Introduction
The Learning Assistant (LA) model was created as a method for supporting much-needed instructional change at the postsecondary level (AAAS, 2011; NRC, 2007; Woodin et al., 2010), specifically by adapting the classroom environment to be more conducive to the use of evidence-based teaching practices (Otero, 2015). LAs are undergraduate peer educators who support and facilitate active learning in high-enrollment or traditionally non-interactive classrooms. They are an important part of the instructional team, working in collaboration with instructors and graduate teaching assistants (TAs) during group activities and discussions.
Substantial evidence highlights the advantages of LAs on student success across numerous contexts, including improved academic performance, greater engagement, and reduced achievement gaps (refer to Barrasso & Spilios, 2021, for a comprehensive review). In addition to the well-documented benefits for students, a growing body of research has shown that LA themselves experience meaningful academic and personal development (Berland et al., 2023; Close et al., 2013; Nadelson & Fannigan, 2014; Otero et al., 2010).
While referred to as LAs in this context, similar peer educator roles exist across institutions and disciplines under various titles, such as peer mentors, writing fellows, undergraduate TAs, academic peer mentors (APMs), peer-led team learning (PLTL) leaders, and supplemental instructors (SI). Despite differences in name and structure, these roles share a common foundation in that they position undergraduates as near-peer facilitators who support learning by leading discussions, modeling study strategies, and creating collaborative learning environments (Byrne et al., 2022; Driver et al., 2023; Gosser & Roth, 1998; Hensen & Shelley, 2003; Martin & Arendale, 1992; Tien et al., 2002).
These peer educator roles also reflect the broader values of the Students as Partners (SaP) and Student Consultants on Teaching (SCoT) movements, which emphasize reciprocal, equity-minded collaboration between students and faculty in shaping educational practices (Cavazos et al., 2023; Cook-Sather, 2018). Although LA programs are not formally framed within these models, they align in their commitment to shared responsibility for teaching and learning, centering student voice, and fostering professional growth. Drawing connections between LA programs and SaP/SCoT scholarship strengthens the relevance of this work to the educational development community and underscores the importance of exploring these roles through frameworks that prioritize inclusion, agency, and pedagogical partnership.
However, less is known about how these outcomes may differ based on students’ identities and lived experiences. This study contributes to the field by examining the motivations, skill development, and self-reported confidence of undergraduate LAs, with particular attention to the experiences of students from historically and currently minoritized populations—a perspective that remains underexplored in the existing literature.
Theoretical Framework
To guide our investigation into LAs’ motivations and developmental experiences, we draw on Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a well-established motivational framework developed by Deci and Ryan (1985). SDT has been widely applied in educational research to explain how the quality of motivation, ranging from intrinsic to extrinsic, affects learning, engagement, persistence, and identity development (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Central to the theory is the idea that individuals are most motivated when their three basic psychological needs are fulfilled: autonomy (the need to feel in control of one’s actions), competence (the need to feel effective and capable), and relatedness (the need to feel connected and valued by others). These needs are considered universal, though the degree to which they are met can vary significantly depending on a learner’s environment and identity-based experiences (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). When these needs are satisfied, individuals are more likely to internalize their motivation and persist in the activity over time.
In the context of undergraduate peer educator roles like LAs, SDT offers a useful lens for examining both why students choose to participate in these programs and how the experience may support their personal and professional growth. The LA role often involves minimal extrinsic rewards (i.e., course credit), making it particularly well suited for investigating internal motivations. SDT helps researchers examine whether students’ motivations reflect intrinsic interest, more internalized extrinsic values (such as personal importance or identity alignment), or external pressures, as well as how these motivations may evolve over time as students engage in the program (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Moreover, the structure of LA programs, where undergraduates collaborate with faculty, guide peers in learning, and gain facilitation experience, may naturally support the development of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Thus, SDT can be used not only to analyze initial motivation but also to investigate how the structure and practices of the program contribute to longer-term developmental outcomes, including confidence building and identity formation.
Importantly, SDT also provides a valuable framework for exploring potential differences in motivation and outcomes between minoritized and non-minoritized students. Because the fulfillment of psychological needs is context-dependent, students’ backgrounds and prior experiences in the disciplines of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) or educational environments may shape how they experience the LA role. For example, for students who have historically felt marginalized or isolated in STEM classrooms, the LA program may offer an opportunity to experience increased relatedness through supportive faculty interaction and peer collaboration, which, in turn, may enhance their motivation and engagement. Similarly, a sense of competence developed through facilitating learning may be especially meaningful for students from groups historically excluded from STEM fields. By applying SDT, this study aims to examine not only why students are drawn to the LA role but also how their participation may differentially impact their confidence, skills, and professional interests depending on their identities. This theoretical grounding enables a deeper, equity-informed understanding of how peer educator programs like LAs function as spaces for both learning and identity development.
LAs and Student Success
Over 500 institutions have adopted the LA model formalized by the International Learning Assistant Alliance (www.learningassistantalliance.org). Although much of the LA literature is based in physics education research, studies across disciplines centered on the impact of these programs have generally been positive. Research indicates that LA support is positively correlated with higher performance in both lecture (Van Dusen & Nissen, 2017) and lab settings (White et al., 2016), and improved performance on concept inventories (Kohlmyer et. al. 2009; Miller et al., 2013; Van Dusen et. al., 2015; White et al., 2016) and higher-order assessments (Andrews et al., 2011; Kohlmyer et al., 2009; Otero, 2006; Talbot et al., 2015). Furthermore, the combination of LA support with collaborative learning demonstrates higher learning gains compared to collaborative learning alone, emphasizing the importance of LAs to this process (Herrera et al., 2018).
Implementation of LA programs has been associated with decreased rates of D grades, failure, or withdrawal (DFW) in introductory STEM courses, particularly benefiting first-generation students and students of color (Alzen et al., 2017, 2018; Van Dusen & Nissen, 2019, 2020). LAs have also been shown to contribute to extended and more productive student discussions, encourage thinking and participation in class, and foster a deeper appreciation for course material (Caldwell, 2007; Schick, 2018). Students enrolled in LA-supported chemistry courses reported greater motivation, enjoyment of the course, and increased interaction with peers. Additionally, these students found that concepts were better connected, highlighting the role of LAs in promoting an engaging and interconnected learning experience (Kiste et al., 2017).
LA support has been shown to be particularly beneficial for students from minoritized backgrounds (which we define as Black, Latinx, or indigenous students) in post-secondary courses. Research by Van Dusen et al. (2016) demonstrated that LA support correlated with the elimination of course opportunity gaps (the difference in grades awarded to minoritized and non-minoritized students). Furthermore, in LA-supported courses, DFW rates showed the largest decreases for first-generation students and students of color (Sellami et al., 2017; Van Dusen & Nissen, 2020). LA support has also been shown to lead to better performance on exam questions requiring higher-order cognitive skills, particularly for minoritized students (Sellami et al., 2017).
