Abstract
Graduate Teaching Assistants (TAs) need effective, appropriate professional development opportunities that offer both meaningful foundations and strategically useful tools for their teaching. This study examined and explored the perceptions of TAs with regard to the nature, content, and design characteristics of training and development for teaching in the research university. A group of 210 graduate teaching assistants at a research university reported their perceptions of a range of design elements of training sessions and activities. TAs perceived that training contributed to their learning and development, promoting skills and strategies helpful for their teaching. More focused, strategic sessions received higher overall scores than more general foundational sessions, though strategic sessions were grounded in the more foundational ones. Design features that TAs reported most significantly contributed to their development were: expertise of speakers, structural design of events, and quality of support materials. Eighty percent of TAs reported intentions to continue learning about instructional theory and practice. Findings include consistency with some previous research-based principles of training and development, but also raise new questions regarding TAs’ needs and how to address them.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary influences. Studies in Higher Education, 19, 151–161.
Berliner, D. C. (1988). The development of expertise in pedagogy. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1986). Methods, knowledge, and research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.
Black, B., & Kaplan, M. (1998). Evaluating TA’s teaching. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 213–234). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Borrowman, S. (1999). First-year training for first-year composition: TA training from the inside. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Writing Program Administrators Summer Conference, Tucson, AZ.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Branstetter, S. A., & Handelsman, M. M. (2000). Graduate teaching assistants: Ethics training, beliefs and practices. Ethics and Behavior, 10, 27–50.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32–42.
Chism, N. V. N. (1998). Preparing graduate students to teach: Past, present and future. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 1–18). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling, A. L. (1986). On becoming a graduate student: An examination of communication in the socialization process. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Davies, R., & Dart, J. (2005). The most significant change (MSC) technique: A guide to its use. In Paper sponsored by Care International and OXFAM International. Accessed 18 Aug 2007. http://www.mande.co,.k/docs/MSCguide.htm.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). The landscape of qualitative research: Theory and issues (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2009). The systematic design of instruction (7th ed.). New York: Longman.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Fisher, A. T., Gillmore, G. M., Beyer, C. H., & Ewell, P. T. (2007). Inside the undergraduate experience: The University of Washington’s study of undergraduate learning. New York: Wiley.
Fox, M. A., & Hackerman, N. (2003). Evaluating and improving undergraduate teaching in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2006). How to design and evaluate research in education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Gaff, J. G., & Lambert, L. M. (1996). Socializing future faculty to the values of undergraduate education. Change, 28, 38–45.
Glaser, R. (1992). Expert knowledge and processes of thinking. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Enhancing thinking skills in the sciences and mathematics (pp. 63–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Introduction: What is it to be an expert? In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxi). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hardré, P. L. (2003). The effects of instructional design training on university teaching assistants. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16, 23–39.
Hardré, P. L. (2005). A case for instructional design as a professional development tool-of-choice for university teaching assistants. Innovative Higher Education, 30, 163–178.
Hardré, P. L., & Chen, C. H. (2005). A case study analysis of the role of instructional design in the development of teaching expertise. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 18, 34–58.
Hardré, P. L., & Chen, C. H. (2006). Teaching assistants learning, students responding: Process, products and perspectives on instructional design. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 10, 25–51.
Hardré, P. L., & Cox, M. (2009). Expectations and standards of faculty performance in research-extensive universities. Research Papers in Education, 24, 383–419.
Hardré, P. L., Ferguson, C., Bratton, J., & Johnson, D. (2008). Online professional development for TAs: What they need, what they have, what they want. Journal of Faculty Development, 22, 13–28.
Hardré, P. L., Miller, R. B., Beasley, A., Pace, T., Maxwell, M. S., & Xie, K. (2007). What motivates university faculty members to do research?: Tenure-track faculty in research-extensive universities. Journal of the Professoriate, 2, 75–99.
Hutchings, P. (1993). Preparing the professoriate: Next steps and what we need to do to take them. In L. M. Lambert & S. L. Tice (Eds.), Preparing graduate students to teach: A guide to programs that improve undergraduate education and develop tomorrow’s faculty. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Lambert, L. M., & Tice, S. L. (Eds.). (1993). Preparing graduate students to teach: A guide to programs that improve undergraduate education and develop tomorrow’s faculty. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 75–95.
Luo, J., Grady, M. L., & Bellows, L. H. (2001). Instructional issues for TAs. Innovative Higher Education, 25, 209–230.
Marincovich, M. (1998). Teaching teaching: The importance of courses on teaching in TA training programs. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 145–162). Bolton, MA.: Anker Publishing.
Marincovich, M., & Gordon, H. (1991). A program of peer consultation: The consultants’ experience. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 175–183). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Marincovich, M., Prostko, J., & Stout, F. (Eds.). (1998). The professional development of graduate teaching assistants. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Martin, E., Prosser, M., Trigwell, K., Ramsden, P., & Benjamin, J. (2000). What university teachers teach and how they teach it. Instructional Science, 28, 387–412.
McCray, R. A., DeHaan, R. L., & Schuck, J. A. (2003). Improving undergraduate instruction in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Mintz, J. A. (1998). The role of centralized programs in preparing graduate students to teach. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 19–40). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Nyquist, J. J., Abbott, R. D., Wulff, D. H., & Sprague, J. (1991). Introduction: Preparing the next generation of scholar-teachers. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. xi–xiii). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Nyquist, J. D., & Sprague, J. (1998). Thinking developmentally about TAs. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 61–88). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Nyquist, J. D., & Wulff, D. H. (1996). Working effectively with graduate students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Park, C. (2004). The graduate teaching assistant (GTA): Lessons from North American experience. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 349–361.
Ronkowski, S. A. (1998). The disciplinary/departmental context of TA training. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 41–60). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing.
Ryan, K. E. (Ed.). (2000). Evaluating teaching in higher education: A vision for the future, New directions for teaching and learning (Vol. 83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 63–88.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Serow, R. C., Van Dyk, P. B., McComb, E. M., & Harrold, A. T. (2002). Cultures of undergraduate teaching at research universities. Innovative Higher Education, 27, 25–37.
Svinicki, M. D. (1998). Creating a foundation for instructional decisions. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & D. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 89–104). Boston, MA: Anker.
Tice, S. L. (1997). The relationship between faculty preparation programs and teacher assistant development programs, Occasional Paper #4, Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, DC: Council of Graduate Schools.
Willets, J., & Crawford, P. (2007). The most significant lessons about the Most Significant Change technique. Development in Practice, 17, 367–379.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hardré, P.L., Burris, A.O. What contributes to teaching assistant development: differential responses to key design features. Instr Sci 40, 93–118 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9163-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9163-0