Maximizing the Value of Learning Assistants for Students' Belonging, Mattering, and Confidence in Gateway STEM Courses.

Maximizing the Value of Learning Assistants for Students’ Belonging, Mattering, and Confidence in Gateway STEM Courses - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice CBE Life Sci Educ . 2026 Summer 1;25(2):ar18. doi: 10.1187/cbe.26-02-0025 Maximizing the Value of Learning Assistants for Students’ Belonging, Mattering, and Confidence in Gateway STEM Courses Cristina D Zepeda †, * , Sabriya N Rosemond ‡ , Heather J Johnson § , Thomas P Clements ‖ , Marisa Albarran ‖ , Grace Lee § , Marques Watson ‖ , Cynthia J Brame ‖ Editor: Nicole C Kelp Author information Article notes Copyright and License information † Department of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA 37235 ‡ Biology Department, Davidson College, Davidson, NC, USA 28035 § Department of Teaching and Learning, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA 37235 ‖ Department of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA 37235 Author contributions: C.J.B., C.D.Z., and H.J.J. co-designed the study. S.N.R., C.J.B., and H.J.J. designed and developed the interview protocol. G.L., M.A., and M.W. conducted the interviews and developed the coding framework with feedback from all authors. All authors contributed to the thematic analysis. C.J.B. and C.D.Z. identified the narratives, and this was confirmed by H.J.J. and M.A. All authors participated in data interpretation. C.D.Z., H.J.J., S.N.R., T.P.C., and C.J.B. wrote portions of the initial draft and iteratively revised. All authors approved the manuscript. Conflicts of interest: We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Additional author information: During the time of data collection and analysis SNR and TPC were Director and Assistant Director, respectively, of the LA Program that is the focus of this study as well as instructors in two sections of the Introductory Biology course. CJB and HJJ were also members of the LA program steering committee during this time. ✉ *Address correspondence to: Cristina D. Zepeda ( cristina.zepeda@vanderbilt.edu ). Roles Nicole C Kelp : Monitoring Editor Received 2026 Feb 9; Revised 2026 Mar 11; Accepted 2026 Mar 19. © 2026 Zepeda et al. CBE—Life Sciences Education © 2026 The American Society for Cell Biology. This article is distributed by The American Society for Cell Biology under license from the author(s). It is available to the public under an Attribution–Noncommercial–Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 ). “ASCB®” and “The American Society for Cell Biology®” are registered trademarks of The American Society for Cell Biology. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13229116  PMID: 42154820 Abstract Learning Assistants (LAs) can reduce psychosocial barriers in gateway science courses. In this study, we specify the impact on students from different demographic groups. An inductive analysis of group interviews with 33 students from introductory biology and general chemistry courses revealed six narratives that capture students’ experiences with course structures, people, and personal connections. All students valued varied, flexible resources, but other narratives differed across groups. Underrepresented racial/ethnic and first-generation students described active and collaborative learning as promoting belonging, confidence, and mattering. Instructor interactions were helpful, with underrepresented and first-generation students highlighting the importance of establishing course climate. LAs were crucial for belonging among underrepresented students, first-generation students, and continuing-generation women, but not for continuing-generation men. Shared academic identities were universally important, while shared gender and racial identities held greater significance for underrepresented and first-generation students. Experiences with peers varied, with negative peer interactions and fear of judgment having less impact on well-represented, continuing-generation students. These findings extend Dewsbury's Deep Teaching model by demonstrating how LA integration into STEM courses can support student experiences across diverse populations. The results also reveal how instructors and LA programs can adapt their practices to support all students, ultimately enhancing belonging, confidence, and mattering. INTRODUCTION To become a scientist, a student typically passes through several gateway science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses. These courses are often perceived as competitive spaces that do not foster motivation or confidence, and they result in lower grades, higher drop/fail/withdraw rates, and lower satisfaction compared with non-STEM introductory courses ( Seymour and Hunter, 2019 ; Tomkin and West, 2022 ). This unwelcoming climate disproportionately affects students who are underrepresented in STEM, resulting in grade disparities and leading women, racially and ethnically marginalized students, and first-generation college students to leave intended STEM majors at higher rates than their peers ( Harackiewicz et al. , 2016 ; Seymour and Hunter, 2019 ; Theobald et al. , 2020 ; Canning et al. , 2022 ). Many efforts to improve gateway STEM courses focus on incorporating active learning, where students learn through engaging in activities and discussions, often via group work, rather than solely listening to lectures ( Freeman et al. , 2014 ). These efforts impact student performance and often reduce disparities (e.g., Freeman et al. , 2014 ; Eddy et al. , 2015 ; Theobald et al. , 2020 ). However, the impact of active learning varies between well-represented and marginalized students in STEM ( Andrews et al. , 2019 ). Reducing disparities requires intensive, well-facilitated active learning and deliberate efforts to foster an inclusive culture that mitigates social and psychological barriers to students’ integration into STEM ( Theobald et al. , 2020 ). The social and psychological barriers that students experience vary in cause and mechanism, but generally result in students’ feeling that they do not belong or matter in STEM. These barriers include cues from faculty or peers that students are not cut out for STEM; an absence of role models who share students’ identities; students’ internalized messages about who can succeed in STEM; and STEM curricula that do not align with students’ cultural norms ( Walton and Cohen, 2011 ; Yeager et al. , 2016 ; Jordt et al. , 2017 ; Rattan et al. , 2018 ; Canning et al. , 2019 ; Seymour and Hunter, 2019 ; Muenks et al. , 2020 ; Canning et al., 2022 ). These barriers reduce students’ sense of belonging, performance, and persistence in STEM, and have disproportionate effects on students who are from groups that have been marginalized in STEM. Incorporating Learning Assistants (LAs) into course structures can both reduce social and psychological barriers for students and support the integration of active learning ( Otero et al. , 2010 ; Dusen et al. , 2015 ; Talbot et al. , 2015 ; Barrasso and Spilios, 2021 ). LAs are undergraduates who work with instructors to facilitate active and collaborative group work during class time. In addition to content knowledge gained from previously taking the course they support, LAs receive training to support students and active learning in a pedagogy seminar ( Otero et al. , 2010 ; Dusen et al. , 2015 ; Talbot et al. , 2015 ; Barrasso and Spilios, 2021 ). LAs can also support students through informal, outside activities (e.g., answering questions, holding office hours, or providing resources), but do not grade. Weekly preparation meetings with faculty provide time to check in about students’ needs and prepare for upcoming material. In this study, we qualitatively evaluate the impact of incorporating LAs on the psychosocial aspects of belonging, mattering, and confidence for different demographic groups to pinpoint potential mechanisms with particular relevance for different students. LA programs were developed to and have been found to transform multiple elements of classroom conception and practice, from instructors’ awareness of student perspectives and pedagogical choices to specific interactions students have with peers and LAs ( Barrasso and Spilios, 2021 ). Thus, this work has implications for refining theories of inclusive teaching ( Dewsbury, 2020 ) and improving the effectiveness of other LA programs (programs exist at more than 450 institutions; Barrasso and Spilios, 2021 ) and classroom practices more generally—both those directly and indirectly related to LA integration. Belonging, Mattering, and Confidence Belonging is a sense of being part of or fitting into a group or community ( Strayhorn, 2012 ). A sense of belonging in a course can increase students’ engagement, performance, and intention to persist in desired academic paths ( Zumbrunn et al. , 2014 ; Dika and D'Amico, 2016 ; Fink et al. , 2020 ; Edwards et al. , 2022 ; Huber et al. , 2023 ). Students may feel uncertain about their belonging, especially when they have identities that have historically been excluded or subject to negative stereotypes. This aligns with research on perceived status, which shows that social identities—such as race and gender—can shape how students are perceived by peers and teachers, thereby affecting their participation and academic outcomes ( Cohen and Lotan, 1997 ; Horn, 2008 ). Thus, belonging is both a measure of students’ experiences in college and a predictor of those experiences. Importantly, both institutions and students have agency in promoting student belonging ( Kroeper and Murphy, 2017 ). Kroeper and colleagues ( 2025 ) recently reported wide variation in belonging opportunities for different student groups at 22 US colleges and universities, finding that all institutions afforded greater opportunities for some students to belong than others. While some definitions of belonging include a feeling of one's contributions and growth being valued and supported, others argue that the feeling of “mattering” is a distinct component that contributes to students’ experiences ( Elliott et al. , 2004 ; Flett et al. , 2019 ). Thus, to support students fully, classroom experiences must support students’ feelings that they are part of the classroom community and that their ideas and learning matter. Some students find it more desirable to matter than belong ( Elliott et al. , 2004 ). Students who are marginalized or routinely overlooked in classroom discussions by instructors and peers often experience a diminished sense of mattering, which reinforces unequal status hierarchies ( Cohen and Lotan, 1997 ; Mendoza et al. , 2023 ). When instructors foster mattering by taking student ideas seriously, ensuring students are heard, and affirming their intellectual contributions, it helps to disrupt and equalize status differences ( Mendoza et al. , 2023 ). Classroom environments can also contribute to students’ confidence that they are capable of doing well in a course (K. A. Clements et al. , 2023 ). Students who have confidence in their abilities to do well in a course or who are more self-efficacious are more likely to participate, engage in more challenging tasks, persist, and have increased interest ( Zimmerman, 2000 ). Some work also indicates that the sources that support self-efficacy vary in importance for different groups of students ( Usher and Pajares, 2008 ). For