Outcomes for LAs. Research indicates that LAs themselves experience significant academic and personal growth, which is evident in their enhanced academic performance (Sellami et al., 2017; Van Dusen et al., 2016). For example, Physics LAs exhibit greater performance compared to physics students, facilitating other near-peer learning programs or those involved in undergraduate research (Price & Finkelstein, 2008). Additionally, Physics LAs were shown to possess content knowledge comparable to that of graduate students (Otero et al., 2010).
Serving as an LA also contributes to personal and professional identity development. LAs report increased comfort in interacting with peers and faculty, fostering a stronger sense of belonging and community within their academic environments (Close et al., 2013, 2016). This role also develops leadership skills and contributes to the formation of their professional identity, particularly beneficial for those pursuing careers in education (Nadelson & Fannigan, 2014). Additionally, LAs reported that serving as LAs also led to the development of stronger identities as STEM professionals (Nadelson & Fannigan, 2014). LAs also exhibit positive shifts in their attitudes toward learning, increased intrinsic motivation, and heightened self-efficacy, which are essential qualities for lifelong learning and professional success (Berland et al., 2023; Otero et al., 2010). Furthermore, LAs who later transition into teaching roles were more likely to engage in certification programs and use a broader array of effective teaching and assessment methods, enhancing their capabilities as educators (NRC, 1999; Otero, 2006, 2010).
Despite the documented benefits LAs have on classroom instruction and the benefits that LAs themselves experience, several critical questions remain unanswered. In this current study, we aim to uncover what motivates undergraduates to become LAs, what specific skills they seek to develop, and how their confidence in these skills evolves through program participation. Given the well-documented need to understand how we can best serve our historically and currently marginalized student populations, (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Haycock, 2001; Milner, 2012; Ogbu, 2002; Plucker et al., 2010, 2013; Shukla et al., 2022; The Education Trust, 2020), we also investigate whether these findings differ for LAs from minoritized populations, addressing a significant gap in the existing literature.
RQ1: What motivated undergraduate students to serve as Learning Assistants?
RQ2: How did serving as an LA impact students’ skill development, confidence, and career plans?
RQ3: How do the motivations for serving as LAs and the impacts on skill development, confidence, and career plans compare between minoritized and non-minoritized students?
The LA program at the study campus is based on one established by the University of Colorado at Boulder (Otero et al., 2010). This model has four main objectives (Otero, 2015; Otero et al., 2010): (1) to transform the current STEM undergraduate education system, (2) to recruit and prepare our next generation of STEM teachers at all levels of education, (3) to encourage faculty to engage with discipline-based educational research literature, and (4) to promote a departmental and institutional culture that values evidence-based teaching strategies. However, unlike the original model which primarily focuses on courses in STEM disciplines (Otero, 2015; Otero et al. 2010), the study campus’ LA program has expanded to include areas such as the humanities, arts, business, and education, allowing us to examine the impact of such programs on a larger variety of students.
Since its inception in 2016, the program has grown considerably, both in the number of LA positions and the number of courses, departments, and schools involved. From 32 LAs and 8 participating faculty in the 2016–17 academic year, the program has expanded to 1,543 LAs supporting 111 faculty in the 2023–24 academic year (Table 1).
Table 1. LA Positions across Schools
| School | Academic Year | |||||||
| 2023–2024 | 2022–2023 | 2021–2022 | 2020–2021a | 2019–2020 | 2018–2019 | 2017–2018 | 2016–2017 | |
| Biological Sciences | 388 | 257 | 149 | 254 | 147 | 58 | 12 | 6 |
| Physical Sciences | 534 | 691 | 448 | 416 | 234 | 188 | 128 | 21 |
| Information and Computer Sciences | 420 | 161 | 134 | 188 | 39 | 17 | 12 | 6 |
| Social Ecology | 27 | 39 | 50 | 61 | 10 | 20 | 16 | 0 |
| Engineering | 42 | 26 | 38 | 46 | 35 | 15 | 4 | 0 |
| Social Science | 3 | 7 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 9 |
| Humanities | 28 | 54 | 20 | 42 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Business | 6 | 0 | 5 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Education | 18 | 23 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Public Health | 75 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arts | 44 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
-
Number of Learning Assistants within each school for each academic year from 2017 to 2024. In several cases, a single undergraduate student may have been counted more than once, as undergraduates could serve as an LA in more than one course, sometimes crossing over into another school.
aFor the 2020–21 academic year. LA teams were generally larger for better support in Zoom breakout rooms.
Methodology
Participants. The study participants were new LAs during the Fall 2023 and Winter 2024 terms (August 2023–March 2024). New LAs enroll in a specialized 10-week pedagogy and training course where they learn evidence-based instructional practices and active learning facilitation skills. Additionally, LAs attend weekly planning meetings with instructors and TAs to discuss course content and discipline-specific pedagogy. These meetings ensure that LAs are aligned with course goals and prepared to facilitate active learning activities. LAs are not authorized to lead required course meetings unsupervised or to handle administrative tasks such as grading; however, they provide valuable feedback to the instructional team throughout the term.
Students enrolled in the LA training course were presented with a pre- (during Weeks 1 and 2 of the quarter) and post-survey (during the final week of the quarter, Week 10) as course assignments. Data were collected for two subsequent quarters beginning September 28, 2023, and ending March 22, 2024. All data were collected in accordance with the study campus’ Institutional Review Board (UCI IRB Protocol #3769). In total, 470 students completed both the pre- and post-course surveys. We also collected the following demographic data from institutional research: sex, race/ethnicity, transfer student status, underrepresented minority (URM) status, first-generation status, low-income status, international student status, and incoming performance as measured by students’ cumulative grade point average (GPA) at the time of application for the LA Program (Table 2).
Table 2. Learning Assistant Demographics
| Sex | Percent | Status | Percent |
| Female | 58.9% | Transfer Students | 6.4% |
| Male | 39.0% | Minoritized Status | 19.0% |
| Declined to State | 2.1% | First Generation | 33.7% |
| Low Income | 27.8% | ||
| International Student | 13.3% | ||
| Race/Ethnicity | Percent | Incoming Performance | Average |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 63.2% | Cumulative GPA | 3.67 (±0.30) |
| Hispanic | 17.1% | ||
| Black, non-Hispanic | 2.1% | ||
| White, non-Hispanic | 14.0% | ||
| Unknown/declined to state | 3.6% |
Demographics of LAs, including gender, race/ethnicity, and various status categories such as transfer students, minoritized status, first-generation students, low-income students, and international students. It also includes the average cumulative GPA of the LAs.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Written consent was obtained electronically through a consent form that participants had to read and agree to before proceeding with the survey. No participants under the age of 18 were included in the study.
