A model of the factors influencing teaching identity among life sciences doctoral students

Abstract

One barrier to the adoption of evidenced‐based teaching practices may be that faculty do not see teaching as an important part of their identities as professionals. Graduate school is a key time for professional identity development, and currently we know little about how doctoral students develop identities as college teachers. In this qualitative study, we aim to characterize the factors that promote and hinder teaching identity among 33 life sciences doctoral students with diverse career interests at one research university. We collected data using semi‐structured interviews and analyzed it using qualitative analysis closely aligned with grounded theory. Our analysis involved iteratively and collaboratively analyzing interview transcripts while considering existing literature about socialization and professional identity and remaining open to novel ideas in the data. From this analysis, we developed a mechanistic model of the factors that influenced teaching identity in our participants. Independent teaching experiences, teaching professional development, and teaching mentors contributed to salient and stable teaching identities among doctoral students. Being recognized by faculty as a teacher was also important, but rare. The professional culture that doctoral students perceived acted like a blizzard that they had to navigate through to develop a teaching identity. This culture strongly valued research over teaching, resulting in a sometimes cold and isolating environment for students interested in teaching. The culture also made it harder to see existing opportunities for teaching development and made it more challenging to move toward these opportunities, much like the deep snow and driving winds of a blizzard. The mechanistic model described in this work is an important first step in understanding how doctoral training influences teaching identity. This model serves as a hypothesis that should be tested and refined through additional empirical work across contexts.

Navigating Tensions of Research and Teaching: Biology Graduate Students’ Perceptions of the Research–Teaching Nexus within Ecological Contexts

“…Beyond just a physical "place" or an institutional "structure," these contexts can be thought of as being defined by the individuals that make them up. Graduate students interact with these individuals and receive messages related to research and teaching through social network ties (Sweitzer, 2009;Lane et al, 2018). Colbeck (2008) argued that how these roles are internalized shapes graduate students' sense of self and, in turn, can inform their professional development and current and future behaviors (Spencer et al, 1997).…”

Leveraging Psychosocial Interventions to Motivate Instructor Participation in Teaching Professional Development

“…Most research on TPD is focused on three types of instructor participants: K-12 teachers, faculty in higher education, and future faculty, such as graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) and postdoctoral researchers. The focus of the psychosocial interventions proposed in this essay will be faculty and future faculty at research-intensive institutions, where motivation to participate in TPD may be low relative to other work demands and responsibilities (Goodwin et al, 2018;Lane et al, 2019).…”

“…One of the most common forms of institutional TPD for many instructors is a mandatory teaching orientation, which varies in length and content depending on the institution (Austin and Sorcinelli, 2013;Schussler et al, 2015). Beyond mandatory teaching orientations, instructors may voluntarily choose to pursue TPD, sometimes within a context of institutional and cultural pressures to focus on research (Bouwma-Gearhart, 2012a; Goodwin et al, 2018;Lane et al, 2019). This results in some instructors engaging in TPD and others choosing not to participate.…”

Finding a Fit: Biological Science Doctoral Students’ Selection of a Principal Investigator and Research Laboratory

“…The lab serves as the site in which students hone and apply specialized knowledge and skills, following the prevailing norms and values of their chosen scientific disciplines (Hunter et al, 2007;Holley, 2011;Szelényi et al, 2016). Students' participation in labs defines and shapes their emerging identities as scientists (Malone and Barabino, 2009;Lane et al, 2019). Additionally, lab placement typically defines the nature and scope of students' doctoral experiences by allowing them access to developmental networks of PIs, other faculty members, postdoctoral fellows, peers, and program administrators (Sweitzer, 2009;Ynalvez et al, 2017;Griffin et al, 2018).…”