example, men tend to rely more on mastery experiences, whereas women tend to rely more on social persuasion and vicarious experiences ( Zeldin and Pajares, 2000 ; Zeldin et al. , 2008 ). At the same time, in many STEM classrooms, students are assigned informal status based on perceived competence ( Cohen and Lotan, 1997 ). Students with lower status often internalize lower expectations, leading to reduced confidence even when their actual ability matches or exceeds that of their peers ( Marshman et al. , 2018 ; Mendoza et al. , 2023 ). Therefore, supporting confidence is crucial, but it is essential to recognize that different sources may have a greater impact on some students than others. Theoretical Basis We use Dewsbury's Deep Teaching Model of Inclusive Teaching as our theoretical framework for understanding the impact of LAs on students’ sense of belonging, mattering, and confidence in the classroom. The model describes five components of inclusive teaching: (1) developing self-awareness, (2) developing empathy for one's students, (3) fostering a welcoming classroom climate, (4) using engaging and responsive pedagogy, and (5) incorporating campus networks ( Dewsbury and Brame, 2019 ; Dewsbury, 2020 ; Figure 1 ). While this model originally focused on faculty actions, previous work has established that this model can also explain LA impacts on students’ belonging and confidence (T. P. Clements et al. , 2022 ; K. A. Clements et al. , 2023 , 2025 ). FIGURE 1. Open in a new tab Representation of Dewsbury's (2020) Deep Teaching Model of Inclusive Teaching. Recreated from Dewsbury (2020) with permission. Past work has found that students describe five ways that LAs impact student belonging—reducing isolation, serving as inspirational role models, offering mentorship and encouragement, supporting student engagement and confidence, and being approachable and relatable. These serve as mechanisms supporting the last three components of the Deep Teaching model. Additionally, students describe three ways that LAs impact their sense of confidence in science—reducing the risk of negative judgment, providing feedback and explanation, and offering avenues for students to express their growing knowledge. These also serve as mechanisms supporting the third and fourth components of the model. Although LA integration is known to increase belonging and confidence on average, the specific mechanisms important to different student groups are unknown. This study fills this gap and extends this work by investigating two research questions: How does the integration of LAs impact students’ sense of mattering as well as their belonging and confidence? What differences and similarities are observed for students from different demographic identities? METHODS The methods are summarized in Figure 2 and described in more detail below. FIGURE 2. Open in a new tab Summary of methods. Participants University institutional review board approval was obtained before data collection. In January 2024, instructors who taught LA-supported General Chemistry I or Introductory Biology sent interest forms to all students who completed their course in the Fall of 2023. The interest forms asked students to identify which of their identities felt most salient to their experience in the course (e.g., first-generation college student). In total, 14 interview groups were created with a total of 33 students interviewed. Students were primarily grouped based on similarities in salient identities and scheduling. The identities of interviewees and interviewers were aligned to the extent possible. Six interview groups, a total of 12 students, were centered around student experience in General Chemistry I, and eight groups, a total of 21 students, were centered around student experience in Introductory Biology. Refer to Table 1 for interviewee details. Participants received a $25 gift card. TABLE 1. Information about interviewees Gender Race/Ethnicity FG Pseudonym Male Female WR UR Yes No Sam X X X Kate X X X Annie B X X X Emma X X X Hallie X X X Victoria X X X Serena X X X Molly X X X Maya X X X Amy X X X John F X X X Charles X X X Mollie X X X Hans X X X Jerald X X X John C X X X Anna X X X Lucy X X X Annie C X X X Alex X X X Temi X X X Emily X X X Dylan X X X Sofia X X X Scott X X X James X X X Dan X X X Glen X X X Quinn X X X Laurie X X X Elizabeth X X X Ava X X X Pink X X X Open in a new tab Notes: WR indicates students with racial and ethnic identities that are not underrepresented in STEM by NSF definitions (i.e., white, Asian, and Asian-American students); UR indicates students with racial and ethnic identities underrepresented in STEM by NSF definitions (defined as students with Black, Hispanic, Alaska Native, American Indian, or Pacific Islander identities). FG indicates first-generation status, defined as neither parent having earned a four-year degree. Xs indicate that students identified with that variable. Context . The study took place within an existing LA program at an R1 university in the southeastern United States, in courses that had LA support for 3 to 5 years. In this program, first-time LAs take a 2-credit pedagogy seminar focused on classroom noticing, questioning, and other types of academic support. Course instructors also meet weekly with their LA team to prepare for upcoming class sessions. LAs are expected to attend and be engaged in all class sessions, each supporting a group of 15–20 students, and are compensated $1500 per semester. Further program details are available in T. P. Clements et al. (2025 ). Interview Protocol We drafted a semistructured interview protocol based on prior findings (T. P. Clements et al. , 2022 ; K. A. Clements et al. , 2023 , 2025 ) and adapted the protocol to invite different student experiences. Generally, the protocol asked students to comment on factors that impacted their access and sense of belonging to either their introductory chemistry or biology learning communities; their sense that their thinking mattered; and their confidence in the course. We refined the protocol after two cognitive interviews with students who had previously worked with LAs. Refer to the Supplemental Materials for the finalized protocol. Each 90-min group interview was completed in-person and facilitated by pairs of student researchers, who had experience as an LA. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed using an online transcription tool; transcriptions were checked manually. Positionality statement . Our research team was made up of two undergraduates, one graduate, and five faculty researchers, each with a distinct set of experiences that influenced our interpretation of interviewees’ responses. The team, whose composition is described more fully in the Supplemental Materials, varied across multiple dimensions, among them race, ethnicity, gender, and disciplinary expertise. To help ensure robust data collection and accurate interpretation, we matched researchers’ and participants’ identities to the degree possible at both the interview and analysis stages and included an internal validation process to help mitigate bias resulting from our various life experiences and identities. The Codebook and Coding Process To create the codebook, one interview was used to identify initial analytic codes, which captured discrete ideas, actions, or perceptions expressed by participants and represent the lowest level of analysis ( Saldaña, 2016 ). These codes were organized into a preliminary codebook. Three researchers used this codebook to code the entirety of that interview. Throughout this initial coding process, areas of difficulty were discussed with the entire research team, and the codebook was refined. The finalized codebook contained seven major code categories (refer to Supplemental Materials). Pairs of researchers then coded a single interview question at a time across all the interviews. Once coding for one question was complete, interrater reliability was calculated via percent agreement, which was greater than 80% for each round of coding. The coders resolved differences through discussion and repeated this process for the remaining questions. Identifying Themes A thematic analysis was done by two researchers for each coded interview. These themes represent higher-order patterns of meaning that were developed by examining relationships among coded segments within interviews ( Saldaña, 2016 ). When possible, the researchers were matched to interviews where they shared identities with the interviewees. They then identified and resolved any differences between their analyses through discussion. Narrative Creation Two researchers collaboratively considered each theme from a particular demographic group ( Table 1 ) and placed them into clusters representing connected ideas that reflect relationships among themes rather than standalone findings. They used these clustered themes to construct narratives that represented the points of view expressed by this group of students. For example, a cluster of themes about the role of instructors was identified from first-generation interviewees, and these themes were used to construct a narrative describing their experiences. After constructing the narratives, four other researchers considered the narratives and the themes from which they were constructed to determine if they accurately represented the interviews. Finally, two researchers who were not involved in narrative identification validated the narratives by re-listening to relevant interviews and checking the narratives against this primary source. This process was separately carried out for each of the demographic groups: first-generation (FG) students, racially and ethnically underrepresented (UR) students, well-represented, continuing-generation women (WRCGW) students, and well-represented, continuing-generation men (WRCGM) students. These narratives served as our analytic basis as they synthesized themes into explanatory accounts grounded in the coded interviews. RESULTS Below, we describe six narratives that emerged from the group interviews. These narratives serve as the primary analytic basis for the claims advanced in this study, as they synthesize thematic patterns into explanatory accounts grounded in the coded interview data. The narratives fall into three categories: (1) course structures, (2) the impact of people, and (3) personal connections. It is important to note that not every student echoed the sentiment of narratives. Instead, the narratives included salient factors emphasized in the interview groups. In cases where a student dissented from the narrative, we present the counter-narrative. To enhance the representation of the narratives, we present quotes (lightly edited for clarity) from the interviews. Narratives Related to Course Structures Table 2 summarizes narratives for each group related to course structures and is explained in more detail below. TABLE 2. Narratives related to course structures Course structure UR FG WRCGW WRCGM Resources Clear, varied, and flexible resources provided multiple access points for learning. Active and collaborative learning Active and collaborative learning has multiple benefits, from promoting belonging and confidence to promoting learning. Active and collaborative learning increased students’ confidence and learning, but was not always perceived as helpful. [No themes addressed active or collaborative learning.] Open in a new tab Note: Underlining highlights important differences between groups. Clear, Varied, and Flexible Resources. Participants in all interview groups stated that they found value in having clear, varied, and flexible resources and that these resources provided multiple access points to support their learning. These included optional supports provided by professors, such as office hours and review sessions, as well as those offered by their LAs, such as group and individual chat opportunities through GroupMe and LA-supported office hours, known as “coffee chats.” Students across all groups highlighted that professors played a key role in introducing and reminding them about available resources and identifying the value each support could provide. They [the professor] have that daily summary [of resources] before we get started, which was helpful. — Maya, FG Some groups spoke about the value of the academic and non-academic nature of these resources. For example, WRCGW students shared how office hours were a valuable way to interact with professors, and FG students said they valued how professor-led review sessions provided both content support and affirmation. [A professor's] review sessions were a godsend. In those sessions, [they] would always start off with advice, or reiterating the fact that like, this is hard, you know, ‘I'm not gonna lie to you, this is hard, the exam is going to be hard. But like, just pay attention, do what you can, use your opportunities, and, like you're here at the review session, so this is one step forward’, which is helpful to hear, especially when you're struggling, and you don't know why . — Maya, FG Several groups talked about the non-academic value of coffee chats. WRCGW students said that these spaces provided a low-pressure source of support and a space to socially interact with LAs and peers, while the FG group said that these spaces provided support for students’ career trajectories. Notably, WRCGW students said that incentivizing coffee chat participation played an important role in encouraging their attendance and that by attending, they experienced benefits to their learning. I went at least once a week to multiple LAs just because we got extra credit… I went more than I should have. But it's okay. I did end up learning more than otherwise . — Anna, WRCGW Both UR and FG groups said they valued the support that provided opportunities to share their thinking, such as embedded discussions during lecture time, discussion boards, and opportunities to share explanations with peers in response to clicker questions. Interestingly, the FG group also highlighted the discussion boards as a space to ask questions with a low risk of judgment. Each group specifically talked about the group texting app GroupMe as a particularly valuable support. Students from all groups identified how the app allowed them to receive immediate support to clarify their thinking around content, either through individual interactions with their LA or from their LA group. Our LAs had GroupMes, so we can talk to them outside of class. And it was so easy … I text the LA group chat with my group, like, ‘Hey, I'm confused by this concept,’ or ‘what does this mean?’ And they would send a drawing of the concept. — Molly, UR While all the groups appreciated the variety and flexibility of supports, some groups identified challenges in accessing them or knowing how to use them. For example, some students within the WRCGW group discussed their uncertainty around using GroupMe. And then we also had a GroupMe, but I feel like it was never… like, they never said we could ask questions so kind of just no one ever did. — Annie B, WRCGW Another challenge involved office hours. The FG and WRCGW groups both shared that scheduling made office hours less accessible. The WRCGW students also shared that students’ engagement in office hours depended on how they perceived the professor. Two students in the WRCG group had this interchange about their different professors and how their perceptions shaped their engagement in office hours: [The professor] gave off like a very much like teddy bear sort of vibe, so [they were], I'd say, very approachable . — Alex, WRCGW I didn't really go to [my] professor really because I was just really scared of [them] . — Annie C, WRCGW Active and Collaborative Learning. Three of the four groups (UR, FG, and WRCGW) discussed multiple benefits of active and collaborative learning. These groups shared how structures that supported active and collaborative learning helped build confidence and promote learning. It was definitely helpful hearing their questions, because then it would be like, ‘oh, I wasn't even thinking about that before. But now that you've asked this question, now I can hear the answer, and I can learn something else.’ So, I feel like just that aspect of like, each of us learning next to each other was helpful. — Anna, WRCGW And as I'm talking through it, and they're [the LA] nodding, it's just like that continuous affirmation gave me the confidence that I understood an extremely difficult concept, of metabolic pathways like glycolysis. — Molly, UR Variation in Beneficial Features of Active and Collaborative Learning . There were some differences in how the groups talked about specific features that made collaborative learning valuable. The FG group discussed how specific course structures, such as worksheets or clicker questions, revealed students’ thinking and facilitated their engagement in collaborative discussions in their LA groups, which allowed them to sharpen their understanding. When we are working on [a worksheet] in our LA groups, we could say ‘this is the answer I have, this is how I got there.’ And, you know, if this answer was wrong, they could, you know, help, you know, pick apart that reasoning and try to guide us in the right direction. — Charles, FG The WRCGW group shared that their confidence would increase through collaborative thinking when they made conceptual connections, explained concepts to peers, and/or successfully answered questions. In referring to her feeling of increased confidence in understanding a scientific concept, Emily said: If I knew how to answer a question and someone else next to me didn't know, I was able to explain it to them, that helped me feel like that too. — Emily, WRCGW The WRCGW group also said they found collaboration especially valuable when the questions they discussed were similar to exam questions, and the UR group specified that application-based questions helped students connect course content across units. In addition to increasing learning and confidence, both UR and FG groups felt that active and collaborative learning increased belonging and the sense that their thinking mattered. Further, they indicated that collaboration around course content provided opportunities for moments of pride. The LAs gave us a chart that we had to fill out about, like the electron transport chain and comparing and contrasting it to photosynthesis. And so it was making connections of two different topics… And so being able to fill out the chart with the people at my table, like without notes in front of us, like that was just like, ‘Oh, I know this. Whoa.’ — Elizabeth, UR Convergent Features of Active and Collaborative Learning . All three groups that discussed active and collaborative learning also felt that they had to put in the work to maximize benefits. The UR group described that the course structures intended to support active and collaborative learning required that students attend, be prepared, and be willing to engage in class discussions. Students noted the potential consequences on groups and themselves when these structures were not properly implemented. But like throughout the year, the groups dwindled. They were well-thought-out activities, but it was hard to do them with like smaller groups and as people's motivation dwindled as well. — Mollie, UR and FG Importantly, one UR student expressed a concern that having too many activities to prepare for class kept them busy but did not always support their learning. Group composition and dynamics also played a role in the effectiveness of collaborative learning. The UR group felt small group interactions were particularly valuable in the large class setting because they mitigated students’ concerns about speaking up. Within an LA group (∼15 students), there were also possibilities for smaller group interactions. The UR group talked about the different values these group sizes provided, indicating that smaller groups (e.g., pairs or trios) allowed for individualized support, while larger groups (e.g., quintets, sextets, or larger) provided more diversity of thought. The FG group thought it was productive to have group members with different levels of course-related experiences, particularly when discussing application questions in chemistry. Being in a big group, people would come to different answers at times. And so, then you would kind of have to debate what [answer] you got or how you got your answer, like, why you think it's the correct one. I enjoy it. Because I like to hear people's thoughts. Because even if you're wrong and the other person's wrong, hearing their line of thinking could apply at a different time. — Kate, UR I sat with [two] friends. And it was kind of nice, because we all have different levels of experience. So it's like, when someone didn't understand something, we would talk it out. It was helpful. — Maya, FG All groups shared that not everyone in their course cared about active learning or believed collaboration was helpful. They emphasized the need for accountability in attending and participating in the LA group. The WRCGW group identified several factors that impacted the level of students’ collaboration, including their willingness to participate and engage. They pointed out that if students felt they lacked sufficient knowledge to participate, had insufficient time to discuss, or received no feedback on their ideas, they would not find value in collaborative spaces. They also said that confusion around content and/or negative comparison to peers hindered engagement, while feeling prepared and confident in their understanding enhanced their engagement. The UR group concurred that negative peer interactions undermined the effectiveness of group interactions. The groups shared two other considerations that impacted the effectiveness of active and collaborative learning. While the UR group felt the value of collaborative structures was observed even in physical spaces not designed to support it, the FG group noted that when they were in large rooms, it was difficult to hear and talk across groups, making it challenging to truly collaborate. Additionally, the perception of the discipline or the task seemed to alter the effectiveness of the collaborative experience. The WRCGW and the UR groups felt that if they thought the discipline was more fact-based or challenging to discuss, collaborative learning was not as helpful. Narratives Related to People Table 3 summarizes narratives for each group related to people and is explained in more detail below. TABLE 3. Narratives related to people People UR FG WRCGW WRCGM Role of instructors Instructors played a key role in establishing the course climate. Instructors were an important source of support, but the level of support varies between students. Instructor interactions were helpful. LAs LA actions provided