Survey
The survey instrument included the components described below. Survey items were created based on the goals of the University of Colorado at Boulder LA model (Otero et al., 2015; Talbot et al., 2015) and the specific goals of the study campus’ LA program as described by the program leaders. Following initial construction, the survey was presented to three faculty to verify that the questions were capturing what we intended.
Survey Constructs
Motivation for participation. To explore participants’ motivations for becoming an LA, an open-ended question was administered on the pre-survey, “What motivated you to become a learning assistant?”
Professional skill development. To understand the skills LAs hoped to develop and the degree to which they were able to do so, two open-ended survey questions were included. In the pre-survey, participants were prompted with the question, “What skills do you want to improve as a Learning Assistant?” This item aimed to capture participants’ initial aspirations regarding skill development. On the post-survey, participants were presented with the question, “Describe any skills you developed as a result of being a Learning Assistant?” This item sought to assess participants’ perceived acquisition of skills following their engagement in the program.
A number of items were also included to capture participant’s confidence in a variety of professional skills that the LA program was intended to develop, including their ability to communicate information clearly to their peers, engage students in the learning process, empathize with students’ challenges and concerns, respond effectively to students’ questions, manage peer discussions, create a supportive learning environment, actively listen to peers, adapt teaching methods to different learning styles, respond to students’ emotional needs, and engage with instructors. Students were asked to rate their confidence levels on a Likert scale from 1 to 5 at the beginning of the semester (pre-test) and again at its conclusion (post-test) to measure changes resulting from their participation in the program. These skills spanned various domains, including communication, engagement, empathy, pedagogical knowledge, and collaboration, reflecting the diverse responsibilities shouldered by LAs.
Teaching interest. Based on responses to the Fall 2023 survey, we included an item in the Winter iteration related to an LA’s interest in pursuing a teaching career. Participants were asked to rate their likelihood of pursuing a teaching career on a 5-point Likert scale for two separate time periods: before participating in the LA program and after participating in the LA program. The Likert scale ranged from “extremely unlikely” to “extremely likely.” Additionally, using the same Likert-scale mentioned above, students were asked about their interest in continuing as an LA in a future course.
Data analysis
Qualitative Data Analysis. To identify themes from open-ended responses on the pre- and post-surveys, we used an inductive open-coding approach, allowing themes to emerge organically from the data rather than relying on a pre-existing coding scheme (Saldaña, 2015).
When examining motivation for participation, this process resulted in four overarching categories, comprising a total of 17 codes/themes. For questions about skill development, the same process identified 6 main themes with 14 additional subthemes, resulting in a total of 20 codes/themes. Iterative content analysis was used to develop a preliminary set of codes. Throughout the coding process, analytic memos were used to track code development and support analytic rigor (Saldaña, 2015; Nowell et al., 2017). Codes were refined iteratively through multiple reviews to ensure internal consistency and alignment with the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Quantitative Data Analysis. Within the survey, several Likert-scale questions were posed to participants, addressing their confidence with specific professional skills, interest in continuing as an LA in future quarters, and likelihood of pursuing a career in teaching. Pre- and post-survey responses to the confidence and future careers questions were compared to see how these changed from the beginning to the end of the academic term. To determine whether the mean changes from pre- to post-survey responses showed significant differences, we conducted paired t-tests. This statistical analysis allowed us to assess whether there were significant changes in students’ confidence levels and career interests after serving as LAs.
Results
RQ1: What motivated undergraduate students to serve as Learning Assistants?
Motivation for participation
Undergraduates had a variety of motivations for participating in the LA program (Table 3). Notably, enjoyment emerged as the most prevalent motivator, mentioned by a significant portion of respondents (87.9%). Within this category, students expressed a range of sentiments, including a desire to help others (56.2%), enjoyment of the course (14.7%), a general fondness for teaching (8.9%), and a passion for the subject matter (8.1%). Influence from others was also noted by 29.8% of respondents. This category included positive prior experiences with LAs or instructors (20.4%), influence stemming from previous teaching experiences (5.5%), and direct encouragement to take on an LA role from peers or the course instructor (3.8%). Additionally, goal-driven aspirations were mentioned by 29.4% of respondents, ranging from pursuing careers in academia (4.5%), pursuing graduate education (4.3%), leveraging the program for networking opportunities (12.6%), resume building (6.8%), or for course credit (1.3%). A significant proportion of participants (61.7%) cited the desire to gain skills or experience as a motivating factor. This category included seeking general experience (9.4%), improving knowledge or course-related skills (21.3%), honing teaching or pedagogical skills (21.1%), and enhancing interpersonal skills (10.0%). Notably, the pursuit of skill development reflects a proactive approach among students toward self-improvement and professional growth.
