Teaching assistants' perceptions of a training to support an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory course†
Lindsay B.
Wheeler
*a,
Jennifer L.
Maeng
b and
Brooke A.
Whitworth
c
aUniversity of Virginia, Department of Chemistry, P.O. Box 400319, McCormick Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA. E-mail: lsb4u@virginia.edu
bUniversity of Virginia, Curry School of Education, P.O. Box 400273, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA. E-mail: jlc7d@virginia.edu
cCenter for Science Teaching & Learning, Northern Arizona University, 801 S Knoles Dr., P.O. Box 5774, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA. E-mail: baw3tj@virginia.edu
First published on 16th July 2015
Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative investigation was to better understand teaching assistants' (TAs') perceptions of training in a guided inquiry undergraduate general chemistry laboratory context. The training was developed using existing TA training literature and informed by situated learning theory. TAs engaged in training prior to teaching (∼25 hours) and attended weekly meetings throughout the year (∼60 hours). Assessment of training utilized a constructivist framework to understand TAs' perceptions of training in supporting their implementation of guided inquiry in the laboratory. Participants included 20 graduate TAs and 8 undergraduate TAs of varying teaching experience. Data collection included three open-ended surveys across the academic year and two semi-structured interviews with a purposefully sampled subset of TAs. Data were analyzed using systematic data analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Results indicated different aspects of the training were helpful for different subgroups of participants. For example, going over logistics and completing the experiments were most helpful for TAs with no previous teaching experience while discussing learning theory was least helpful for TAs whose future career goals were research-focused. Analyzing participants' experiences and perceptions through a situated learning theory lens suggested TAs with little prior teaching experience appreciated the authentic experiences (e.g., experiments and grading) provided by the training. The results of the study suggest TA training should address prior experiences, particularly language and teaching, as well as the larger context of research and future careers. Future research will focus on examining how TAs learn within a situated training and how that impacts TA beliefs, practices, and student learning.
Research indicates fewer students pursue Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) majors and careers now than two decades ago (Fairweather, 2008; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST], 2010, p. 3). The decline of STEM majors may be related to the structure and implementation of undergraduate STEM courses (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005; Fairweather, 2008). Historically, STEM courses have been characterized by traditional approaches to teaching (i.e. teacher-centered, passive learning, expository/cookbook laboratories), which lack student engagement in authentic scientific practices and do not provide opportunities for critical thinking (Domin, 1999; Germann et al., 1996). Empirical studies provide evidence that active learning approaches improve student outcomes in science (e.g.Basaǧa et al., 1994; White, 1996; French and Russell, 2002; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). As a result, both the National Research Council (NRC) and the American Chemical Society (ACS) have charged undergraduate science departments to integrate reforms-based, active learning opportunities (e.g. problem-based learning, cooperative learning, inquiry instruction) into the science curriculum (NRC, 2000; Cooper, 2010).
At large research universities, laboratory courses are typically taught by graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) who play an important role in quality undergraduate education (e.g.Bomotti, 1994; Kendall and Schussler, 2013; Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2013) and have been shown to impact students' understanding of chemical concepts in an inquiry-based laboratory (Greenbowe and Hand, 2005). Research on GTAs in these courses often focuses on teaching laboratories within expository (i.e., cookbook, traditional) contexts (e.g.Addy and Blanchard, 2010); only a handful of researchers examine GTA training within a reform-based laboratory context (French and Russell, 2002; Roehrig et al., 2003; Burke et al., 2005; Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2013). Thus, the purpose of this study was to begin to fill this gap in the literature by examining TAs' perceptions of a training designed for TAs implementing an inquiry-oriented curriculum in a large enrollment general chemistry laboratory course. The context of the present investigation is a guided inquiry general chemistry laboratory, as defined below.
Literature review
To better understand the relevance of our work, we review the literature on inquiry-based laboratory instruction models, overview characteristics and responsibilities of laboratory TAs, and describe previous research of how TAs are supported in their instruction and illustrate the current limitations of this body of literature. We then align the components of TA training to situated learning theory for a more robust understanding of TA's perceptions of a situated TA training. We conclude with characteristics of TA training that would potentially be helpful in supporting TAs teaching in a guided inquiry laboratory context.Approaches to inquiry-based laboratory instruction
Scientific inquiry instruction can be defined as “an active learning process in which students answer research questions through data analysis in a manner consistent with how scientists do their work” (Maeng et al., 2013, p. 841). Within an inquiry context, the degree of support provided to students determines the level of inquiry (e.g.Bell et al., 2005; Wheeler et al., 2015). In open inquiry, students develop their own question and procedures, and they do not know what results to expect in advance of doing the investigation. Methods such as the science writing heuristic utilize an open inquiry structure for the laboratory (e.g.Burke et al., 2006; Poock et al., 2007). While the science writing heuristic has been met with success (Poock et al., 2007), open inquiry in general has been criticized for not providing enough structure for student success (Kirschner et al., 2006).A more structured form of inquiry, called guided inquiry, provides students with a specific research question and students develop the procedure for answering the question. Guided inquiry has been used more frequently in laboratory instruction and has been implemented in curricula such as argument driven inquiry (e.g.Sampson et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2011) and cooperative-based inquiry (e.g.Cooper, 1994; Cooper and Kerns, 2006). The use of guided inquiry promotes students' active engagement in learning while providing more structure through the inquiry process and has been shown to improve student outcomes in the laboratory context (e.g.Deckert et al., 1998; Barak and Dori, 2005; Gaddis and Schoffstall, 2007; Cooper et al., 2008).