support in multiple ways, increasing students’ sense that they belonged and that their ideas mattered, but these impacts required LA preparation, engagement, and intentional facilitation. While LAs were a positive addition when they were prepared, engaged, and supported students’ sense that their ideas mattered, the LA groups did not contribute to their sense of belonging. Open in a new tab Note: Underlining highlights important differences between groups. Role of Instructors. Interviewees in all four groups felt that instructors can be helpful, but there were important differences in how they talked about the potential for instructor support. Students in both the UR and FG groups emphasized that instructors were important for establishing the course climate. These students talked about the value of the instructor having an intentionally welcoming attitude and showing enthusiasm for their teaching. So I would say having like a friendly, welcoming demeanor helped out a lot. Both [professors] were very nice. They clearly tried to make sure that it felt like they cared about our learning. — John F., FG Some UR and FG students came into their classrooms with negative perceptions of their professors and were surprised to find that their instructors were not “mean” or “tough.” Students in these groups said they found their professors more approachable when they told jokes during class or shared their nonprofessional interests during office hours. These groups also stated that they felt valued and supported when instructors began the course by dispelling assumptions that the course is intended to serve as a “weed-out” course, or when provided with emotional support and encouragement before exams. [The professor] said because I am never working to make someone fail. I'm never rooting for you to not do well on your exam. I'm always rooting for you to learn as much as you can. — Elizabeth, UR Interviewees in the FG and UR groups also specifically highlighted that instructors listened in a way that made them feel as though their thinking mattered: The professor was also pretty good at making sure that what you're saying was given value. [They] kind of really considered it and tried to understand your line of thinking and didn't just like say, ‘no, that's wrong. Here is the answer. ’ — John F., FG So I feel like when they reassure me that the thinking process I have, or like, even if it's wrong, but just that I am thinking about things more thoroughly, rather than just like surface level, [it] makes me feel like they are hearing what I'm saying. — Sofia, UR The UR and FG groups also found that instructors’ ability to explain questions and provide points of connection between students and content supported a more positive climate. Students in these groups said they were more engaged when instructors included connections between course content, current research, and real-world applications. These pedagogical choices supported students in making connections to their own interests and communities and increased the value of what they were learning. In the course, there was almost always a connection to something in the real world, something that happens in biological research and medical research. It made it feel like it was actually important, what we were learning, instead of just like, this is part of the curriculum, it's something to get through. You know, it gave things purpose, to put a word to it. — Charles, FG Rather than focusing on the instructor's role in establishing course climate, WRCGW and WRCGM students identified direct interaction with instructors as a potentially important source of support; students in FG and UR groups also indicated that direct interactions, both in and out of class, contributed to their sense that they belonged and mattered in the class, but this was one of many aspects of instructor actions that mattered to them. [The professor] would just be walking around [during LA group work time]. So if my LA is really busy explaining something, then I can just wait until the professor comes around. And then I just raise my hand and ask. — James, WRCGM The availability of [my instructor] to talk after class, outside of class, outside of office hours, just being open and available, made me all the more motivated to keep going to class. Continue to participate, continue to keep going instead of giving up and feeling discouraged, like I was in the beginning. — Molly, UR Interestingly, the WRCGW group described having a particular order in which they would use course supports and resources, individualized to their own sense of what worked for them, and that the instructor held different positions within their personal sequence. For example, one student said that she would consult the slides, then the textbook, then a peer, then the professor, while another student described going to a peer, then the professor, then her LA. Students in all groups emphasized the importance of instructor responsiveness and accessibility; they indicated that limited office hours and slow email responsiveness decreased the value of the instructor(s) as a resource. Students in the UR group extended this concern, saying that instructors seemed less supportive if they did not reach out to students when they were struggling. My professor [in another course] really cared, like they scheduled meetings with me, I didn't even have to take the first step. [They're] like, ‘why don't you come in to talk about it?’ and I actually started doing a little bit better as a result of that, because we sat down and we talked about it. But [my instructor in the LA-supported course] never did anything like that. [They] didn't notice that my test scores were not that high. — Victoria, UR Role of LAs. Students in all four groups indicated that LAs were accessible and a positive addition to the course, providing advice, resources, and support. However, there were differences in the types of support that the different groups found valuable and the degree to which they felt LAs and LA groups contributed to their belonging. Students across all groups named opportunities to interact with LAs as important. These included LA-led office hours (called coffee chats) as well as informal communications through GroupMe and other group text platforms, which were especially important for students in the UR group. Across groups, students’ interactions with their LAs during these small groups provided opportunities for students to feel their ideas were valued and to receive positive and supportive feedback. [The LAs] want an answer, but they also want to know, your reasoning and like, even if you're right, your thought process behind it. So that's a time when I felt like I was being heard. — James, WRCGM She really took what I was saying seriously, instead of just being like, ‘No, that's not the right answer.’ Like, really thinking about why my thought process wasn't right, or what about it wasn't right, even if she couldn't pinpoint it. And the amount of time and effort she took to figure that out to me showed how much she took my thinking seriously . — Dylan, WRCGW Academic and Non-Academic Support . Students from all groups also noted that LAs provided important academic and non-academic support, although what they named important differed by group. The academic supports ranged from encouragement during times of struggle, which UR and FG students found particularly valuable, to advice and resources related to exams, which were more emphasized by the WRCG groups. She would just constantly reassure us that like, ‘Hey, like, I know, the … homework is hard. I've heard it from a few students, like, if you need any help,’ so it's kind of nice to know that someone's reaching out to you, [rather] than you having to reach out. — Maya, FG And [my LA] would tell us - ‘cause [they] had taken the class - [they'd] tell us, ‘Here's how they'd ask about this in like a test setting. And like, here's how you can prepare. If it comes up in a free response, these are the points they're looking for.’ Stuff like that, which is super helpful. — Hans, WRCGM Additionally, LAs describing their own experiences in the course—their struggles and their positive experiences—conveyed that they understood the student experience and strengthened their impact. The UR and FG groups said this helped validate their own experiences in the course and communicated LAs’ belief in the students’ ability to do well. For example, Kate (UR) mentioned that having the LAs in the course who did well and are coming back as LAs helped with “striking down the stigma a little bit around Gen Chem.” The WRCGW group shared that hearing about the LAs’ experiences was often inspiring to them. My LA… always encouraged us. Especially before the exam, she always mentioned [her] chemistry learning experience, like she got a C for, this, the first Gen Chem semester and she's now majoring in chemistry. So yeah, she always encouraged us. — Lucy, WRCGW All groups valued nonacademic supports. These supports included LAs’ networks and their advice about opportunities such as research. I think my LA did a good job helping me feel a part of the community. This kind of goes back to the coffee chat hours where a lot of it you can go for help for chemistry, but also a lot of it is also just, you know, advice on you know, your career, your profession, you might need pre-med advice, or just life advice in general. — Amy, UR and FG Belonging . The FG, UR, and WRCGW groups described how LA-supported small groups fostered feelings of belonging to a learning community. The FG group discussed how these interactions impacted their persistence in the course, while the WRCGW group described how the LA interactions—whether brief interactions in lecture or longer sessions (e.g., coffee chats)—helped build the sense of community because of their low-stakes nature and the LAs’ encouragement. Interestingly, the WRCGM group did not feel that LA groups were important for their belonging, and some indicated that collaboration was not a function of LA groups. I think they did contribute to why I felt a part of the classroom because like I said before, in class time, the professors would embed discussion time. And my LAs would encourage me and my group members to speak out. And kind of like nudge us, ‘Well, why do you think that? What are you guys thinking? Do you have any ideas just to add in?’ [and] we would just kind of do like word vomit until we all came to a general consensus. — Molly, UR [Responding to another student saying the LA program didn't impact their sense of belonging] Yeah, I feel the same way. Like, I feel like I belonged in the course just because it's a course that like, people with my academic goals would take… But like the LA group, specifically, I did not feel like I belong to this group. — James, WRCGM LA Preparation and Engagement . Each group also identified LA actions that made LAs less effective or impactful in the course. All four groups shared that the positive impacts were reduced when LAs were unprepared or did not fully engage with the material, course, or students. Some LAs would not come to class… they'd give you like wrong answers, they wouldn't be as prepared. …My LA on Fridays, we would go through the worksheet, but even then they wouldn't really know how to answer some specific questions . — Pink, WRCGW My LAs were really nice. Like, I really liked them. But sometimes they didn't like the activities that we did. They weren't as engaged in it or seemed to not know as much about it…My group dwindled. — Mollie, UR and FG Some groups shared that the benefits of interacting with LAs were limited when LAs played a content-delivery role, did not manage group dynamics well, or did not move around during student work time to initiate interactions with students and follow up to monitor students’ understanding. The [LA] group…just kind of knew what they were doing. And they didn't really slow down to catch anyone else up. And the LA was really attentive to that group of people. [The LA] was great, but it's kind of overwhelming when there's, you know, a small mob of people who kind of already know what they're doing. Like, I kind of dreaded going coffee chats every week, just because, okay, like, I need help too, you know. So I switched with my friend [to] this other group. And that … LA… was really attentive to everyone. And everyone was kind of on the same page, which I think was the game changer. — Sam, FG The WRCGW group acknowledged that there were some students who may not have experienced, or wanted to experience, a sense of belonging in the large course. In some cases, they indicated this occurred when LAs used more one-to-one communication instead of facilitating group interactions. Further, the WRCGM group voiced that LAs were more impactful in courses that emphasized problem-solving and application rather than memorization. Narratives Related to Personal Connections Table 4 summarizes narratives for each group related to personal connections and is explained in more detail below. TABLE 4. Narratives related to personal connections Personal connection UR FG WRCGW WRCGM Role of identities Shared identities mattered. Shared identities played a less important role. Shared academic identities mattered. Role of pre-college preparation and peer interactions Pre-college preparation, current performance, and comparison to peers played an important role in students’ sense of belonging. Peer connections and community played an important role in students’ sense of belonging, but fear of negative judgment undermined their engagement and their pre-college preparation strongly impacted their confidence. LA-supported small groups could foster feelings of belonging to a learning community; negative peer interactions could limit this sense of belonging, but new academic challenges did not. Peer interactions were a welcomed component of the course. Explaining their thinking to peers was an important source of validation; doing well on exams was another. Open in a new tab Note: Underlining highlights important differences between groups. Shared Identities. Shared identities played an important role for some students, particularly those in the UR or FG groups, who reported that having shared gender, racial, and/or academic identities with their LAs provided valuable support, mitigated the pressure of the course, helped counteract stereotypes, and fostered greater belonging. For students in these groups, knowing more about their LAs’ identities—academic and personal—helped inform LA selection. My LA was Black. I'm Black. So just like knowing that, especially with this course, because I feel like it's a weed-out course. A lot of students take it and don't pass. I was that student last year. And trying again, knowing that my LA kind of understood the stakes with that, even though he passed the first time, he understood … that it's much more than just a class. Like a lot of people are pre-med and like me being Black, me being pre-med compared with like my white counterpart, that's a lot different. And it holds a lot more meaning. — Serena, UR Being a girl in a setting of girls helps with, like, feeling included … I can also say that my LA is a person of color this semester, which I think is cool. Like seeing myself in her a little bit more is cool. — Kate, UR In contrast, the WRCGW group expressed that shared identities with their LAs mattered less in their experiences. Other than a potential shared academic identity, shared identities did not inform their LA selection. Rather, they selected their LAs based on either approachability, perceived personality match, location in the classroom, level of experience as an LA, or randomly. I wanted an LA who could kind of like be a friend too, not just like a teacher kind of thing. Who I could bond [with] outside of class too, but was able to be comfortable asking questions… I'm also pre-med, so if my LA's also pre-med, it's better, like it's easier to understand each other. — Temi, WRCGW While the WRCGW group expressed that a shared identity with their LAs played a less central role in their experience, some stated that learning with others with a shared gender or racial identity was supportive. Some WRCGW students also noted challenges with joining groups where they did not share identities with the majority of their peers. I feel like there were so many other women surrounding me that like, it feels like you're meant to be there. — Emily, WRCGW But sometimes when I went to the office hour, I noticed that there were not many Asians who went to office hours. So yeah. At that time, maybe a little bit being apart from [the learning community]. — Lucy, WRCGW For the WRCGM students, shared academic identities were the most salient to their experience. They tended to choose LAs based on factors like prior LA experience and research backgrounds rather than demographic identities. The WRCGM group shared that they felt represented in the classroom and did not express the same level of importance around shared non-academic identities as the other student groups. I chose my LA based off [the fact] that they had a lot of experience being an LA and they were also like one of the upperclassmen. — Dan, WRCGM There are plenty of other people in the classroom that look just like me. And like, that definitely didn't hurt….like, there was no reason to feel singled out. — Scott, WRCGM Peer Interactions and Pre-College Preparation. Students in all groups described the value of peer interactions, but the degree to which these mattered and the factors that influenced them differed across groups. WRCGM students described peer interactions as a welcoming component of the course, but they did not necessarily rely on their LA groups for these interactions and did not identify these interactions as important for their sense that they belonged in the course. In contrast, the UR, FG, and WRCGW groups described peer interactions as important factors that contributed to their sense that they belonged in the course. The WRCGW group said that peer interactions in the class helped build a sense of community that extended beyond the course, allowing them to build a social network outside of the course. Both FG and UR students emphasized that the large number of students taking these challenging courses helped promote a sense of community inside and outside the classroom, and that working through struggles together with peers was uplifting, particularly when they shared identities. Sometimes when I was in my LA group, some people didn't understand. I could try and answer and be like, ‘Okay, maybe it's this’ and they'd be like, ‘Oh, maybe,’ because nobody understood. So we're all open to trying something. So sometimes, I felt pretty good with that. — Serena, UR Peer interactions had both positive and negative impacts, and the groups experienced important differences. WRCGM students described only positive peer interactions, while all other groups described some negative peer interactions. FG students specifically said that seeing peers celebrate their successes without apparent struggle was dispiriting, and both FG and WRCGW students described experiences of feeling excluded or unwelcome in small groups. Yeah, they usually sat in groups together. They were like, like-minded. It's kind of like high school where you form your own little cliques. You have those people that would be like that. They always made the highest grades in the class, like they know what they're doing. They think they're too good for everybody. And they definitely let you know that. — Quinn, FG One UR student also described experiences of her competence being questioned because of her identities. Being a Black woman at [university] is really interesting, especially in STEM, because it seems like I'm always being questioned if I deserve to be there. Maybe my answers are not as widely accepted as if I were one of my white male classmates, and it just made it a bit harder, because it seemed like I always had to explain myself more. — Molly, UR An important influence on students’ perception of their peer interactions derived from a fear of judgment, and this factor had a particularly large impact on UR and FG students’ sense of belonging and willingness to participate in the learning community. In contrast, WRCGM students described explaining their thinking aloud to peers as an important source of validation, saying that any discomfort that arose from being wrong was transient and ultimately unimportant. WRCGW students also voiced a comfort with academic struggle, saying that they expected to struggle, but did not find the struggle to be highly impactful and had confidence in their ability to make sense of a fast-paced, challenging course. While students in all groups acknowledged the role of pre-college preparation, particularly recent experience in a high school biology or chemistry class, this experience was especially impactful for UR and FG students. For example, Molly and Mollie were both UR students in Introductory Biology who acknowledged the important role of pre-college preparation despite the different impacts it had for them: It did feel a bit strange just because everyone was starting with different backgrounds. There were a few students who maybe had experience with AP Bio. I didn't take AP Bio, I went to community college. There are students who came to [university] with a background in research, and I didn't. It was a bit uncomfortable, and a bit like, difficult to interact with those students to make a learning environment because it didn't feel like there was any learning. It just felt more like judgment. — Molly, UR When I was in a group of people that I knew, we would be talking about something and like, if I would explain it to them, they'd be really open to it. Because I had a pretty strong bio background. So a lot of the time, I'd heard of something before. — Mollie, UR and FG DISCUSSION These results point to a range of aspects that impact student experiences, some directly mediated by LAs and others derived from instructor choices and actions, that impact student experiences and highlight that some factors carry different weights for different groups’ sense of belonging, mattering, and confidence. These results allow us to extend previous empirical and theoretical work ( Dewsbury and Brame, 2019 ; Dewsbury, 2020 ; T. P. Clements et al. , 2022 ; K. A. Clements et al. , 2023 , 2025 ) that conceptualizes how to promote inclusive teaching practices. Specifically, we extend Dewsbury's Deep Teaching model to include course aspects that support or limit belonging, mattering, and confidence for different student groups (refer to Table 5 ). The majority of course aspects that were important for students’ sense of belonging, mattering, and confidence fell within and between two of the model components: developing a