Table 3. Motivation Codes and Definitions
| Code | Description | Example Survey Responses |
| Enjoyment | ||
| Enjoy Teaching | Mention a general enjoyment around teaching. | …I also really enjoy teaching. |
| Enjoyed the Course | Found the course to be an enjoyable experience when they completed it in a previous quarter. | I really enjoyed the class and felt that it gave me a really good foundation to solidify the rest of my learning. |
| Passion for Subject Matter | Interest and enjoyment of the general subject matter of the course they are becoming a learning assistant for (i.e., general interest in chemistry/biology/etc.). | I got motivated to become a learning assistant because of my love for biochemistry and sciences in general |
| Desire to Help Others | Helping others and contributing to the success of fellow students. | … the opportunity to help students who are in need of help. |
| Influenced | ||
| Influenced by positive experience with an LA | Describes a being influenced by a positive experience with a Learning Assistant in a previous course. | …the LAs that I interacted with left me with a positive experience and inspired me to become an LA too. |
| Influenced by positive experience with a Professor | Describes being influenced by a positive experience with the instructor of the course. | He [the professor] is among the most inspiring professors I’ve had here at UCI. |
| Directly Encouraged (LA, TA, Professor, Friends) | Describes being directly encouraged by a friend, peer, Learning assistant, Teaching Assistant, or the instructor. | The professor teaching this course motivated me to become a Learning Assistant. |
| By a previous Teaching Experience | Describe being influenced by a previous positive teaching experience (ie. Tutoring or mentorship) | I have had experience tutoring before, and wanting to be able to continue tutoring |
| Goal Driven | ||
| Career in Academia | As a part of their pursuit to work in academia. | Because I would like to become a professor in the future. |
| Continuing Education | Mentioned alignment with the goal to pursue continuing education in the form of graduate school or medical school | …aligns with my aspirations of pursuing a doctorate in Clinical Psychology. |
| Making Connections | Establishing connections in the form of both personal (friendship) and professional (with the instructor or faculty) capacities. | I also wanted to form a better relationship with the professor for future positions and recommendations. |
| Resume Building | As a means to acquire letters of reference or to add to their resume. | Getting closer with a professor for a letter of rec |
| Course Credit | As a course credit requirement | I need the credit for being a learning assistant. |
| Skills and Experience | ||
| General Experience | Indicating being motivated to participate in a new experience (general experience, to be more involved on campus, trying something new, etc.) | I was interested in new experiences and learning new things. |
| Improve knowledge/Course Related Skills | Utilizing the experience to engage in a learning experience—often in the form of reviewing the course material. | To gain a better understanding of the subject that I am helping my underclassmen with. |
| Teaching/Pedagogical Skills | As a means to gain teaching experience and/or to improve upon pedagogical skills (i.e., mentorship, active learning techniques, etc.) | … this would be. a great way to develop some teaching skills early on. |
| Interpersonal skills | As a means to improve interpersonal skills (i.e., communication, leadership, public speaking, etc.) | I wanted to improve my interpersonal skills. |
More than one code could be used for each student’s responses. The frequency of each code was calculated as a percent of student responses containing the code. Student responses were combined for Fall 2023 and Winter 2024 data collections (n = 470).
Building on the motivations for LA program participation, students were asked to articulate the skills they hoped to gain from serving as an LA (Table 4†). Pre-survey data revealed that communication was a dominant theme among participants, with 62.6% expressing a desire to enhance communication skills, including public speaking proficiency (10.6%). Teaching and pedagogical skills were also prominent, with 33.8% of students aiming to refine their instructional abilities. Sub-themes within this category highlighted a focus on guiding peers through questioning (18.1%), effective inquiry responses (8.3%), and adaptable teaching methods to suit diverse skill levels (2.8%). Additionally, interpersonal and social skills constituted a significant area of interest, with 26.6% of respondents seeking to strengthen leadership (12.3%), teamwork (5.3%), active listening (2.1%), patience (2.1%), empathy (1.3%), and creating a positive learning environment (2.6%). A subset (13.8%) expressed a commitment to mastering subject material, such as improving their problem-solving capabilities (4.5%). Alongside these, LAs acknowledged the importance of increasing self-confidence (18.3%) and time management/organizational skills (4.0%), reflecting the holistic nature of their growth aspirations within the LA program.
Table 4. Student Skill Codes with Examples
| Code/Theme | Description | Example Survey Responses |
| Confidence | Increase in confidence (generally), which could include comfortability with approaching students, engaging in conversation, public speaking, and answering questions | I was able to be more confident to go up to new people and strike a conversation with them |
| Communication skills | Communication skills, ability to clearly explain content/concepts | Explaining difficult concepts in a way that students can understand† |
| Public speaking | Public speaking and presentation skills, speaking in front of groups | I developed communication, […], and public speaking skills |
| Nonverbal | Importance of using or reading non-verbal communication cues | Understanding student body language… |
| Teaching/Pedagogical skills | General teaching skills, helping students learn, mentoring, or learning different pedagogical skills (active learning, using silence, etc.) | I learned how to redirect questions, utilize Bloom’s Taxonomy to aid a student’s understanding, […] |
| Questioning/guiding | Asking guiding questions rather than just providing answers, guiding students to participate in the learning process (Engaging with student learning, motivating and encouraging students). | Asking questions to guide students in Learning Process† |
| Answering questions | Ability to answer questions. | I’ve been feeling more confident about answering people and helping them |
| Assessing Understanding | The ability to assess and gauge student learning, knowledge, and understanding of the material. | I developed skills such as […] assessing student learning through conversations and reviewing student written responses, […] |
| Adaptability | Being able to adapt to students’ skill level when teaching/explaining concepts. | I developed the ability to adapt to new teaching styles in order to allow students to learn to the best of their abilities. |
| Interpersonal/social skills | Improving interpersonal skills or general social skills | I feel like I have learned how to be more open and be more social |
| Leadership & Facilitation skills | Leadership in general. Also includes leading/fostering group discussions. | I developed skills such as facilitating discussions |
| Teamwork & collaboration | Working with others in a team or in a collaborative manner. Often mentioning working with other learning assistants or faculty/instructors. | How to work collaboratively with a team† |
| Listening | listening to students (active listening skills) | The most important skill I learned is listen. |
| Empathy | Empathizing with students. | To be more empathetic with everyone† |
| Patience | Increasing patience when working with others or helping students | I’ve developed my patience |
| Positivity | Creating a positive environment for students (i.e., being approachable, friendly, more) | To promote a positive learning environment† |
| Improved skills/knowledge | improving skills or increasing knowledge specifically centered around the subject matter of the course. | Enforcement of my own Python knowledge† |
| Metacognition | Awareness and understanding one’s process of learning | I have also learned a lot about metacognition |
| Problem solving | Improving ability to solve problems, usually in the context of the course material | I honed my problem-solving abilities |
| Time Management & Organization Skills | Increased time management, organizational skills, and ability to plan. | I also refined my skills in time management by balancing my learning assistant duties with my other responsibilities |
More than one code could be used for each student’s responses. The frequency of each code was calculated as the percentage of student responses containing the code on both the pre- and post-surveys. Student responses were combined for Fall 2023 and Winter 2024 data collections (n = 470). †Example responses taken from the pre-assessment.
RQ2: How did serving as an LA impact students’ skill development, confidence, and career plans?
Skill acquisition
The post-survey gathered responses to the prompt, “Describe any skills you developed as a result of being a Learning Assistant,” to capture the self-reported skills acquired. Post-survey data indicated that participation within the LA program allowed undergraduates to develop a variety of professional skills (Table 4). Most notably, LAs indicated improvement in their communication skills, with 45.5% of respondents mentioning communication. Specifically, students focused their skill development within this category by focusing on their public speaking (3.0%) and non-verbal (8.9%) communication skills. Furthermore, LAs also noted developing teaching and pedagogical skills, with 58.9% of respondents mentioning these skills in their open-ended responses. Skills in this area included asking guiding questions (36.0%), the ability to answer questions (20.0%), assessing student understanding (5.5%), and adapting teaching methods to suit diverse learners (7.2%). Interpersonal and social skills were highlighted frequently by LAs, with 40.4% of respondents indicating developing skills in this area on the post-survey. Students expressed that participation in the LA program led to gains in leadership (15.3%), teamwork (6.6%), empathy (5.5%), patience (7.2%), and creating a positive learning environment (5.5%). The post-survey highlighted specialized teaching and interpersonal competencies. These findings underscore the program’s effectiveness in fostering a comprehensive skill set among participants, preparing them for diverse roles in academic environments.