We use a guided inquiry approach as our method of laboratory instruction for general chemistry as it makes the experience both authentic but manageable for students with little experience in engaging in “real” science. However, researchers examining student learning in a similar context caution “we should be very careful about the training and support for those who do interact personally with the students” (Cooper and Kerns, 2006, p. 1360). Thus, the focus on the role of the TA and TA training in a large-enrollment guided inquiry general chemistry laboratory context is warranted.
Laboratory teaching assistants
Laboratory courses typically employ graduate students within the same discipline that they are pursuing a degree in to serve as GTAs. GTAs have been described as the “first line of defense for instruction” (Nicklow et al., 2007, p. 89) and the “bridge between faculty and students” (Dotger, 2011, p. 158). In addition to teaching, GTAs also take classes, and perform science research (Gardner and Jones, 2011). More recently, undergraduate students have been used to supplement GTA laboratory instructors (e.g.Schalk et al., 2009; Romm et al., 2010) due to growing numbers of undergraduate students enrolled in introductory courses (Sana et al., 2011; Weidert et al., 2012). In general, undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) are upper level students who have previously taken and excelled in the course for which they assist. They often apply to become a UTA (Chapin et al., 2014) and some UTA programs have corresponding research components to provide students teaching and research experience simultaneously (Borgon et al., 2013). The use of UTAs to support instruction has been widely studied in psychology and science lecture courses (e.g., Weidert et al., 2012; Peterson et al., 2013); however, few studies examine how UTAs are used in laboratory courses (Tien et al., 2002; Chapin et al., 2014).In general, laboratory GTAs are responsible for grading, giving pre-laboratory lectures, knowing experimental procedures, ensuring student safety, getting out equipment/materials, teaching experimental techniques, and holding office hours (e.g.Calkins and Kelley, 2005; Cho et al., 2010). GTAs are also responsible for teaching content, motivating and encouraging students, and supporting student learning through implementation of effective teaching strategies (e.g.Luo et al., 2001; Luft et al., 2004; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). Some of the teaching techniques expected of GTAs in laboratories include: questioning strategies, providing students with feedback, helping students engage in scientific practices, effectively communicating content, assessing student prior knowledge and understanding, using formative assessment, being a facilitator, and understanding student misconceptions and difficulties (e.g.Burke et al., 2005; Bond-Robinson and Bernard Rodriques, 2006; Addy and Blanchard, 2010). Thus, GTAs have a plethora of roles and responsibilities.
The literature indicates UTAs typically have less responsibility than GTAs (e.g.Weidert et al., 2012). The few studies examining UTAs within a laboratory setting have UTAs paired with a GTA who is in charge of the laboratory (Schalk et al., 2009; Romm et al., 2010; Borgon et al., 2013). UTAs in these studies engage students in the laboratory by using different pedagogy such as facilitative questioning under GTA supervision. We found only one study where the UTA was given the same role and responsibility as a GTA (Chapin et al., 2014). In this study, biology major students' grades and attitudes were analyzed based on the type of TA (i.e. UTA or GTA) they had in an introductory biology laboratory. Results indicated no significant differences in course grades between the UTA and GTA students. Students with a UTA laboratory instructor rated the UTA significantly higher in being encouraging and respectful compared to students with a GTA instructor. Thus, the results of utilizing UTAs in the same manner as GTAs are promising.