welcoming classroom climate and using engaging and responsive pedagogy. The addition of LAs, the LA model, and mattering, along with examining impacts of specific course aspects for different groups, broadens the impact of the Deep Teaching model and expands implications for classroom practices. Below, we describe these intersections and their implications. TABLE 5. Course aspects that impacted students’ sense of belonging(B), mattering(M), and confidence(C) associated with elements of Dewsbury's (2020) Deep Teaching Model of Inclusive Teaching Course dimension Course aspects High salience Intermediate salience Low salience Not mentioned Supportive Classroom Climate Instructors sharing resources All Shared academic identities with LAs All Shared personal identities with LAs FG B , UR B WRCGM, WRCGW LAs sharing experiences FG B,C , UR B,C WRCGW WRCGM Overlap: Supportive Classroom Climate and Engaging Responsive Pedagogy Deliberate instructor attention to course climate FG B,M,C , UR B,M*,C WRCGM, WRCGW Ways to share ideas FG B , UR B,C , WRCGW C WRCGM M* LA supported small groups FG B , UR B , WRCGW B WRCGM B Peer-to-peer interactions FG B*,C* , UR B*,C* , WRCGW B* WRCGM Engaging Responsive Pedagogy LA academic support All Active and collaborative learning FG B,C,M , UR B,C*,M , WRCGW C,M WRCGM Network Access to networks through LA All Open in a new tab Notes: An asterisk indicates that interviewees discussed both positive and negative impacts. If no superscript is provided, then the interviewees were not specific. Aspects of Equal Salience across Groups We find that direct academic connections are salient for all four groups. These academic connections include instructors introducing and explaining academic resources and LAs providing academic supports and introductions to academic and peri-academic networks, which are strengthened by academic identity alignment between students and their LAs. Although LAs providing academic support were of equal salience across groups, the reasons differed; it contributed to FG and UR students’ feelings that their ideas mattered, WRCGW students’ confidence, and WRCGM students’ experiences in less specific ways. These aspects may be of particular importance given the introductory nature of the courses in this study. For example, instructors sharing resources, both associated directly with the class and those available from other campus programs, may introduce unfamiliar campus resources and serve to normalize students seeking support ( Nunes et al. , 2022 ; Ramos and Towns, 2023 ). Further, students’ connections to LAs with whom they share academic identities may help them better understand how to navigate their desired academic and pre-professional trajectories ( Bourne et al. , 2021 ). Both provide avenues to incorporate campus networks as students begin to construct their undergraduate scientific path. Aspects of Differential Salience across Groups Pervasive cultural narratives and stereotypes that define who is seen as smart work alongside larger structural barriers across educational systems to create classroom hierarchies. These hierarchies establish differential perceived status among students based on aspects of identity, including but not limited to race, gender, and family access to college education. These hierarchies can impact participation in STEM disciplines, increasing the likelihood for some students and decreasing it for others ( Leslie et al. , 2015 ; Whitcomb et al. , 2021 ; Vial et al. , 2022 ; Busch et al. , 2023 ). Further, these hierarchies are perceived and perpetuated by students ( Eddy et al. , 2015 ; Grunspan et al. , 2016 ; Storage et al. , 2016 ; Lazaro and Bian, 2024 ). Our findings confirm and extend the importance of these pervasive societal stereotypes and the differential status they imply for students. For example, students in the group with the highest perceived status (WRCGM) appear to be less vulnerable to feelings of exclusion and less observant or reliant on aspects of the course that have been demonstrated to support inclusion in the classroom ( Table 5 , rows 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10). Students in this group either described these aspects as having lower salience or did not mention them at all. Our data suggest that these students’ feelings of belonging, mattering, and confidence were not threatened in these classrooms. In fact, for WRCGM students, only one course aspect explicitly contributed to their feeling of mattering: they said that opportunities to share ideas provided a source of validation. Additionally, when WRCGM students did mention belonging, they explicitly noted that the LA small groups did not contribute to (nor detract from) feelings of belonging. For them, course aspects designed to foster belonging were not salient. Across narratives, we find that aspects of the course designed to support students’ sense of belonging are consistently salient for students with identities that often place them at the bottom of classroom hierarchies (FG and UR). For these groups, having a shared personal identity with an LA is important, suggesting that LAs with similar racial, ethnic, and/or gender identities who have completed the course may provide a model for success in the course and thereby increase sense of belonging ( Rattan et al. , 2018 ; Bourne et al. , 2021 ). These students also found instructors’ deliberate attention to course climate—establishing groups, demonstrating warmth and encouragement, describing desired interactions—to be important ( Hurtado et al. , 2011 ). An important part of establishing course climate was instructors explicitly pushing against pervasive “weed-out” narratives; these statements aided these students’ sense of belonging and feelings of mattering in the classroom community. Given that these groups of students are most likely to be impacted by a course that is perceived as a weed-out ( Micari et al. , 2016 ), instructor statements that counter this narrative are influential for their experience. Additionally, instructors reaching out to provide support were critical, specifically for UR students. Together, these actions aided these students’ sense of belonging, feelings of mattering, and confidence in the classroom community. Interactions with others were salient to those with perceived low and intermediate perceived status (FG, UR, and WRCGW groups) and had the potential to positively or negatively impact these students’ experience in the course. For these groups, engaging in active and collaborative learning supported their confidence and feelings of mattering in the course, and they described peer-to-peer interactions, opportunities to share ideas, and LA-supported small groups as highly salient for their belonging and/or confidence ( Micari et al. , 2016 ; Huber et al. , 2023 ; Payne et al. , 2025 ). In addition, LAs sharing their experiences specifically benefited FG and UR students’ sense of belonging and confidence. For all three groups, this sense of belonging appeared to extend outside the classroom. However, all three groups also identified negative peer interactions as impactful. These negative interactions had the potential to detract from their sense of belonging and/or confidence; for FG and UR students, this impact was associated with a fear of judgment, echoing earlier research ( Busch et al. , 2023 ; Pigart et al. , 2024 ). These differences intersect with the different groups’ response to ineffective facilitation. While all groups stated that LA preparation and engagement are important for their contributions to the class, FG, UR, and WRCGW students particularly noted the importance of LAs’ effective facilitation and attentiveness to group dynamics as important for students to benefit from their LA groups. In contrast, WRCGM students identified only positive peer interactions. Extending Dewsbury's Deep Teaching Model of Inclusive Teaching The findings from this study and prior work (T. P. Clements et al. , 2022 ; K. A. Clements et al. , 2023 , 2025 ) extend Dewsbury's Deep Teaching model for college science courses and demonstrate the impact of integrating LAs into science classrooms. In Figure 3 , we present our Adapted Deep Teaching Model for LA-supported classrooms. This model integrates the 3P's (pedagogy, practice, and preparation) of the LA model to point to the importance of these facets in modulating LAs’ impact on student experiences. The relationship between the LAs and the 3Ps is bidirectional to reflect that LAs grow over time as they engage in their practice, engage in preparation, and develop pedagogies. FIGURE 3. Open in a new tab Adapted deep teaching model for LA-supported classrooms. Portions of Dewsbury's (2020) original Deep Teaching Model are shown in black. The portions of the extended model supported by this study and the K. A. Clements et al. (2025) study are in green. Blue arrows are connections supported by Hill et al. (2023) . The purple arrow highlights a potential relationship that has yet to be investigated. Based on our findings, LAs and instructors have a significant impact on the climate, pedagogy, and access to networks in an LA-supported classroom. While previous work demonstrated the overlap between climate and network, and pedagogy and network (T. P. Clements et al. , 2022 ; K. A. Clements et al. , 2023 , 2025 ), our findings here point to the importance of the overlap between classroom climate and pedagogy on students’ sense of belonging and mattering. These findings also reveal the varied salience of LA-supported deep teaching for different student groups’ sense of belonging, mattering, and confidence. The addition of the LA model to the Deep Teaching model allows for recognition of the relationship between instructors, LAs, and the LA model. This assertion is supported by Hill et al. ’s ( 2023 ) work demonstrating that instructors rely on the LA model to increase their self-awareness, including expanding their pedagogical knowledge through “bottom-up” learning from their interactions with LAs. Limitations While the interview groups were open to all students in the LA-supported introductory biology and general chemistry courses, the demographics of the students in this study ( Table 1 ) likely do not reflect the demographics of the students in these courses. We have an overrepresentation of female students (69%). Furthermore, within the male study subjects, all come from well-represented racial/ethnic backgrounds, and only two of the 10 males are first-generation college students. This suggests that these findings may be missing important perspectives from male students from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups and first-generation college students. Further, students may have volunteered for interviews due to strong positive or negative experiences, though compensation may have partially mitigated this bias by providing an additional incentive to participate. Course elements that impact the psychosocial constructs of belonging, mattering, and confidence may interact with students’ course performance and the role they envision the course playing in their academic trajectory (e.g., whether it is required for their major or anticipated postgraduate study). This potential interaction was not explored here but warrants future investigation. Great attention and care were given to ensure salient information was not lost between analysis steps ( Figure 2 ). However, given that the