Increased confidence in skills
The pre/post-survey comparison revealed significant improvements in confidence levels across a range of professional skills (Table 5). Notably, students displayed enhanced confidence in critical areas, such as communication, engagement, empathy, pedagogical practices, and collaboration. For example, there was a notable increase in confidence levels related to clear communication with peers (pre-test: 3.83, post-test: 4.06; paired two-sample t-test, p < .01) and engaging peers in the learning process (pre-test: 3.77, post-test: 4.02; paired two-sample t-test, p < .05). Moreover, students exhibited heightened confidence in their understanding of evidence-based pedagogical practices (pre-test: 3.35, post-test: 4.07; paired two-sample t-test, p < .001) and their ability to facilitate group discussions or activities (pre-test: 3.70, post-test: 4.16; paired two-sample t-test, p < .001). These findings underscore the program’s success in fostering skill development among participants, equipping them for success in their future professional endeavors.
Table 5. Increases in Student Confidence around Professional Skills Associated with Teaching
| Confidence in Professional Skill | Average Likert-Score Pre-Test (SD) | Average Likert-Score Post-Test (SD) | |||
| Ability to communicate information clearly to my peers. | 3.83 | ±(0.85) | 4.06 | ±(0.94) | ** |
| Capacity to engage my peers in the learning process. | 3.77 | ±(0.87) | 4.02 | ±(0.96) | * |
| Ability to empathize with students’ challenges and concerns. | 4.16 | ±(0.83) | 4.32 | ±(0.90) | |
| Effectiveness in responding to my peers’ questions. | 3.75 | ±(0.87) | 4.05 | ±(0.94) | *** |
| Effectiveness in managing peer discussions within the time allotted. | 3.64 | ±(0.96) | 3.95 | ±(1.02) | *** |
| Capacity to create a supportive and understanding learning environment. | 4.03 | ±(0.89) | 4.30 | ±(0.89) | *** |
| Ability to actively listen to my peers and understand their needs. | 4.24 | ±(0.76) | 4.39 | ±(0.86) | |
| Ability to adapt my teaching methods to different learning styles. | 3.76 | ±(0.95) | 4.09 | ±(0.93) | *** |
| Effectiveness in recognizing and responding to a student’s emotional needs. | 3.88 | ±(0.98) | 4.12 | ±(0.99) | * |
| Willingness to engage with my instructors | 4.06 | ±(0.91) | 4.19 | ±(1.01) | |
| Knowledge of evidence-based pedagogical practices. | 3.35 | ±(1.11) | 4.07 | ±(0.99) | *** |
| Ability to facilitate group discussions or activities. | 3.70 | ±(1.00) | 4.16 | ±(1.00) | *** |
| Ability to work collaboratively with my peers, instructors, and other learning assistants. | 4.21 | ±(0.77) | 4.45 | ±(0.84) | ** |
-
LAs self-reported their confidence in each of the above professional skills. Students mean Likert-scale values are presented. The standard deviation for each is presented in parentheses. Paired t-tests were used to report mean differences between pre- and post-survey data (paired t-test, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001).
Increased interest in teaching
Analysis of the post-survey data revealed significant increases (paired two-sample t-test, p < .001) in students’ interest in pursuing teaching as a career after their engagement in the LA program (pre-test: 2.1, post-test: 2.4, paired two-sample t-test) (Figure 1). Before participating in the program, students reported an average likelihood score of 2.1. Additionally, 70% of respondents stated that they were likely or extremely likely to continue to serve as an LA in the future. These insights shed light on the transformative effects of the LA program in influencing students’ career aspirations and professional trajectories toward teaching and academia.
Figure 1. Changes in students’ interest in pursuing teaching as a career before and after participation in the LA program. The stacked bar graph illustrates the distribution of students’ interest in pursuing teaching as a career before and after their engagement in the LA program. The data represent Likert scale scores ranging from 1 to 5 (1–2: low interest, 3: moderate interest, 4–5: high interest). Statistical analysis revealed a significant increase (paired two-sample t-test, p < .001) in students’ interest in teaching post-program.
RQ3: How do the motivations for serving as LAs and the impacts on skill development, confidence, and career plans compare between minoritized and non-minoritized students?
The study found that both minoritized and non-minoritized students had similar motivators for serving as LAs and reported developing similar skills throughout the program. Additionally, interest in pursuing teaching as a career increased significantly for both minoritized (paired t-test; p < .05) and non-minoritized (paired t-test; p < .001) LAs from pre- to post-survey, with no significant difference in the degree of increased interest between the two groups. However, minoritized students exhibited a significantly greater increase in confidence in their professional skills following program participation. Initially, both groups had similar levels of confidence (two-sample t-test; p = .3). However, minoritized students exhibited a more substantial increase in confidence from pre- to post-survey across most skills evaluated, including the ability to facilitate group discussions and activities, knowledge of evidence-based pedagogical skills, and the ability to create a supportive and understanding learning environment (Table 6). Furthermore, only minoritized students showed increases in confidence in their ability to communicate information clearly and collaborate effectively with peers, instructors, and other LAs (S1 Table).
Table 6. Change in Confidence for Minoritized vs. Non-Minoritized Learning Assistants
| Skill | Minoritized LAs (Post-Pre) Change in Confidence | Non-Minoritized LAs (Post-Pre) Change in Confidence | p-value | |
| Ability to communicate information clearly to my peers. | 0.46 | 0.17 | .06469 | |
| Capacity to engage my peers in the learning process. | 0.25 | 0.25 | .25297 | |
| Ability to empathize with students’ challenges and concerns. | 0.30 | 0.15 | .62419 | |
| Effectiveness in responding to my peers’ questions. | 0.51 | 0.27 | .00920 | * |
| Effectiveness in managing peer discussions within the time allotted. | 0.54 | 0.26 | .02546 | * |
| Capacity to create a supportive and understanding learning environment. | 0.43 | 0.29 | .00253 | * |
| Ability to actively listen to my peers and understand their needs. | 0.22 | 0.14 | .64318 | |
| Ability to adapt my teaching methods to different learning styles. | 0.57 | 0.32 | .00085 | ** |
| Effectiveness in recognizing and responding to student’s emotional needs. | 0.31 | 0.32 | .01823 | * |
| Willingness to engage with my instructors | 0.30 | 0.12 | 1 | |
| Knowledge of evidence-based pedagogical practices. | 1.12 | 0.68 | 5.74E-13 | *** |
| Ability to facilitate group discussions or activities. | 0.69 | 0.45 | .00014 | *** |
| Ability to work collaboratively with my peers, instructors, and other learning assistants. | 0.34 | 0.25 | .00703 | ** |
LAs self-reported their confidence in each of the above professional skills. Changes in students’ reported Likert-scale data from pre- to post-survey are presented along with two-sample t-test. Student confidence data is separated into non-minoritized and minoritized LA population to compare the impact of the program on professional skill confidence of these two student populations (paired t-test; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001).
