Effects of Doctoral Teaching Development Programs on STEM Doctoral Students’ College Teaching Competency

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

Abstract

The most significant outcomes of any teaching development are teacher knowledge and practices (Guskey, 2000). Gauging the impact of doctoral teaching programs on early-career academics is especially difficult, however, because there is no consensus on what such programs' intended outcomes should be, nor is there agreement on what new faculty need to know to hit the ground running as teachers. To explore the connection between doctoral TD programs and participants' subsequent teaching practices, the present paper focused on these research questions:

(1) To what extent are STEM doctoral students’ self-reports of college teaching competency affected by
(a) participation in any kind of teaching development (TD),
(b) the degree of one’s engagement in TD activities, and
(c) the type of TD activity?

(2) Do the effects of TD interact with gender and race?

Like papers 1 and 2 in this symposium, this study uses Year 1 survey data collected in 2009. Drawing upon descriptions of effective teaching (e.g., Lowman, 1995; NRC, 2003) as well as Austin and McDaniels' (2006) model of competencies needed by 21st-century faculty, we developed items for the Year 1 questionnaire that asked respondents to estimate their gains or progress during their doctoral program in two broad areas. The faculty work competence scale included items on teaching, research, general career, and professional skills. The pedagogical knowledge and skills scale included items on course design, classroom teaching, assessment, diversity in learning, teacher-student relationships, and teaching in general.

Four-point Likert-type scales were used for each competency item, and factor scores (mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1) were used as dependent variables in the analysis. TD engagement had four levels [none; low (1-10 hours); low moderate (11-25); high moderate (25-55), and high (>55)]. TD type had three levels (non-intensive workshop, intensive workshop, formal courses).

We used Ordinary Least Squares regression to estimate the effect of TD on STEM doctoral students’ college teaching competency. Moreover, since papers 1 and 2 had found that TD participation was influenced by gender but not race, this analysis also tested the interaction effects of race and gender with the TD program.

Controlling for covariates, we found that doctoral students who participated in any form of TD reported learning significantly more about college teaching than did non-participants in all but three areas: research, general career, and professional skills. Similarly, respondents who spent more time in TD reported gaining more in all areas but research and professional skills.In studying the influence of type of TD, participation in intensive workshops and formal courses led to more benefits for STEM doctoral students; and even after controlling for TD engagement, TD participation in formal courses led to greater benefits for STEM doctoral students’ teaching in general. Finally, we found a significantly positive interaction effect of being female with TD participation in predicting the faculty work competence scale on teaching. These findings provide more evidence on important questions of how much or what type of teaching development do doctoral students need in order to be relatively effective college instructors.

Authors

• Mark R. Connolly, University of Wisconsin - Madison

• Yougeon Lee, University of Wisconsin - Madison