demographics and experiences of the research team do not fully overlap with those in the study, it is possible that the narratives may not fully represent all that students shared in the interviews. Implications Implications for Instructors. These findings suggest specific ways instructors can support students by deliberately fostering a welcoming, inclusive climate; noticing and responding to student struggles; sharing and explaining resources; and listening for and valuing student reasoning. They also suggest the possible ways that instructors can utilize the LA model's 3Ps (preparation, pedagogy, practice) to guide their work with LAs. Instructors can use preparation meetings to share the central values of this learning ecology with LAs and discuss ways to push against weed-out narratives, normalize productive struggle as a part of learning, value everyone's intellectual contributions, and use resources to support learning. As the instructional team reviews content and activities, instructors can highlight ways that LAs can listen for and elevate students’ sensemaking. Finally, instructors should provide clear guidelines and expectations for how LAs interact with students and work with LA programs to establish these goals and hold LAs accountable. Specific guidance about ways to enact these practices can be found in Hoffman et al. (2025) , Levy et al. (2025) , Meaders et al. (2025) , and Popichak et al. (2025) . Implications for LA Programs. Previous work has pointed to the potential role of LA programs in facilitating multiscale institutional change ( Barrasso and Spilios, 2021 ); our findings build on this by identifying specific ways that LA programs can ensure such change is inclusive of students from varied identities and backgrounds. Table 6 highlights actions that can strengthen certain students’ sense of belonging, mattering, and confidence, while Table 5 presents other course practices that students found generally supportive. The value students placed on shared identities between LAs and students underscores the need for LA programs to recruit and hire a diverse pool of LAs. Given the requirement that LAs have taken the course they are supporting before, the likelihood of having LAs that share academic identity is high, which can provide access to information and networks that are valuable to all students, especially those who are early in their college careers. However, LA programs may need to be attentive to hiring a pool of LAs that reflects their student population. TABLE 6. Course practices identified as supportive for belonging, mattering, and confidence. As shown in Table 5 , some course practices were identified as generally supportive; the practices shown here were directly tied to the psychosocial constructs of belonging, mattering, and confidence, with differential impacts among groups Course aspects Supported sense of belonging for Supported sense of mattering for Supported confidence for Elements designed to create a supportive classroom climate and foster engaging, responsive pedagogy Shared personal identities with LAs FG, UR LAs sharing experiences FG, UR FG, UR Deliberate instructor attention to course climate FG, UR FG, UR FG, UR Class providing opportunities for students to share ideas FG, UR WRCGM UR, WRCGW LA-supported small groups FG, UR, WRCGW Positive peer-to-peer interactions FG, UR, WRCGW FG, UR Active and collaborative learning FG, UR FG, UR, WRCGW FG, UR, WRCGW Open in a new tab LA programs can also support instructors in developing and maintaining supportive classrooms. Programs could work to ensure that the pedagogical training LAs receive includes information about barriers to students developing a sense of belonging, mattering, and confidence, as well as support for LAs to connect their practice and these aspects of learning. LA programs can implement policies that hold LAs accountable for attendance and preparation. Finally, LA programs can support instructors working with LAs to learn how to productively integrate LAs into their course design. A forthcoming manuscript from our research team will describe specific steps and associated tools to improve instructor and LA practice and the impacts of these steps. Implications for Future Studies. Future work may explore the relevance of these narratives for students in different disciplines as well as in intermediate and upper division courses to provide a greater understanding of LAs’ role in supporting students’ belonging, mattering, and confidence. Given the relationship between our findings and Dewsbury's Deep Teaching model, a study of the relationship between an instructor's self-awareness and empathy and the integration of LAs may elucidate a deeper understanding of how LA-supported courses lead to shifts in instructor self-awareness and empathy, as well as broader institutional change. Supporting information cbe-25-ar18-s001.pdf (252.5KB, pdf) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by NSF grant 2235244 to Brame, Johnson, and Zepeda. The authors thank Suhaah Nadir for helpful literature reviews and summaries; Vanderbilt's College of Arts and Science for support of the LA program; instructors Tara Todd, Adam List, James Patton, and Todd Graham for sharing interview recruitment information with their students; and advisory board members Bryan Dewsbury, Gina Frey, Luis Leyva, and Valerie Otero for insightful commentary during design and early data interpretation. REFERENCES Andrews, T. C., Auerbach, A. J. J., & Grant, E. F. (2019). Exploring the relationship between teacher knowledge and active-learning implementation in large college biology courses. CBE Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar48. 10.1187/cbe.19-01-0010 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Barrasso, A. P., & Spilios, K. E. (2021). A scoping review of literature assessing the impact of the learning assistant model. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 12. 10.1186/s40594-020-00267-8 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Bourne, S. M., Limfat, S., Dilip, S., Han, S., Robak, M. T., Marsden, P., & Baranger, A. M. (2021). The undergraduate teacher-scholar program: Comparing near-peer and non near-peer instructors in laboratory courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 50(5), 10–17. 10.1080/0047231X.2021.12290521 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Busch, C. A., Wiesenthal, N. J., Mohammed, T. F., Anderson, S., Barstow, M., Custalow, C., ... Cooper, K. M. (2023). The disproportionate impact of fear of negative evaluation on first-generation college students, LGBTQ+ students, and students with disabilities in college science courses. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(3), ar31. 10.1187/cbe.22-10-0195 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps and inspire less student motivation in their classes. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau4734. 10.1126/sciadv.aau4734 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Canning, E. A., Ozier, E., Williams, H. E., AlRasheed, R., & Murphy, M. C. (2022). Professors who signal a fixed mindset about ability undermine women's performance in STEM. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(5), 927–937. 10.1177/19485506211030398 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Clements, K. A., Vallone, K. T., Clements, T. P., Catania, E. H., Claiborne, L. L., Friedman, K. L., ... Brame, C. J. (2025). Impacts of learning assistants on student belonging and confidence vary across science disciplines and course contexts. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 24(2), ar26. 10.1187/cbe.24-07-0179 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Clements, K. A., Zepeda, C. D., Leich Hilbun, A., Todd, T., Clements, T. P., Johnson, H. J., ... Brame, C. J. (2023). “They have shown me it is possible to thrive within STEM”: Incorporating learning assistants in general chemistry enhances student belonging and confidence. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(11), 4200–4211. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c01224 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Clements, T. P., Friedman, K. L., Johnson, H. J., Meier, C. J., Watkins, J., Brockman, A. J., & Brame, C. J. (2022). “It made me feel like a bigger part of the STEM community”: Incorporation of learning assistants enhances students’ sense of belonging in a large introductory biology course. CBE Life Sciences Education, 21(2), ar26. 10.1187/cbe.21-09-0287 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological of theory in practice. Teachers College Press. [ Google Scholar ] Dewsbury, B., M., & Brame, C. J. (2019). Inclusive teaching. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(2), fe2. 10.1187/cbe.19-01-0021 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Dewsbury, B. M. (2020). Deep teaching in a college STEM classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 15(1), 169–191. 10.1007/s11422-018-9891-z [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Dika, S. L., & D'Amico, M. M. (2016). Early experiences and integration in the persistence of first-generation college students in STEM and non-STEM majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 368–383. 10.1002/tea.21301 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Dusen, B. V., Langdon, L., & Otero, V. (2015). Learning assistant supported student outcomes (LASSO) study initial findings. 2015 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings, 343–346. 10.1119/perc.2015.pr.081 [ DOI ] Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., Thummaphan, P., Lan, M. C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2015). Caution, student experience may vary: Social identities impact a student's experience in peer discussions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar45. 10.1187/cbe.15-05-0108 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Edwards, J. D., Barthelemy, R. S., & Frey, R. F. (2022). Relationship between course-level social belonging (Sense of Belonging and Belonging Uncertainty) and academic performance in general chemistry 1. Journal of Chemical Education, 99(1), 71–82. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.1c00405 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Elliott, G., Kao, uzanne, & Grant, A.-M. (2004). Mattering: Empirical validation of a social-psychological concept. Self and Identity, 3(4), 339–354. 10.1080/13576500444000119 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Fink, A., Frey, R. F., & Solomon, E. D. (2020). Belonging in general chemistry predicts first-year undergraduates’ performance and attrition. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21(4), 1042–1062. 10.1039/D0RP00053A [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Flett, G., Khan, A., & Su, C. (2019). Mattering and psychological well-being in college and university students: Review and recommendations for campus-based initiatives. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17(3), 667–680. 10.1007/s11469-019-00073-6 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, & H., Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. 10.1073/pnas.1319030111 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Grunspan, D. Z., Eddy, S. L., Brownell, S. E., Wiggins, B. L., Crowe, A. J., & Goodreau, S. M. (2016). Males under-estimate academic performance of their female peers in undergraduate biology classrooms. PLOS ONE, 11(2), e0148405. 