Discussion
This research uniquely focuses on the effects of the LA role on the undergraduate LAs themselves, an area that has received less attention compared to the well-documented benefits of LAs on student success. By examining LAs’ motivations, skill development, and career goals within the context of a minority serving institution, this study offers valuable insights into how the program influences students’ professional growth and career aspirations. This is also the first study, to our knowledge, that examines this specifically from the context of LAs from minoritized racial/ethnic populations.
Our findings suggest that students are drawn to the LA program by a combination of intrinsic enjoyment, mentorship influences, and career aspirations. In particular, the opportunity for skill development stands out as a practical benefit that supports both their academic identity and career preparation. These motivational drivers suggest that the LA program effectively meets diverse motivational needs, fostering a supportive and development-focused academic environment.
Following completion of the program, LAs reported increases in confidence in a range of professional skills, including clear communication, engaging peers, and understanding evidence-based pedagogical practices. A majority noted that they hoped to continue serving as LAs in future courses and reported an increased interest in teaching careers. These results indicate that the program not only enhances essential teaching skills but also positively influences students’ career aspirations, making them more likely to consider teaching as a viable and fulfilling career path.
These findings align well with SDT, which suggests that motivation is highest when individuals experience autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The LA program appears to support these needs by offering students choice in participation (autonomy), opportunities to build instructional skills (competence), and meaningful peer and faculty interactions (relatedness), thereby fostering self-determined motivation and sustained engagement.
Comparison with Prior Research
The motivations and outcomes associated with participation in the study site’s LA program align closely with findings from similar research on near-peer tutoring and TA programs. Zheng and Wang (2022) explored the motivations and outcomes for near-peer tutors (NPTs) in a tutoring program through reflection journals and found that the primary motivation for serving as a NPT was to prepare for future careers, particularly in medical education. This parallels our findings, where many LAs were driven by career aspirations, including pursuing careers in academia and leveraging the program for networking opportunities and resume building. Serving as an NPT equipped students with essential skills and solidified their determination to pursue careers in teaching hospitals. Similarly, our study found that serving as an LA contributed to personal and professional identity development, increasing students’ comfort in interacting with peers and faculty, and developing leadership skills. Zheng and Wang (2022) also noted that the tutoring experience helped NPTs appreciate teachers’ perspectives, fostering a mindset shift that led them to re-evaluate their learning experiences and gain a deeper understanding of problem-based learning. Our findings echo this sentiment, as many LAs reported increased understanding and appreciation of evidence-based pedagogical practices.
Wheeler et al. (2018) identified that TAs’ motivation for teaching is significantly influenced by their prior instructional experiences and teaching beliefs. This aligns with our finding that positive prior experiences with LAs or instructors played an important role in motivating students to become LAs. Such prior experiences and encouragement help to establish a foundation of confidence and interest in teaching (Wheeler et al., 2018), which is likely critical for the sustained involvement of LAs in educational roles.
One of the primary goals of the LA program is to recruit and prepare future teachers, as outlined by Otero et al. (2010). Our study supports this goal, showing increased interest in teaching careers among LAs after participating in the program. This aligns with the successes of the Colorado Learning Assistant model, which has significantly increased the number of well-qualified K-12 physics teachers, engaged scientists in teacher recruitment and preparation, and improved introductory physics courses, resulting in doubled learning gains (Otero et al., 2010). The significant rise in students’ likelihood of pursuing teaching careers post-program participation underscores the program’s effectiveness in inspiring future educators and addressing the need for skilled teachers at all levels.
Implications for Practice
This study revealed that LAs experience substantial growth in communication, teaching, and interpersonal skills. This development is crucial for their future careers, whether in academia or other fields. University departments can leverage LA programs to provide undergraduates with practical, hands-on teaching experience that complements their academic studies. Furthermore, the increase in confidence and interest in teaching careers among LAs suggests that these programs can play a vital role in shaping the career trajectories of undergraduate students. By providing opportunities for LAs to develop and demonstrate their teaching skills, departments can inspire more students to consider careers in education, addressing the ongoing need for skilled educators (Dee & Goldhaber, 2017; Feder, 2022; Hutchison, 2012; PCAST, 2010; Sutcher et al., 2016). This pipeline of future educators is essential for sustaining and advancing education at all levels.
The findings indicate that minoritized students, in particular, show a significant increase in confidence through participation in LA programs, highlighting the importance of these programs in supporting underrepresented groups—not only by creating more inclusive classrooms through the implementation of evidence-based instructional practices, but also by providing an opportunity to be part of the instructional team. By fostering similar types of motivation and skill development across diverse student populations, LA programs contribute to a more inclusive and equitable educational environment. Based on these positive outcomes, it is clear that LA programs must consider not only the impact on the students enrolled in courses with LAs, but also the way LAs themselves are trained and supported. Similar to research on faculty and TA professional development, it is important for educational developers and education researchers to evaluate these training programs and iteratively develop them based on their findings.
This study also holds meaningful implications for educational developers. LA programs enhance undergraduate learning while simultaneously serving as catalysts for instructional change by promoting active learning through peer-to-peer engagement. Additionally, LA programs foster collaboration between students and faculty, encouraging shifts toward more inclusive, student-centered pedagogy. Educational developers can leverage LA programs as a dual intervention that supports both student development and faculty professional growth, aligning with broader institutional goals related to equity, teaching effectiveness, and retention.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that should be considered. First, it relies on self-reported data from surveys, which can be subject to biases such as social desirability and inaccurate self-assessment (Andrade, 2019; Gonyea, 2005). Additionally, while the survey items were carefully developed by UCI Learning Assistant program leaders to closely align with the programs’ intended outcomes, they were not taken directly from previously validated instruments.
