Content uploaded by Abdul Rauf
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Abdul Rauf on May 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Empowering Graduate Teaching Assistants in STEM: The Role of Collaborative Action
Research in Professional Agency Development
Problem Statement: Collaborative Action Research (CAR) has been extensively used as a
professional development strategy (Mertler 2013; Goodnough, 2016). It allows instructors to
engage in a process of continuous improvement, by identifying and addressing the challenges they
face in their teaching practice and working collaboratively with their fellow instructors (Koutselini
& Patsalidou, 2015). However, there are limited studies that explore CAR within the domain of
university-based instruction, leaving a notable gap in the examination of the distinctive
collaborative dynamics and partnership intricacies intrinsic to CAR in such settings. Hierarchical
structure within the higher education framework further adds layers of complexity to the equation,
prompting a deeper analysis of the interplay between individual agency and institutional structures.
Within the broader framework of professional development, the relevance of CAR becomes even
more pronounced in case of graduate Teaching Assistants (TAs). TAs, pivotal in college STEM
education, have unfortunately been relegated to the status of mere "cheap labor" with little regard
for their agency and professional growth. This is vividly captured by Park and Ramos (2002), who
described TAs experience as “donkey in the department”, highlighting the disproportionate
balance between heavy workload and limited autonomy. The issues related to CAR in university-
based settings, and especially when it involves graduate TAs, call for a nuanced exploration into
power dynamics and agency-related complexities.
Research Questions: What are affordances of collaborative action research (CAR) in developing
graduate Teaching assistant’s (TA) agency? Specifically, we are asking what elements/aspects of
agency start to emerge through a TA’s engagement in CAR.
Theoretical Framework: The concept of agency has been used and defined in the scholarly
discourse via different lenses (Goller & Paloniemi, 2017). Bandura (2001) described agency as
"aptitude to assert control over the trajectory and character of one's existence", and this point of
view conceives agency as an intrinsic attribute. On the other hand, scholars like Eteläpelto, have
described agency as a dynamic force that drives individuals and collectives to actively participate
in shaping their work environments and professional identities. This point of view conceives
agency to be closely aligned with tangible actions undertaken by individuals or collectives,
molding their professional personas and labor dynamics. The distinction in these two perspectives
highlights the multifaceted nature of agency, encompassing both an internal capacity and an
external manifestation of deliberate actions within specific contexts. This broad understanding is
further echoed by Duff (2013), Muramatsu (2013), and Carson (2012) who reinforce the notion of
agency as individual’s capacity to make choices, take control, self-regulate, and pursue their goals,
which can lead to personal or social transformation.
Giddens' framework (1984) perceives teacher agency from socio-cultural perspective, and scholars
have used this framework to debate over the intricate interplay between individual agency and the
broader socio-contextual setting, explaining how teacher agency operates within the parameters of
socio-cultural constraints, encompassing curriculum norms, power dynamics vis-à-vis colleagues
and management, and the overarching school ethos. Eteläpelto et al., (2013) delve further into the
understanding of teacher agency and adopts a subject-centric socio-cultural perspective. This
perspective sees teacher agency as intertwined with the broader societal factors, norms, and
cultural influences. The teacher's decisions, actions, and choices are shaped by their personal
beliefs, experiences, and aspirations. Yet, these decisions are also influenced by the prevailing
societal norms, expectations, and values. To understand this complex and mutually dependent
connection, one can imagine it as a delicate dance between the individual teacher and the societal
stage they perform on. In this intricate interplay, teachers are both products of the societal context
and active contributors to its evolution.
The concept of teacher agency emerges as a distinctive facet of professional agency, where
teachers proactively influence their educational environment (Biesta et al., 2015). Eteläpelto et al.,
(2013) used the term of "professional agency" as an active exertion by educators and school
communities, entailing decision-making and choices that reverberate through their vocational
pursuits and identities. Imants and Van der Wal (2020) argue that teachers take on a proactive role
in driving educational initiatives like school improvement and school reform. Teachers interact
with the core elements of these initiatives and navigate the complex dynamics of classrooms and
school environments where these changes are being implemented, shaping their direction and
outcomes. This interaction between teachers and their educational context is what constitutes their
agency, and it extends from individual classrooms to broader educational contexts, highlighting
its profound influence on multiple tiers of the education system. (Imants and Van der Wal, 2020).
