The Learning Assistant Model as a Scaffold for Instructional Change and Student-faculty Collaboration

Andrea Van Duzor, Chicago State University
Mel Sabella, Chicago State University

In the Learning Assistant Model, undergraduate students serve as Learning Assistants (LAs) in the classroom and facilitate the learning of their peers.¹ LAs are typically placed in courses that they have successfully completed and act as “master learners” who can model questioning and answering strategies and guide small groups in problem solving sessions. They are not “teaching assistants,” who often take on instructor responsibilities, rather, they serve to support student learning in the classroom. In addition to classroom practice, other key elements of the LA model include a pedagogy course, a weekly meeting with a faculty mentor, and continuous reflection on the teaching and learning of the subject throughout.² These elements provide substantial support to LAs as well as unique opportunities for collaboration and partnerships between undergraduates (LAs) and faculty that can have a deep impact on a program’s or institution’s instructional environment. The LA model can scaffold discussions between students and faculty, capitalizing on their diverse expertise and experiences, as they actively pursue best practices in the classroom.

LA Program Outcomes

The central focus of the LA program is improved learning outcomes for students in the LA supported classes. In concert with student-focused pedagogies, the LA model can increase student-learning gains. ^3,4,5 LA programs also have a large impact on the LAs themselves. In addition to reinforcing an LA’s own content understanding, programs using the LA model have been shown to create positive shifts in overall LA attitudes about science, personal interest, and content knowledge.⁶ Serving as an LA can facilitate a student’s growth of their identity as a scientist and in their inclusion in the scientific community of practice.⁷ Additionally, the LA model can promote the pursuit of teaching as a career, and new teachers who had served as LAs use reformed teaching practices more often than their peers in the same teacher preparation program who did not have an LA experience.⁸ A critical component of the LA model is that it can be transformative not only to students and the LAs who participate, but it can also impact faculty, as they work toward transforming their courses to be able to effectively utilize LAs.⁹

Role of Faculty in LA Programs

The LA model can have deep impacts on instructional environments, too, as it can foster a rich collaborative space where LAs are invited to play a role in creating active and inclusive learning environments that build on local strengths. As noted previously, the LA model is comprised of three key elements: a pedagogy course, weekly faculty meetings, and classroom practice. The pedagogy course is usually taught by the LA program coordinator. It introduces students to both theoretical topics, such as mental models and metacognition, and practical topics, such as questioning strategies and group dynamics, as well as providing space for reflection on practice. However, it is in concert with the weekly meetings with faculty and in the classrooms where LAs can help shape instruction.

Faculty are typically expected to lead the weekly meetings and direct classroom practice. While a small LA Program, like at Chicago State University (~20 LAs), may include one-on-one weekly meetings where the LA talks directly to the instructor of the course, large LA Programs, like the University of Colorado-Boulder (~300 LAs), where the LA Model originated, might have twenty LAs and TAs in a weekly meeting with a faculty member. These meetings depend on the LA and faculty preparation in, and views on, science content, pedagogy, and partnerships, as well as their time constraints for meeting. Weekly meetings can potentially provide a collaborative space where LAs and faculty can collectively think about the best ways to support students.

Faculty-LA interactions within the weekly meeting can be categorized along a continuum of mentor-mentee relationships, faculty driven collaborations, and collaborative partnerships.¹⁰ In mentor-mentee relationships, the focus is on teaching the LA and ensuring they understand the content. Faculty driven collaborations make room for LA input and reflection, but curricular choices are still faculty determined. Collaborative partnerships allow for faculty and LAs to co-analyze student learning and co-generate classroom activities. While weekly meetings may focus simply on content preparation, they have the potential to do much more. Collaboration with LAs in the weekly meeting and in the classroom can enable faculty to make large impacts on their instruction and student learning. Indeed, in examining a sample of over 3315 physics students' conceptual pre-post test scores, Van Dusen et al. found that for every term a faculty member had taught a course with an LA, there was a statistically significant 0.154 increase in effect size on student learning gains.⁴ Having LAs allows faculty to increase their use of student-focused pedagogies, try new strategies and curricula, voice their pedagogical choices, and receive real-time feedback.