The data were collected across two cohorts within a single academic term, providing only short-term insights into the program’s impact. Furthermore, the study was conducted at a single university, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other institutions with different student populations and program structures. However, as Donmoyer (2000) and Conle (1996) suggest, the goal of qualitative or context-specific educational research is not broad generalization but particularizability. From this perspective, the detailed description provided here allows readers to draw meaningful connections in their own contexts (Donmoyer, 2000), and to reflect on how similar dynamics may occur within their own programs.
Finally, the quality and extent of training and support provided to LAs also vary between different instructors and courses, potentially affecting the consistency of the program’s impact. The data collected only included non-academic outcomes, and future work will complement these studies by examining the impacts of serving as an LA on course grades, graduation rates, and other academic outcomes
Future Research Directions
To build on the findings of this study, several future research endeavors are recommended. First, conducting longitudinal studies would be invaluable in tracking the long-term impacts of LA participation on students’ academic and career trajectories. Such studies could provide comprehensive insights into how the skills and confidence gained through the program influence students’ future educational and professional outcomes, thereby highlighting the sustained benefits of LA programs. Additionally, in-depth qualitative research, including interviews and focus groups, could offer a deeper understanding of the nuanced experiences and perspectives of LAs. This approach would allow for a more detailed exploration of the personal and professional growth of LAs, uncovering factors that quantitative surveys might miss (Moree, 2018). Finally, as mentioned, collecting academic data (e.g., course grades, major retention, graduation rates) can help to identify how serving as an LA influences academic success. Future work currently underway will use a matched-pairs design to compare students who served as LAs with non-LA peers who share similar academic and demographic characteristics. This research will offer a more rigorous comparison between LAs and similar students who did not participate in the program, providing a clearer understanding of how LA participation may contribute to academic performance and degree completion. All of these research avenues can also examine the impacts of being an LA in the context of a range of student demographic characteristics, as LA programs may be a means by which institutions can create more inclusive academic programs. And we would encourage researchers who aim to undertake this work to consider framing it in the context of SDT, as our findings highlighted a number of areas of overlap with this theory.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that serving as an LA significantly supports the development of participants’ communication, teaching, and interpersonal skills, as well as increased confidence and interest in teaching careers. Importantly, while both minoritized and non-minoritized students reported similar motivation for participating and comparable gains in skill development, minoritized students exhibited significantly greater increases across several professional competencies. These findings highlight not only the broad benefits of LA programs for undergraduate students but also their unique potential to empower students from historically underrepresented backgrounds. Together, these results underscore the value of integrating LA programs into the higher education classroom to support both inclusive student development and improved educational practices.
ORCiDs
Alex R. Paine: 0000-0002-5149-4544
Brian K Sato: 0000-0003-1489-0705
Josh Arimond: no ORCiD ID
Biography
Alex R. Paine, Ph.D., Lecturer of Biology at Baylor University, focuses on biology education research emphasizing Learning Assistants, learning outcomes alignment, and evidence-based teaching practices. Her work explores how structured active learning and peer-assisted instruction influence student success, persistence, and equity in introductory biology.
Josh Arimond, M.A., is the Program Director of the UC Irvine Learning Assistants Program at the University of California, Irvine. Josh collaborates with school’s and faculty to maximize the effectiveness of Active Learning by leveraging undergraduate Learning Assistants during instruction. Josh also teaches an Active Learning Pedagogy course that focuses on supporting Learning Assistants to effectively adopt and implement pedagogy skills across all academic disciplines and modalities to promote pedagogical wellness and inclusive and equitable teaching.
Brian K. Sato, Ph.D, is a Professor of Teaching in the Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry as well as the Associate Dean for the Division of Teaching Excellence and Innovation at the University of California Irvine. Dr. Sato’s research focuses on creating more equitable and inclusive STEM higher education environments, including identifying impacts of teaching-focused faculty, as well as evaluating the effectiveness of programs and policies at an institutional level. In his administrative capacity, Dr. Sato oversees instructional professional development activities for faculty and future faculty including the creation of more student-centered and culturally inclusive learning spaces.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have no conflict of interest
Data Availability
The data reported in this manuscript are available on request by contacting the corresponding author.
References
Alzen, J. L., Langdon, L., & Otero, V. K. (2017). The Learning Assistant model and DFW rates in introductory physics courses. In Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 36–39).
Alzen, J. L., Langdon, L. S., & Otero, V. K. (2018). A logistic regression investigation of the relationship between the Learning Assistant model and failure rates in introductory STEM courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 5, 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0152-1
American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: A call to action. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Andrade, H. L. (2019). A critical review of research on student self-assessment. Frontiers in Education, 4, 87 http://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00087.
Andrews, T. M., Leonard, M. J., Colgrove, C. A., & Kalinowski, S. T. (2011). Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(4), 394–405. http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0061
Barrasso, A. P., & Spilios, K. E. (2021). As scoping review of literature assessing the impact of the learning assistant model. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 12. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00267-8
Berland, H., Clark, C. M., Shaked, S., & Paquette-Smith, M. (2023). The benefits of participating in a Learning Assistant Program on the metacognitive awareness and motivation of Learning Assistants. CBE Life Sciences Education, 22(3), ar30. http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-08-0156
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. http://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Byrne, V. L., Jardine, H. E., Williams, A. Y., & Donlan, A. E. (2022). Academic peer mentorship as a leadership development experience: Fostering leadership self-efficacy. Journal of Leadership Education, 21(1), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.12806/V21/I1/R1
Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6, 9–20. http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.06
Cavazos, A. G., Chapa, L., & Cavazos Vela, J. (2023). Exploring the impact of a student-faculty partnership program at a Hispanic Serving Institution. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 42(2), 7. http://doi.org/10.3998/tia.2903
Close, E. W., Close, H. G., & Donnelly, D. (2013). Understanding the learning assistant experience with physics identity. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1513(January), 106–109. http://doi.org/10.1063/1.4789663
Close, E. W., Conn, J., & Close, H. G. (2016). Becoming physics people: Development of integrated physics identity through the Learning Assistant experience. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010109
Conle, C. (1996). Resonance in preservice teacher inquiry. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 297–325. http://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312033002297
Cook-Sather, A. (2018). Developing “students as pedagogical partners” in the USA: Outcomes and directions. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2), 15–23. http://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1033
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Inequality and school resources. In P. L. Carter, & K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 77–97). Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.003.0006
Dee, T. S., & Goldhaber, D. (2017). Understanding and addressing teacher shortages in the United States. The Hamilton Project, 5, 1–28.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–23. http://doi.org/10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Donmoyer, R. (2000). Generalizability and the single-case study. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case study method (pp. 45–68). Sage Publications. http://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024367
Driver, P., Caldwell, T. L., & Grunert, L. (2023). Exploring UTA effectiveness: Leveraging undergraduate teaching assistants for student learning and help-seeking. Teaching of Psychology, 50(1), 57–68. http://doi.org/10.1177/00986283221110518
Feder, T. (2022). The US is in dire need of STEM teachers. Physics Today, 75 (3), 25–27 (2022); http://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.4959
Gonyea, R. M. (2005). Self-reported data in institutional research: Review and recommendations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2005(127), 73–89. http://doi.org/10.1002/ir.156
Gosser, D. K., & Roth, V. (1998). The workshop chemistry project: Peer-led team-learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(2), 185.