Literature indicates the significance of teacher agency in Professional Development (PD) programs
(Vähäsantanen et al., 2017, Eteläpelto, 2017), and the need to recognize teachers' positioning, their
autonomy and their ability to exercise agency by acting on their own professional judgments has
been emphasized in the contemporary literature (Priestley et al., 2015; Wermke & Forsberg, 2017).
Within this framework, collaborative action research emerges as a potent method to bolster
teachers' professional development (Jaipal and Figg, 2011), primarily because it views teachers as
agents of change (Coghlan and Brannick, 2001) and reflective practitioners (Crawford-Garrett et
al., 2015; Flores and López, 2010) and a tool to make informed decisions to refine and enhance
their instructional strategies (Vaughan & Mertler, 2020).
We draw upon the frameworks provided by Eteläpelto et al. (2013) to conceive agency as a
dynamic interplay between personal autonomy, self-determination, and social context positioning
it as a pivotal force guiding individual trajectories towards personal growth. We recognize that
while educators wield their agency to achieve particular aims, they function within a socio-cultural
and material landscape that can either elevate their pursuits or pose hindrances. Furthermore,
drawing upon the framework provided by Biesta et al. (2015), our interpretation of agency revolves
around educators' active, purposeful capability to influence their professional spheres. This
multifaceted concept encompasses two crucial dimensions: first, the intentional interaction of
individuals with their operational context—including teaching environments, learners, and
institutional dynamics wherein they make informed decisions and choices; second, the practical
application of this engagement, where individuals creatively shape and reshape the parameters of
their professional domain. This active role within the organizational milieu highlights teachers'
agency in decision-making, curriculum design, teaching methods, and creating a conducive
learning atmosphere.
Methods: This study was conducted within the Department of Chemistry at a large public
university located in the Midwest. Current paper delineates the findings from our study on the
process of CAR between chemistry education researchers (authors) and a senior graduate Teaching
Assistant from the same department, who acted as the chemistry course instructor for the study.
We will use the pseudonym, Sam, for this paper. Prior to commencing recruitment, all necessary
ethical clearances were secured, including institutional Review Board (IRB).
Data collected comprised the field notes from the action research meetings and exit interview with
Sam. Based on the literature reviewed in Theoretical Framework, we developed 10 codes (see table
1 for each code and definition) to analyze the interview data. In addition, we used the definition of
professional agency, an active exertion by educators and school communities, entailing decision-
making, choices and stances that reverberate through their vocational pursuits and identities
(Eteläpelto et al. (2013), to generate any additional code emerging from the data. From this
inductive coding approach, we generated 3 more codes (table 1, rows 11-13). After this initial
coding, we looked across the codes and coded segments to generate themes to describe how CAR
supported the development of professional agency of a graduate TA.
Table 1: Codes and definitions
Findings: Based upon the deductive and inductive coding of the data using the codebook given in
table 1, several findings surfaced showing development of agency across various domains. Some
key findings are:
Intrinsic Agency: Sam’s self-described his role as a "super senior TA" and his involvement in the
course, even when not formally teaching it, demonstrates an Intrinsic Agency i.e., inherent aptitude
and motivation to act and shape his own experiences. Sam perceived his role as a guiding figure,
given his seniority, and acted within the perceived boundaries of that role to lead, inform, and
correct when necessary.
Collaboration: A significant aspect of the Sam’s agency is manifested in his collaborations with
other stakeholders, ensuring that all are informed and involved, and through these engagements,
his decisions were informed, sharpened, and sometimes transformed, highlighting that agency can
be both individual and co-constructed. Furthermore, Sam actively interacted with other TAs,
leading meetings, and intervening, when necessary, which is a testament to exercising his agency
in driving the educational initiative.
Decision making: Data suggests that Sam displayed a pronounced sense of agency in decision-
making, underlined by a sequence of intentional choices aimed at optimizing the educational
experience. The decision to inform other TAs, hold meetings, and intervene during implementation
indicates the Sam's capacity to make autonomous choices based on his judgments and evaluations.
