Influences on STEM Doctoral Students’ Participation in Teaching Development Programs

• In Event: The Effects of Teaching Development Programs on Doctoral Students in STEM

Abstract

From the perspective of social cognitive career theory, teaching development (TD) programs provide what Lent, Brown, and Hackett (1994, 2002) call learning experiences. To better understand STEM doctoral students' participation in learning experiences focused on preparing college teachers, the present study posed these three research questions:
(1) Why did doctoral students decide to participate in TD programs?
(2) What factors discouraged their participation?
(3) To what extent did gender and field of study affect their reasons for participating in TD programs?

The LSFSS Year 1 questionnaire asked STEM doctoral students about TD experiences during their doctoral training and included items about why STEM doctoral students participate in TD programs and what factors discourage their participation. Web and mail versions of the questionnaire were fielded by a major university survey center in summer 2009. The response rate was 73% (N = 2163).

To identify influences on STEM doctoral students’ participation in TD, the present study descriptively analyzed Year 1 survey data. Because prior research on teaching development programs (Benbow, Byrd, & Connolly, 2011) suggested that doctoral students' gender and field of study may shape patterns of participation in teaching development programs, we used logistic regression analyses to explore the extent to which influences on TD participation differed by respondents' gender and discipline after relevant covariates were accounted for.

We found that while most STEM doctoral students participated in TD programs because “participation was required" (72%), over half of STEM doctoral students reported they also participated in TD programs “to learn more about teaching and learning" (57%), to improve [their] work as a teaching assistant" (54%), and “to improve [their] knowledge and skills regarding teaching and learning" (53%). Key factors that discouraged TD participation were “not enough time (71%),” “not a high priority (46%),” and “not aware of programs or offerings (39%).”

Our logistic regression analyses showed that female doctoral students were significantly less likely than their male counterparts to say that they had participated in TD because it had been mandated or required. In addition, female students were more likely to participate in TD programs to prepare for a career as a faculty member and to be more competitive on the job market. Finally, female students were less likely to report TD programs were not a personal priority, and more likely to say that their advisor or department had discouraged their participation in TD programs.

Field of study also played an important role in doctoral students’ decision to participate. Compared with students in engineering, students in life science and health fields were more likely to participate in TD programs to learn more about teaching and learning, to improve their teaching-related knowledge and skills, and to prepare for a faculty career.

With these findings, this paper not only advances our understanding of STEM doctoral students' reasons for participating in TD programs but also provides more evidence that what influences STEM doctoral students’ TD participation indeed differs by gender and field of study.

Authors

• Mark R. Connolly, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Yougeon Lee, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Ann E. Austin, Michigan State University