TA support in laboratory instruction
There exists an abundance of literature describing and explaining approaches to TA training; however, few studies examine training for inquiry-based laboratories. Reviewing the literature as a whole provides a starting point for better understanding TA training for inquiry-based laboratories. The TA training characteristics from the literature can be grouped into five categories: practical course details, feedback/reflection, pedagogy, modeling, and teaching culture (e.g.Shannon et al., 1998; Hammrich, 2001; Roehrig et al., 2003; Luft et al., 2004; Cho et al., 2010; Marbach-Ad et al., 2012; Kendall and Schussler, 2013). Discussing the practical details include: procedures, grading, content, problems/issues, responsibilities, and safety (e.g.Herrington and Nakhleh, 2003; Roehrig et al., 2003; Luft et al., 2004; Bond-Robinson and Bernard Rodriques, 2006). Weekly TA meetings are recommended in order to address the practical course details (Nurrenbern et al., 1999; Roehrig et al., 2003; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). TA training program articles suggest feedback is important for TAs and can come from peers, students, or faculty (e.g.Shannon et al., 1998; Sharpe, 2000; Hampton and Reiser, 2004; Chapin et al., 2014). Feedback should be constructive and critical in order to be helpful to TAs (Bomotti, 1994; McGinnis, 1994) and can take the form of formative or summative feedback (e.g.Nurrenbern et al., 1999). Reflection can also be used to help TAs internalize effective teaching practices within the laboratory environment (e.g.Sandi-Urena et al., 2011).Incorporating different teaching methods into TA training typically provides the only support TAs receive before becoming instructors themselves (Burke et al., 2005; Addy and Blanchard, 2010; Cho et al., 2010), making pedagogy an essential TA training component. Some TA studies discuss the use of different types of approaches in training TAs to teach pedagogy, while others discuss the use of different types of pedagogy taught through these approaches. For example, a TA training program might demonstrate a facilitative student–TA interaction (approach to teaching pedagogy) to teach TAs about inquiry-based practices (pedagogy taught).
The three most prominent approaches to training TAs in pedagogy are through the use of microteaching, holding discussions about teaching, and teaching about learning theories (e.g., Shannon et al., 1998; Sharpe, 2000; Luo et al., 2001; Luft et al., 2004; Calkins and Kelley, 2005; Kendall and Schussler, 2013). Sandi-Urena and Gatlin (2013) suggest training in inquiry-based instruction incorporate “why to teach” using inquiry (p. 1308), meaning TAs learn not only these pedagogical strategies but why these strategies are important. Addressing why to teach may be achieved through teaching-based discussions and learning theory. Specifically for UTAs, practice teaching under the supervision of a GTA is another approach to learn pedagogy (e.g.Romm et al., 2010). Other pedagogical approaches identified in the TA literature include: reading articles about teaching, using case studies about teaching scenarios attending workshops, and utilizing explicit instruction (e.g., Lawrenz et al., 1992; Shannon et al., 1998; Nurrenbern et al., 1999; Bond-Robinson and Bernard Rodriques, 2006).
One pedagogical approach meriting further discussion is the use of modeling in TA training (e.g.Birk and Kurtz, 1996; Hammrich, 2001). This type of modeling can be described as learners observing or engaging in appropriate practices facilitated by an expert. Many of the studies on TA training recommend modeling to help support TAs. This modeling can be in the form of the instructor modeling best practices, TAs completing experiments as students, or TAs experiencing pedagogical approaches such as cooperative learning (e.g.Birk and Kurtz, 1996; Roehrig et al., 2003; Burke et al., 2005; Cho et al., 2010).
Finally, a component of TA training that continues to present itself in the literature is the culture surrounding TA training (e.g.Luft et al., 2004; Calkins and Kelley, 2005; Nicklow et al., 2007; Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2013). In order for TA training to be effective, the graduate school culture must emphasize and value teaching, which is typically not the case since faculty often do not value teaching or training in teaching (Shannon et al., 1998). The literature focused on culture make the following recommendations: TAs and faculty collaborate on teaching, TAs assess faculty support of TAs, TA training involve faculty and department chairs, TAs be treated as professionals, a community of practice around teaching is developed, and TA training be required as a mandatory activity (e.g.Sharpe, 2000; Luft et al., 2004; Calkins and Kelley, 2005; Nicklow et al., 2007; Marbach-Ad et al., 2012). By shifting the culture around TA training to emphasize the importance of TAs, more effort may be put in to providing quality TA training. TAs may also feel less overwhelmed with their multiple roles and responsibilities and be able to focus on teaching.