By having the TAs perform the lab exercise, Sam makes a conscious decision to gather direct input
from those who will be involved in the lab's delivery. Such decisions, driven by the desire to ensure
quality and accuracy, signify an individual who isn't just passively involved but actively shaping
the course's direction. Through these deliberate actions and adjustments, Sam effectively
demonstrated agency in steering the course and its associated dynamics, aimed at improving both
the teaching and learning.
Role perception: Sam was aware of his limitations and strengths, and he regulated his actions
accordingly by collaborating with chemistry education researcher to ensure the designed
intervention is academically sound. Sam manifested his agency by acknowledging that he's "not
an expert in chemical education" and seeking facilitator’s expertise. By doing so, Sam illustrated
his intent to produce quality content rather than just conforming to societal norms of trying to do
everything on his own. Sam seemed to exercise his agency in establishing a division of labor in
working towards the designing of the intervention.
Reflective Introspection & Professional Growth: Sam’s capacity for self-reflection stands out
across narratives. Whether analyzing course material designs, teaching styles, or student outcomes,
he consistently engages in deep introspection. Interview data shows Sam’s deep understanding of
the interconnectedness of course material design, teaching styles, and successful student outcomes.
He exercises agency by analyzing these dynamics and recognizing the importance of individual
roles in the larger educational setting: “one thing I really noticed was the how quickly the students
picked it up in the classroom was partially based on how well that T.A. left the classroom… that's
a tricky one to address because every TA has a different teaching, and every professor has a
different level of teaching and interest in the material”. This reflective nature, combined with an
inherent desire for professional growth, showcases agency as both a reactive and proactive force.
Self-reflection and Adapting Practices: Data shows several instances of self-reflection and
adapting practices, and this ranges from recognizing the typical behavior of most TAs, where they
do not engage deeply with lab exercises and may not prioritize the educational aspect, to
recognizing Sam’s own less efficient observational approach, Sam perceived himself as a learner
and valued the transformative power of the collaborative experiences. He translates his
understanding into action, molding and adjusting his practices.
Discussion: The findings shed light on the multifaceted ways in which CAR can develop and
nurture the agency of graduate Teaching Assistants (TAs). In the realm of Intrinsic Agency, Sam's
portrayal of himself as a "super senior TA" reflects Bandura's (2001) perspective of agency as an
intrinsic attribute, allowing one to steer their life trajectory. This self-portrayal embodies the
empowered, active role that Sam assumes in the academic setting. CAR, in this context, appears
to act as a catalyst, amplifying this intrinsic drive and fostering an environment wherein the Sam
feels compelled to act beyond mere duties, engaging more deeply with course dynamics and
stakeholders. Moreover, the Sam's collaborative engagements, not just as participations but as
strategic alliances, signify how CAR facilitates co-constructed agency, bridging individual
intentions with collective actions. This Collaboration facet of the findings resonates with
Eteläpelto's viewpoint of agency as a dynamic force pushing individuals to sculpt their professional
identities. By fostering environments that value collective input, CAR empowered Sam to view
his role as pivotal in the academic process. Sam's active interactions, leading meetings, and timely
interventions underscore his tangible actions rooted in agency, pushing the boundaries of the
typical TA's role in STEM.
In delving into the specific strategies within CAR that facilitate the agency of a graduate TA,
several findings stand out. The Sam's ‘Decision-making’ process highlights one such strategy. By
actively deciding to inform other TAs, hold meetings, and make interventions, Sam exercises his
capacity for autonomous choices, and this mirrors an individual's power to make transformative
choices as emphasized by Van Lier (2010). In this scenario, Sam is not merely a bystander in the
educational process but an empowered decision-maker. CAR acts as the scaffold, enabling TAs to
make these conscious decisions and shape pedagogical trajectories. Another strategy within the
framework of CAR is ‘continuous reflection’. Findings show that CAR serves as a conduit,
enabling Sam to engage in this reflective practice, further solidifying his role as reflective
practitioner. This isn’t passive reflection; it's an active, strategic analysis driving professional
growth. Sam’s acknowledgment of interconnected educational dynamics and his proactive
approach in addressing them underscores how CAR instills a deep sense of agency, urging him to
continuously evolve and adapt. Findings emphasize that other strategies within CAR that are
effective in fostering teacher agency are active collaboration, seeking feedback, and self-
regulation.