10.1371/journal.pone.0148405 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(5), 745–765. 10.1037/pspp0000075 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hill, C. J., Barrasso, A. P., & Spilios, K. E. (2023). A mixed-methods analysis of perspectives toward learning assistant-faculty relationships. Journal of College Science Teaching, 52(3), 75–83. 10.1080/0047231X.2023.12290703 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hoffman, J., Kinkel, T., & Huseby, M. (2025). Training learning assistants to employ inclusive pedagogy and teaching tools in the classroom. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 26, e00106–25. 10.1128/jmbe.00106-25 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Horn, I. S. (2008). Turnaround students in high school mathematics: Constructing identities of competence through mathematical worlds. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(3), 201–239. 10.1080/10986060802216177 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Huber, K. A., Baker, M. R., Nelson, P. A., & Frazier, P. A. (2023). Correlates of peer classroom connectedness among undergraduate women in STEM. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 60(6), 1329–1352. 10.1002/tea.21833 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hurtado, S., Eagan, M. K., Tran, M. C., Newman, C. B., Chang, M. J., & Velasco, P. (2011). “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different college contexts. The Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 553–579. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01714.x [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Jordt, H., Eddy, S. L., Brazil, R., Lau, I., Mann, C., Brownell, S. E., ... Freeman, S. (2017). Values affirmation intervention reduces achievement gap between underrepresented minority and white students in introductory biology classes. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(3). 10.1187/cbe.16-12-0351 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kroeper, K. M., Gopalan, M., Emerson, K. T. U., & Walton, G. M. (2025). Who gets to belong in College? An empirical review of how institutions can assess and expand opportunities for belonging on campus. Educational Psychology Review, 37(2), 36. 10.1007/s10648-025-10010-w [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kroeper, K. M., & Murphy, M. C. (2017). Supporting college and career readiness through social psychological interventions. In McClarty K., Mattern K., & Gaertner M. (Eds.), Preparing students for college and careers: Theory, measurement, and educational practice (pp. 142–152). Routledge. [ Google Scholar ] Lazaro, V., & Bian, L. (2024). Children's social preference for peers engaged in brilliance-required activities: The impact of gender and race. Developmental Psychology, 60(12), 2233–2241. 10.1037/dev0001822 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. 10.1126/science.1261375 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Levy, R., Barnard, R. A., Bamrah, M., Kale, R., Kaur, T., Rose, P., ... Masani, S. (2025). A curriculum to build learning assistants' critical consciousness and racial noticing lens. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 26, e00041–25. 10.1128/jmbe.00041-25 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Marshman, E. M., Kalender, Z. Y., Nokes-Malach, T., Schunn, C., & Singh, C. (2018). Female students with A's have similar physics self-efficacy as male students with C's in introductory courses: A cause for alarm? Physical Review Physics Education Research, 14(2), 020123. 10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.14.020123 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Meaders, C. L., Heinrichsen, E. T., McDonnell, L., Owens, M. T., Cooke, J., & Lo, S. M. (2025). An undergraduate biology pedagogy course curriculum for instructional apprentices. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 26, e00244–24. 10.1128/jmbe.00244-24 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Mendoza, N. B., Yan, Z., & King, R. B. (2023). Domain-specific motivation and self-assessment practice as mechanisms linking perceived need-supportive teaching to student achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 38(2), 607–630. 10.1007/s10212-022-00620-1 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Micari, M., Van Winkle, Z., & Pazos, P. (2016). Among friends: The role of academic-preparedness diversity in individual performance within a small-group STEM learning environment. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 1904–1922. 10.1080/09500693.2016.1218091 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Muenks, K., Canning, E. A., LaCosse, J., Green, D. J., Zirkel, S., Garcia, J. A., & Murphy, M. C. (2020). Does my professor think my ability can change? Students’ perceptions of their STEM professors’ mindset beliefs predict their psychological vulnerability, engagement, and performance in class. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(11), 2119–2144. 10.1037/xge0000763 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Nunes, K., Du, S., Philip, R., Mourad, M. M., Mansoor, Z., Laliberté, N., & Rawle, F. (2022). Science students’ perspectives on how to decrease the stigma of failure. FEBS Open Bio, 12(1), 24–37. 10.1002/2211-5463.13345 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department's role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model. American Journal of Physics, 78(11), 1218–1224. 10.1119/1.3471291 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Payne, M. R., LaDue, N. D., Dugas, D., Winitkun, D., & Schmidt, S. (2025). “I feel listened to and heard”: How social support fosters a sense of belonging for low-income STEM majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 62(2), 461–490. 10.1002/tea.21977 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Pigart, C. J., MacKinnon, D. P., & Cooper, K. M. (2024). Academic social comparison: A promising new target to reduce fear of negative evaluation in large-enrollment college science courses. International Journal of STEM Education, 11(1), 42. 10.1186/s40594-024-00501-7 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Popichak, K. A., Gruber, P. E., Suchman, E. L., & McLean, J. L. (2025). Implementing an undergraduate learning assistant model to foster engagement and professional development in microbiology courses. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 26, e00042–25. 10.1128/jmbe.00042-25 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ramos, J. G., & Towns, M. H. (2023). Ready, set, go? Impact of the pandemic on student readiness: Laboratories, preparedness, and support. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(7), 2673–2679. 10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00014 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Rattan, A., Savani, K., Komarraju, M., Morrison, M. M., Boggs, C., & Ambady, N. (2018). Meta-lay theories of scientific potential drive underrepresented students’ sense of belonging to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 54–75. 10.1037/pspi0000130 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd. [ Google Scholar ] Seymour, E., & Hunter, A.-B. (Eds.). (2019). Talking about leaving revisited: Persistence, relocation, and loss in undergraduate STEM education. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978-3-030-25304-2 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Storage, D., Horne, Z., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S.-J. (2016). The frequency of “brilliant” and “genius” in teaching evaluations predicts the representation of women and African Americans across fields. PLOS ONE, 11(3), e0150194. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150194 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Strayhorn, T. L. (2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203118924 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Talbot, R. M., Hartley, L. M., Marzetta, K., & Wee, B. S. (2015). Transforming undergraduate science education with learning assistants: Student satisfaction in large-enrollment courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(5), 24–30. 10.1080/0047231X.2015.12454809 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Theobald, E. J., Hill, M. J., Tran, E., Agrawal, S., Arroyo, E. N., Behling, S., ... Freeman, S. (2020). Active learning narrows achievement gaps for underrepresented students in undergraduate science, technology, engineering, and math. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6476–6483. 10.1073/pnas.1916903117 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Tomkin, J. H., & West, M. (2022). STEM courses are harder: Evaluating inter-course grading disparities with a calibrated GPA model. International Journal of STEM Education, 9(1), 27. 10.1186/s40594-022-00343-1 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 443–463. 10.1177/0013164407308475 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Vial, A. C., Muradoglu, M., Newman, G. E., & Cimpian, A. (2022). An emphasis on brilliance fosters masculinity-contest cultures. Psychological Science, 33(4), 595–612. 10.1177/09567976211044133 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451. 10.1126/science.1198364 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Whitcomb, K. M., Cwik, S., & Singh, C. (2021). Not all disadvantages are equal: Racial/ethnic minority students have largest disadvantage among demographic groups in both STEM and non-STEM GPA. AERA Open, 7, 23328584211059823. 10.1177/23328584211059823 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Yeager, D. S., Walton, G. M., Brady, S. T., Akcinar, E. N., Paunesku, D., Keane, L., ... Dweck, C. S. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(24), E3341–E3348. 10.1073/pnas.1524360113 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zeldin, A. L., Britner, S. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). A comparative study of the self-efficacy beliefs of successful men and women in mathematics, science, and technology careers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1036–1058. 10.1002/tea.20195 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Zeldin, A. L., & Pajares, F. (2000). Against the odds: Self-efficacy beliefs of women in mathematical, scientific, and technological careers. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 215–246. 10.2307/1163477 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. R. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science, 42(5), 661–684. [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials cbe-25-ar18-s001.pdf (252.5KB, pdf) cbe-25-ar18-s001.pdf (252.5KB, pdf) Articles from CBE Life Sciences Education are provided here courtesy of American Society for Cell Biology ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (701.9 KB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• Social Interactions and Personal Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classroom#634329
• Social Interactions and Personal Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classroom#634282
• Navigating a Disciplinary Chasm: The Statistical Perspectives of Graduate Teaching Assistants#198358
• Reading at university in the time of GenA#112870
• GenAI minds for higher education: Reading and emotional intelligence#688243