In the evolving landscape of STEM education, the Learning Assistant (LA) model has emerged as a transformative approach, aiming to bridge the gap between traditional instructional methods and active, student-centered learning. A recent groundbreaking study by Karch, Mashhour, Koss, and colleagues, published in the International Journal of STEM Education, offers profound insights into how the goals set by instructors fundamentally shape the way Learning Assistants are integrated and how their educational practices develop over time. This research unpacks the dynamics of expansive learning within the LA framework, revealing a nuanced picture of how instructors’ intentions influence both the implementation of the model and the emerging practices of the LAs themselves.
At its core, the LA model is intended to promote deeper learning by involving undergraduate students as peer facilitators who assist in teaching STEM subjects. These LAs essentially function as intermediaries between instructors and students, translating complex concepts into more accessible forms. However, the recent study highlights that the variability in instructors’ goals leads to significant differences in how LAs experience their roles and grow professionally. This variability can either catalyze a rich, expansive learning environment or limit LAs to narrower, more task-oriented functions—for instance, focusing mainly on logistical support rather than pedagogical engagement.
The study’s exploration of "expansive learning" is crucial here. Expansive learning, a concept rooted in cultural-historical activity theory, refers to a process in which learners—whether students or LAs—develop new forms of understanding and practices by engaging with contradictions within their learning environment. When instructors aim to foster this kind of learning, they intentionally design LA roles that extend beyond simple assistance. They emphasize collaborative knowledge construction, reflection on teaching practices, and the cultivation of metacognitive skills. Conversely, when instructors prioritize efficiency or surface-level task completion, opportunities for expansive learning diminish, and LAs often remain confined to rote responsibilities.
By delving into qualitative data collected from multiple STEM classrooms employing the LA model, the researchers dissect the subtle but powerful ways that instructors’ goals manifest in day-to-day interactions, curriculum design, and assessment of LAs. These particulars include how instructors communicate their expectations, how much autonomy LAs are granted, and the extent to which instructors integrate LAs into the pedagogical decision-making process. Such factors have cascading effects, shaping not only LAs’ immediate contributions but also their deeper development as emerging educators and learners.
One of the study’s most compelling revelations is the differentiation in LA practices stemming from various instructional goals. Instructors with growth-oriented objectives foster environments where LAs develop comprehensive facilitation strategies, encourage student inquiry, and engage in reflective practice. These LAs tend to transition into reflective practitioners, continually refining their methods while grappling with the complexities of peer instruction. On the other hand, instructors focused on delivering content expediently may inadvertently limit LAs’ roles to administrative or support tasks such as grading, logistical coordination, or mechanical assistance, which stifles the potential for pedagogical growth.
The researchers argue that this divergence in practices is not merely incidental but systemic, hinging on how instructors conceptualize teaching and learning within STEM fields. Those who view education as a dynamic interactive process aim to cultivate LAs as co-constructors of knowledge, whereas instructors with a more transmission-focused perspective regard LAs as aides to reinforce the traditional "sage on the stage" model. This distinction carries profound implications for the evolution of STEM pedagogy and for preparing the next generation of educators in these fields.
Technical underpinnings of the LA model, as discussed in the study, elucidate the scaffolded support systems necessary to nurture expansive learning. These include structured mentoring sessions, professional development workshops tailored for LAs, and mechanisms to integrate formative feedback loops between instructors, LAs, and students. The researchers emphasize that when instructors embed these supports with the intent of guiding LAs towards autonomy and reflective practice, expansive learning thrives. This framework not only enhances LA effectiveness but also empowers them to renegotiate their identities within academic settings.
Furthermore, the article sheds light on the complex interplay of institutional pressures, curricular constraints, and individual instructor beliefs that mediate the implementation of the LA model. For example, in highly standardized curricula with rigid pacing, instructors may feel compelled to limit LA roles to ensure content coverage, whereas in courses with more flexible structures, instructors might leverage LAs as active agents of instructional innovation. This systemic context is critical for understanding how broad educational reforms translate into classroom practice and how the LA model can be sustainably scaled.
In analyzing the learning trajectories of LAs, Karch and colleagues note that expansive learning is characterized by iterative cycles of problem identification, collaborative solution-building, and practice refinement. This cyclical process is facilitated or hindered by instructors depending on their goals. When instructors prioritize holistic development, LAs engage in meta-reflective activities, critically examining their own assumptions and instructional approaches. This reflective dimension is pivotal to expanding their repertoire beyond initial training and paving the way for continuous personal and professional growth.
Moreover, the study provides nuanced evidence that the LA model, under expansive learning conditions, contributes to a reshaping of classroom power dynamics. LAs move from peripheral helpers to integral pedagogical partners, co-authoring the learning experience alongside instructors and students. This democratization of the learning environment can lead to increased engagement, a sense of ownership among participants, and the cultivation of communities of practice that transcend traditional hierarchies.
The implications of these findings extend beyond the immediate LA context. They challenge educators and policymakers to reconsider how instructional goals at the macro and micro level influence emerging educational models and the development of future teachers in STEM disciplines. Specifically, fostering expansive learning needs to be embedded in institutional priorities, professional development programs, and resource allocation if the benefits of the LA model are to be fully realized.
In bringing these insights to a broader audience, the research underscores the intricate balance required to implement innovative teaching models effectively. It is not sufficient to merely adopt peer-facilitation strategies; the intentions and objectives of those leading the implementation shape the very nature of these interventions. This realization calls for reflective practices among instructors themselves, who must critically assess their pedagogical goals and how these align with the transformative potential of the LA model.
Crucially, the article also addresses the role of feedback and assessment in the developmental journey of LAs. When instructors design assessment mechanisms that prioritize reflective growth and pedagogical understanding, LAs are more likely to embrace expansive learning. Conversely, assessments focused solely on task completion or content accuracy risk reducing LAs to the status of assistants devoid of meaningful agency.
The researchers advocate for an ongoing dialogue between instructors, LAs, and institutional leaders to cultivate a shared vision for LA practice. Such collaboration is vital in negotiating the tensions between curriculum demands and the pursuit of expansive learning objectives. The study thus serves as both a diagnostic tool and a call to action, encouraging all stakeholders to reflect on how goals influence practice and, ultimately, student outcomes.
Finally, the study offers a roadmap for future research, suggesting the need for longitudinal studies that track LA development over extended periods and across diverse STEM contexts. Understanding how expansive learning unfolds, adapts, and sustains in varying environments will be key to refining the LA model and maximizing its educational impact.
This pioneering work by Karch, Mashhour, and Koss signals a pivotal moment in STEM education research, highlighting the transformative power of instructor goals in shaping not only the practical application of the Learning Assistant model but also the deeper professional and cognitive growth of those who undertake this vital role.
Subject of Research: Expansive learning processes within the Learning Assistant model as influenced by instructors’ goals in STEM education.
Article Title: Expansive learning in the learning assistant model: how instructors’ goals lead to differences in implementation and development of LAs’ practices.
Article References:
Karch, J.M., Mashhour, S., Koss, M.P. et al. Expansive learning in the learning assistant model: how instructors’ goals lead to differences in implementation and development of LAs’ practices. IJ STEM Ed 11, 37 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-024-00496-1
Image Credits: AI Generated