Benefit to the NARST community: This study explores and provides insights into the potential
of Collaborative Action Research (CAR) in enhancing the agency of graduate Teaching Assistants
(TAs) in university settings, a domain previously underrepresented in research. By unfolding the
multifaceted ways in which CAR develops agency, fosters collaborative decision-making, and
promotes reflective practice, the findings highlight the value of adopting CAR methodologies for
TA professional development. This exploration into TA agency in higher education contributes to
the collective understanding of the NARST community in this regard, and also it provides insights
into actionable strategies to empower a pivotal segment of our educational community.
References
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian journal of social
psychology, 2(1), 21-41.
Biesta, G., Priestley, M., & Robinson, S. (2015). The role of beliefs in teacher agency. Teachers
and teaching, 21(6), 624-640.
Carson, L. (2012). The role of drama in task-based learning: Agency, identity and autonomy.
Scenario: A Journal of Performative Teaching, Learning, Research, 6(2), 47-60.
Crawford-Garrett, K., Anderson, S., Grayson, A., & Suter, C. (2015). Transformational practice:
Critical teacher research in pre-service teacher education. Educational Action Research,
23(4), 479-496.
Dadds, M. (2003). Dissidence, difference and diversity in action research. Educational Action
Research, 11(2), 265-282.
Duff, P. A. (2013). Identity, agency, and second language acquisition. In The Routledge
handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410-426). Routledge.
Eteläpelto, A., Vähäsantanen, K., Hökkä, P., & Paloniemi, S. (2013). What is agency?
Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational research review, 10, 45-65.
Flores, M. C., & López, T. G. (2010). La investigación colaborativa: una experiencia en el
desarrollo de un proyecto educativo. Revista Ciencia Administrativa, 61-68.
GIDDENS, A. (1984). New rules of sociological method. London: Hutchinson, 1993.
GIDDENS, A. The constitution of society. Berkeley. In: California: University of
California Press.
Goller, M., & Paloniemi, S. (2017). Agency at work, learning and professional development: An
introduction. Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and
development, 1-14.
Goodnough, K. (2016). Professional learning of K-6 teachers in science through collaborative
action research: An activity theory analysis. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(7),
747-767.
Imants, J., & Van der Wal, M. M. (2020). A model of teacher agency in professional development
and school reform. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 52(1), 1-14.
Ioannidou-Koutselini, M., & Patsalidou, F. (2015). Engaging school teachers and school
principals in an action research in-service development as a means of pedagogical self-
awareness. Educational Action Research, 23(2), 124-139.
Jaipal, K., & Figg, C. (2011). Collaborative action research approaches promoting professional
development for elementary school teachers. Educational Action Research, 19(1), 59-72.
Mertler, C. A. (2013). Classroom-based action research: Revisiting the process as customizable
and meaningful professional development for educators.
Muramatsu, C. (2013). Portraits of second language learners: agency, identities, and second
language learning University of Iowa].
Park, C., & Ramos, M. (2002). The donkey in the department? Insights into the graduate
teaching assistant (GTA) experience in the UK. Journal of Graduate Education, 3(2), 47-
53.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: What is it and why does it
matter? In Flip the system (pp. 134-148). Routledge.
Remillard, J. T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., & Lloyd, G. M. (2011). Mathematics teachers at
work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction. Routledge.
Ruthven, K., Laborde, C., Leach, J., & Tiberghien, A. (2009). Design tools in didactical research:
Instrumenting the epistemological and cognitive aspects of the design of teaching
sequences. Educational researcher, 38(5), 329-342.
Van Lier, L. (2010). Forward: Agency, self and identity in language learning. Language learner
autonomy: Policy, curriculum, classroom, ix-xviii.
Vaughan, M., & Mertler, C. A. (2021). Reorienting our thinking away from “professional
development for educators” and toward the “development of professional educators”.
Journal of School Leadership, 31(6), 569-584.
Wermke, W., & Forsberg, E. (2017). The changing nature of autonomy: Transformations of the
late Swedish teaching profession. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(2),
155-168.