Faculty Development and Support

The Learning Assistant Alliance (LAA) provides resources for faculty and program coordinators seeking to design, develop, expand, and sustain LA programs. Faculty can find guidance on how to use LAs effectively in the classroom, facilitate productive weekly meetings, and adopt and adapt student-focused pedagogies and curricula on the LAA website: learningassistantalliance.org. Videos, articles, rubrics, and guidelines are presented. Additionally, online assessments, accessible to faculty at institutions with or without a LA program, are available through the LAA by using the Learning About STEM Student Outcomes (LASSO) online platform. The upcoming LA workshops listed below will provide hands-on professional development for faculty and institution teams:

• March 8-9, Front Range Community College and University of Colorado-Boulder, in Boulder, CO will co-lead a workshop emphasizing 2-year/4-year institutional partnerships.
• April 27-29, the University of Maryland in College Park, MD, will host a workshop with special attention to using LAs in engineering courses.
• June 14-15, St. Cloud State University in St. Cloud, MN will present a workshop specializing on faculty development, administrative support, and institutional partnerships.

More information on registration is available through the Learning Assistant Alliance website. Workshops provide faculty with supportive space to think deeply about course transformation and LA support. Over 70 institutions have instituted LA programs, and organizations such as PhysTEC and NSF have supported dissemination of the model because the LA Model has served to improve student learning, promote growth in the LA’s content understanding and scientific identity development, and encourage faculty development and course transformation.

Andrea Van Duzor and Mel Sabella and are faculty in Chemistry and Physics, respectively, in the Department of Chemistry, Physics, and Engineering Studies at Chicago State University. Both conduct education research involving undergraduate STEM majors, and they co-direct the university’s Learning Assistant Program. At the national level, they are active in resource development and governance of the Learning Assistant Alliance. Sabella is President of the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT).

(Endnotes)

1. https://www.learningassistantalliance.org/

2. Otero, V., S. Pollock and N. Finkelstein (2010). "A physics department's role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model." American Journal of Physics 78(11): 1218-1224.

3. Pollock, S. and N. Finkelstein (2008). "Sustaining educational reforms in introductory physics." Physical Review Special Topics Physics Education Research 4: 0101102.

4. Van Dusen, B., L. Langdon and V. Otero (2015). Learning Assistant Supported Student Outcomes (LASSO) study initial findings. Physics Education Research Conference (PERC), College Park, MD.

5. White, J.-S. S., B. Van Dusen and E. A. Roualdes (2016). The impacts of learning assistants on student learning of physics. Physics Education Reseach Conference (PERC), Sacramento, CA.

6. Gray, K. E. and V. Otero (2008). Analysis of Learning Assistants’ Views of Teaching and Learning. Physics Education Research Conference (PERC), Edmonton, Canada, AIP.

7. Close, E. W., J. Conn and H. G. Close (2016). "Becoming physics people: Development of integrated physics identity through the Learning Assistant experience." Physical Review Physics Education Research 12(1): 010109.

8. Gray, K. E., D. C. Webb and V. K. Otero (2016). "Effects of the learning assistant model on teacher practice." Physical Review Physics Education Research 12(2): 020126.

9. De Leone, C. J., E. Price, D. DeRoma, C. Turpen and D. Sourbeer (2016). Successful STEM Student Pathways: A two- and four-year partnership. Physics Education Research Conference (PERC), Sacramento, CA.

10. Sabella, M., A. G. Van Duzor and F. Davenport (2016). Leveraging the expertise of the urban STEM student in developing an effective LA Program: LA and Instructor Partnerships. Physics Education Research Conference (PERC), Sacramento, CA.

Disclaimer – The articles and opinion pieces found in this issue of the APS Forum on Education Newsletter are not peer refereed and represent solely the views of the authors and not necessarily the views of the APS.