV.StrozakV. S.Varma-NelsonP., (eds.) Peer-led team learning: A guidebook (pp. 75–93). Prentice-Hall
16.
HorwitzS.RodgerS. H.BiggersM.BinkleyD.FrantzC. K.GundermannD.HambruschS.Huss-LedermanS.MunsonE.RyderB.SweatM. (2009). Using peer-led team learning to increase participation and success of under-represented groups in introductory computer science. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508925
KilgoC. A.Ezell SheetsJ. K.PascarellaE. T. (2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9788-z
19.
LewisS. E. (2011). Retention and reform: An evaluation of peer-led team learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(6), 703–707. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100689m
20.
MacherD.PaechterM.PapousekI.RuggeriK.FreudenthalerH. H.ArendasyM. (2013). Statistics anxiety, state anxiety during an examination, and academic achievement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02081.x
21.
McCarthyA.SmutsB.CosserM. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of supplemental instruction: A critique and a case study. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381054
22.
MitchellY. D.IppolitoJ.LewisS. E. (2012). Evaluating peer-led team learning across the two-semester general chemistry sequence. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13(3), 378–383. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2RP20028G
23.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.WilsonV. A. (2003). Statistics anxiety: Nature, etiology, antecedents, effects, and treatments—a comprehensive review of the literature. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052447
24.
PatallE. A.CooperH.WynnS. R. (2010). The effectiveness and relative importance of choice in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 896–915. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019545
25.
PenningtonJ. T.DavisT. L.SchmidtG. W. (2021). Evaluation of a lower-resource-dependent tutoring program designed to improve Introductory Psychology performance. Teaching of Psychology, 48(3), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320977262
26.
PerezT.DaiT.KaplanA.CromleyJ. G.BrooksW. D.WhiteA. C.MaraK. R.BalsaiM. J. (2019). Interrelations among expectancies, task values, and perceived costs in undergraduate biology achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 72(May), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.001
27.
PeterfreundA. R.RathK. A.XenosS. P.BaylissF. (2007). The impact of supplemental instruction on students in STEM courses: Results from San Francisco state university. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9(4), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.9.4.e
28.
PliskeB.CaldwellT. L.Calin-JagemanR. J.Taylor-RitzlerT. (2015). Demonstrating the effectiveness of an integrated and intensive research methods and statistics course sequence. Teaching of Psychology, 42(2), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315573139
29.
RobinsonK. A.LeeK. Y.BoveeE. A.PerezT.WaltonS. P.BriedisD.Linnenbrink-GarciaL. (2018). Motivation in transition: Development and roles of expectancy, task values, and costs in early college engineering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(6), 1081–1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000331
30.
RosenzweigE. Q.WigfieldA.HullemanC. S. (2020). More useful or not so bad? Examining the effects of utility value and cost reduction interventions in college physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), 166–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000370
31.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
32.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
33.
SkaalvikE. M.FedericiR. A.WigfieldA.TangenT. N. (2017). Students’ perceptions of mathematics classroom goal structures: Implications for perceived task values and study behavior. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 20(3), 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9382-1
34.
SnyderJ. J.SloaneJ. D.DunkR. D. P.WilesJ. R. (2016). Peer-led team learning helps minority students succeed. Plos Biology, 14(3), e1002398. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002398
35.
StewartB. N.AmarF. G.BruceM. R. (2007). Challenges and rewards of offering peer led team learning (PLTL) in a large general chemistry course. Australian Journal of Education in Chemistry, 67(January), 31–36
36.
Varma-NelsonP.CracoliceM. S.GosserD. (2004). Peer-led team learning: A student-faculty partnership for transforming the learning environment. In Invention and impact: Building excellence in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. (pp. 43–48). American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/publications/books_reports/CCLI/
37.
WalkerE. R.BrakkeK. E. (2017). Undergraduate psychology students’ efficacy and attitudes across introductory and advanced statistics courses. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3(2), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000088
38.
WaltonG. M.CohenG. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82
39.
WhiteK. M.O’ConnorE. L.HamiltonK. (2011). In-group and role identity influences on the initiation and maintenance of students’ voluntary attendance at peer study sessions for statistics. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X513258
40.
WhiteK. M.ThomasI.JohnstonK. L.HydeM. K. (2008). Predicting attendance at peer-assisted study sessions for statistics: Role identity and the theory of planned behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(4), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.4.473-492
41.
WilsonS. B.Varma-NelsonP. (2016). Small groups, significant impact: A review of peer-led team learning research with implications for stem education researchers and faculty. Journal of Chemical Education93(10), 1686–1702. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00862
42.
YustP. K. S.LiuJ.HardB. M. (2021). Course belonging and engagement in introductory psychology: Why they matter and what predicts them. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 7(3), 206–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000295