Haycock, K. (2001). Closing the achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 6–11. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ626267
Hensen, K. A., & Shelley, M. C. (2003). The impact of supplemental instruction: Results from a large, public, midwestern university. Journal of college Student development, 44(2), 250–259. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2003.0015
Herrera, X., Nissen, J., & Van Dusen, B. (2018). Student outcomes across collaborative-learning environments. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 2018, 1–4
Hutchison, L. F. (2012). Addressing the STEM teacher shortage in American schools: Ways to recruit and retain effective STEM teachers. Action in Teacher Education, 34, 541–550. http://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2012.729483
Kiste, A. L., Scott, G. E., Bukenberger, J., Markmann, M., & Moore, J. (2017). An examination of student outcomes in studio chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 233–249. http://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00202a
Kohlmyer, M. A., Caballero, M. D., Catrambone, R., Chabay, R. W., Ding, L., Haugan, M. P., Marr, M. J., Sherwood, B. A., & Schatz, M. F. (2009). Tale of two curricula: The performance of 2000 students in Introductory Electromagnetism. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5(2), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1103/physrevstper.5.020105
Martin, Deanna C.; Arendale, David R. (1992). Supplemental Instruction: Improving first-year student success in high risk courses (2nd ed.). Retrieved from the University Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/200471.
Miller, P. M., Carver, J. S., Shinde, A., Ratcliff, B., & Murphy, A. N. (2013). Initial replication results of learning assistants in university physics. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1513, 30–33. http://doi.org/10.1063/1.4789644
Milner, H. R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in education practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718. http://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712442539
Moree, D. (2018). Qualitative approaches to studying marginalized communities. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. http://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.246
Nadelson, L. S., & Fannigan, J. (2014). Path less traveled: fostering STEM majors’ professional identity development through engagement as STEM learning assistants. Journal of Higher Education Theory & Practice, 14(5).
National Research Council [NRC] (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council [NRC]. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
Ogbu, J. U. (2002). Black-American students and the academic achievement gap: What else you need to know. Journal of Thought, 37(4), 9–33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42589717
Otero, V. (2006). The learning assistant model for teacher education in science and technology. In Forum on Education of the American Physical Society (Vol. 31).
Otero, V. (2015). Recruiting and educating future physics teachers: Case studies and effective practices. In C. Sandifer, & E. Brewe (Eds.), Effective practices in preservice teacher education (pp. 107–116). American Physical Society. http://www.phystec.org/webdocs/EffectivePracticesBook.cfm?.
Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado Learning Assistant model. American Journal of Physics, 78(11), 1218–1224. http://doi.org/10.1119/1.3471291
Plucker J. A., Burroughs N., & Song R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531840.pdf
Plucker, J. A., Hardesty, J., & Burroughs, N. (2013). Talent on the sidelines: Excellence gaps and America’s persistent talent underclass. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST]. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 Science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education for America’s future. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf
Price, E., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2008). Preparing physics graduate students to be educators. American Journal of Physics, 76(7), 684–690. http://doi.org/10.1119/1.2897288
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. http://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Schick, C. P. (2018). Trying on teaching: Transforming STEM classrooms with a Learning Assistant program. ACS Symposium Series, 1280, 3–27. http://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2018-1280.ch001
Sellami, N., Shaked, S., Laski, F. A., Eagan, K. M., & Sanders, E. R. (2017). Implementation of a Learning Assistant program improves student performance on higher-order assessments. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(4), 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0341
Shukla, S. Y., Theobald, E. J., Abraham, J. K., & Price, R. M. (2022). Reframing educational outcomes: Moving beyond achievement gaps. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 21(2). http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-05-0130
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy Institute.
Talbot, R., Hartley, L., Marzetta, K., & Wee, B. (2015). Transforming undergraduate science education with learning assistants: Student satisfaction in large enrollment courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 24–30. http://doi.org/10.1080/0047231X.2015.12454809
The Education Trust. (2020). Graduation rates don’t tell the full story: Racial gaps in college success are larger than we think. https://edtrust.org/resource/graduation-rates-dont-tell-the-full-story-racial-gaps-in-college-success-are-larger-than-we-think/
Tien, L. T., Roth, V., & Kampmeier, J. A. (2002). Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 606–632. http://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10038
Van Dusen, B., Langdon, L., & Otero, V. (2015). Learning Assistant Supported Student Outcomes (LASSO) study initial findings. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, pp. 343–346. http://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2015.pr.081
Van Dusen, B., & Nissen, J. (2017). Systemic inequities in introductory physics courses: the impacts of Learning Assistants. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, pp. 400–403. http://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.095
Van Dusen, B., & Nissen, J. (2019). Modernizing use of regression models in physics education research: A review of hierarchical linear modeling. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 20108. http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020108
Van Dusen, B., & Nissen, J. (2020). Associations between learning assistants, passing introductory physics, and equity: A quantitative critical race theory investigation. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(1), 010117. http://doi.org/10.1103/physrevphyseducres.16.010117
Van Dusen, B., White, J.-S. S., & Roualdes, E. A. (2016). The impact of Learning Assistants on inequities in physics student outcomes. Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, pp. 360–363. http://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2016.Pr.085
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T. C. Urdan, & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (pp. 105–165). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. http://doi.org/10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A007
Wheeler, L. B., Chiu, J. L., Maeng, J. L., & Bell, R. L. (2018). An exploratory study of teaching assistants’ motivation for inquiry-based teaching in an undergraduate laboratory context. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 20, 53–67. http://doi.org/10.1039/C8RP00157J
White, J.-S. S., Van Dusen, B., & Roualdes, E. A. (2016). The impacts of learning assistants on student learning of physics. In Proceedings of the 2016 Physics Education Research Conference (pp. 384–387). http://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2016.pr.091
Woodin, T., Carter, V. C., & Fletcher, L. (2010). Vision and change in biology undergraduate education, a call for action—initial responses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 9(2), 71–73. http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-03-0044
Zheng, B., & Wang, Z. (2022). Near-peer teaching in problem-based learning: Perspectives from tutors and tutees. PLOS One, 17(12), e0278256. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278256
