Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
"Lucking Out" with a Good TA: One Lecture, Several Discussions
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Chary, Anita |
| Copyright Year | 2008 |
| Abstract | Some students in introductory chemistry classes claim to have been "lucky" to have been in a certain discussion section, indicating that although discussion sections all ought to cover the same material, there may be differences between them that students feel are significant. Pilot research reveals that in introductory chemistry classes for non-chemistry-majors, some teaching assistants’ (TA's) teaching methods focus mostly on teaching chemistry, while other TA's cater their classes more towards students' academic performance and transition to the university learning environment. These TA's teaching strategies seems to reflect their attitudes towards TAing; in a small sample, graduate students taught in the former manner, while undergraduates taught in the latter manner. Quantitative research by Spinka & Kelter (2005) indicates that students prefer undergraduate TA's, but a qualitative investigation of this preference remains to be undertaken. Therefore, the proposed research project seeks to investigate how chemistry TA’s teaching styles are signified both by TA’s and by their students within introductory chemistry courses for non-chemistry-majors through ethnographic methods. In the context of improving undergraduate education and US math/science literacy, understanding the teaching methods that are most beneficial to students in the basic sciences is paramount. Statement of Research Problem Undergraduate education in the basic sciences at a large research university such as the University of Illinois can be a frustrating experience for incoming students. Students often have limited contact with their professors during large lecture classes, with the result that the majority of their learning may occur in discussion sections led by a teaching assistant (TA) (Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates 1998). Although a student’s experience of college coursework depends largely on personal motivation and effort, some students consider the TA critical to their success in a class. For example, a student told me she was “lucky to have had awesome [chemistry] TA’s” her freshman year and that she does not think she would have made it through her classes if it were not for them. On the other hand, a TA told me that as she was holding office hours, students who are not in her discussion sections overheard her explanations, approached her telling her that she was a “good” TA and that they had a “bad” TA, and asked if they could come to her office hours in the future. In the context of efforts to improve undergraduate education, the idea of being lucky or unlucky to have had a certain TA should be examined. Discussion sections within one lecture class cover the same material, but if students feel “lucky” to be in one section over another, there must be significant differences between them. Pilot data gathered in Fall 2007 show that TA’s within the same general chemistry lecture course, CHEM 100 (for non-chemistry-majors), manage their discussion sections differently, perhaps because of different conceptualizations of their roles as TA’s. Some TA’s focus their teaching efforts on providing their students with a solid knowledge of chemistry, while others cater their teaching more towards their students’ performance in the class and negotiation of the university learning environment—for example in teaching students how to study for the class in review sessions, helping students find tutoring services, informing them about resources within the chemistry department, and writing mock exams to help them practice in test-like situations. Interestingly, in a small sample, graduate TA’s tended to teach in the former way, and undergraduate TA’s in the latter; their teaching styles seem to reflect different attitudes about the teaching assignment. Quantitatively, section averages on tests are generally within 5% and two sections taught by the same TA may have averages several percentage points apart, indicating that collectively students’ performance in the course is not necessarily correlated with having a certain TA. However, as indicated above, students do seem to have qualitative preferences. Furthermore, research indicates that students prefer to have undergraduate TA’s in chemistry (Spinka & Kelter 2005), but what does this preference mean? What are the qualities that make one TA more preferable than another? Statement of Proposed Research In the proposed study, I intend to investigate how chemistry TA’s teaching styles are signified both by TA’s and by their students within introductory chemistry courses for non-chemistrymajors. These students’ majors range from philosophy to biology to engineering, therefore their expectations of these courses and their TA’s vary depending on how much chemistry they will use in their future educations and professions. Through participant-observation as a TA for a general chemistry class, I will first investigate what TA’s do both in and out of the classroom to analyze different categories of teaching styles. I will relate these styles to TA’s ideas about their job responsibilities. Second, I will evaluate which qualities of TA’s students feel help them learn most effectively and which benefit them the most. I will also relate students’ preferences about TA’s to the expectations they have of the chemistry courses. I hope to apply this data to determine whether generalizations can be made about how undergraduate TA’s teach vs. how graduate TA’s teach and about how students react to undergraduate vs. graduate TA’s. Methodology In the first phase of the project, I will concentrate on gathering TA’s ethnographic accounts through participant-observation, interviews with TA’s, class observations, a time-allocation exercise, and a survey followed by focus groups. As a participant-observer, I will gain familiarity with a chemistry TA’s responsibilities and how students respond to different teaching styles as I teach two sections of an introductory course. I will also take part in TA training, a two-day orientation to TAing in late August, in which only graduate TA’s are currently required to participate, in order to acquaint myself with the rhetoric and teaching techniques graduate students learn before they begin their assignments. I also plan to conduct several interviews over the course of one semester with both undergraduate and graduate TA’s about what they do as TA’s, how they teach, and how they approach teaching. These will be semi-structured interviews, mostly following what my respondents wish to discuss, so that I can avoid leading TA’s into making statements that bolster any of my pre-existing notions about teaching. I will also tape-record these interviews and transcribe them afterwards, where consent is given, rather than taking extensive notes, in order to maximize my engagement with the respondent. As Pierre Bourdieu et al. (1993) stress, demonstrating an understanding of participants is key to interviews. I believe that my common identity with these respondents as a fellow TA will help establish a comfortable environment for them to discuss their experiences honestly. However, I am also aware that the location of an interview plays a role in a respondent’s discourse (Bourdieu et al. 1993). For example, certain environments such as a TA office or classroom may be conducive to TA’s describing their jobs as they ought to be, as prescribed by the department, rather than as they experience them. Therefore, I will ask TA’s to choose an informal and non-academic environment, such as a café, which will minimize intimidation. After interviewing a TA, I will observe her or him teaching discussion sections and helping students during office hours to learn how each TA interacts with students and what activities occur at these times (such as group work, discussion of administrative issues or homework questions, etc.). As discussed in Anthropology 411, Methods in Cultural Anthropology (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Fall 2007), people may alter their behavior when they know that they are being observed. However, I will assure TA’s that no evaluative judgments are being made that could affect their jobs; I will also observe each TA in discussion multiple times so that they become accustomed to my presence. I will also sit through classes with the students as a student so that my presence is unobtrusive to them. In my pilot research, a time-allocation survey was helpful in illuminating differences between how TA’s spend time working. I will expand on this technique by asking TA’s for a preliminary estimation of how much time/week they spend TAing, followed by having TA’s keep a time log/diary, in which they would write a short entry about how much time they spend doing anything TA-related over a two-week period. As Gross (1984) discusses, people may over or underreport activities in these diaries, but I believe that these accounts have their own realities and will reflect how TA’s prioritize and conceptualize their jobs. Furthermore, this is much less intrusive than my direct observation of their TA-related activities and more reliable than survey data, in which some TA’s in the pilot research project misreported time they spent TAing (perhaps because of not considering the question in depth given the short length of the survey). After collecting data from several TA’s over the course of the semester, I will hone in on differences between sections/teaching strategies. I will prepare a report for each TA interviewed including how and why the person became a TA, opinions about TAing, activities and amounts of time the TA spends on the job per week both in and out of the classroom, and my notes from classroom observations. I will read these comparatively to describe different categories of teaching styles and will be open to amending and adding to the categories I have described above from preliminary research. I will also examine similarities and differences between undergraduate and |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://www.ideals.uiuc.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/3497/Proposal_Draft.pdf?sequence=3 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/3497/Proposal_Draft.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=3 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