Only a few studies examine TAs in large enrollment inquiry-based laboratories (French and Russell, 2002; Roehrig et al., 2003; Burke et al., 2005; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). In these studies TA training consisted of more general TA orientation (Roehrig et al., 2003; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011) or an inquiry-based training (French and Russell, 2002; Burke et al., 2005) prior to TAs teaching in inquiry-based laboratories. The general orientation focused on rules and procedures of the university or department and general teaching pedagogy, but it was not specific for inquiry-based laboratory teaching. French and Russell (2002) engaged TAs in 1.5 days of training prior to the semester where they focused on logistics, understanding inquiry as a theory and as pedagogy, and expectations of teaching in an inquiry-based laboratory. Burke and colleagues (2005) incorporated a two day inquiry-based training for TAs that focused on TAs completing experiments as students and modeling of TA approaches to the open inquiry-based laboratory. Weekly meetings for inquiry-based laboratories mirrored weekly meeting descriptions for non-inquiry-based laboratories. These included discussion of logistics, potential problems or issues, coaching, and discussions about teaching (French and Russell, 2002; Roehrig et al., 2003; Burke et al., 2005; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). The training for TAs in inquiry-based laboratory contexts is quite similar to training in traditional laboratory contexts, which is concerning.
Many researchers examining student learning gains in inquiry-based laboratories agree TAs implementing inquiry-based curricula should be supported through training (Jackman et al., 1987; Krystyniak and Heikkinen, 2007; Brickman et al., 2009). A salient quote from Brickman et al. (2009) illustrates the importance of TA training particularly for non-traditional laboratory instruction: “Adopting an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum requires a substantial investment not only in curriculum development but also in new training for instructors to facilitate the shift in instructional practices” (p. 16). Researchers of TAs in inquiry-based laboratories suggest TAs learn not just what to teach but how to teach (Roehrig et al., 2003) and why to teach using inquiry-based approaches (Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2013). Therefore, TAs should be provided training in order to help support their instruction, and this training should be specific to the inquiry-based context. What is markedly absent from this small corpus of literature on inquiry-based TA training is the assessment of these different training components to identify the effectiveness of supporting TAs in inquiry-based laboratory instruction.
In summary, there exist three main limitations with the body of literature described above. First, the majority of the studies on TA training focus on explaining the training, provide anecdotal evidence of the success of the training program, or are not rigorous research articles (e.g.Clark and McLean, 1979; Sharpe, 2000; Bond-Robinson and Bernard Rodriques, 2006). Only a few research articles in this body of literature rigorously assess or evaluate GTA training programs (e.g.Roehrig et al., 2003; Luft et al., 2004; Addy and Blanchard, 2010). With a limited number of studies to understand effective TA training components, researchers call for further studies examining TAs and TA programs (e.g.Hammrich, 2001; Gardner and Jones, 2011). Further, only a handful of studies focus on TAs in inquiry-based laboratories (e.g.French and Russell, 2002; Volkmann and Zgagacz, 2004; Burke et al. 2005; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011; Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2013). In a study of laboratory GTAs in a traditional context and an inquiry-based context Sandi-Urena and Gatlin (2013) found that GTAs' self-image and beliefs about teaching differed between the two types of instruction. Thus, researchers need to better understand how best to support TAs in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Second, there exist a limited number of studies incorporating UTAs and GTAs in equivalent laboratory instructor positions (e.g.Chapin et al., 2014), and no studies, to our knowledge, examine UTA and GTA laboratory instructors in an inquiry-based context. With the necessity of more instructors to support the growing number of undergraduates enrolled in introductory courses (Sana et al., 2011; Weidert et al., 2012), there is a clear need to examine how best to support UTAs in these positions. Third, few studies integrate learning theory to understand how TAs learn how to teach (e.g., Bond-Robinson and Bernard Rodriques, 2006; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011) and to our knowledge, no studies integrate a situated learning framework for understanding how TAs learn to teach inquiry in the laboratory context.
Situated learning
Situated learning theory is based on a constructivist epistemology where learners construct knowledge through connecting prior experience to current active participation within a community of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991; McLellan, 1996). According to Lave and Wenger (1991), a community of practice includes both novices and experts. Novices' engagement in the community of practice through legitimate peripheral participation provides these learners multiple opportunities to practice their skills, an essential component of becoming an expert (McLellan, 1996). The transformation process, or the learning of the concepts and skills of experts, occurs when novices experience authentic learning opportunities within a collaborative setting and interact with experts through a cognitive apprenticeship model (Lave and Wenger, 1991; McLellan, 1996). We believe this process best illustrates what TAs do as they participate in an effective training with sustained follow-up support.Authentic collaborative learning opportunities include situated and relevant experiences for novices similar to the practices of experts. Providing novices access to the authentic learning environments allows them to interact with others to actively learn appropriate language of experts, concepts and skills experts know and are able to do, and the significance of these concepts/skills to the expert (Lave and Wenger, 1991). In other words, it is not learning definitions and technical skills that support novices' transition to expert, it is their active involvement in the community of practice. This active involvement can take the form of increased participation, practicing language through the telling of stories, and reflecting on the transformation process (Lave and Wenger, 1991; McLellan, 1996).
Situated learning suggests a cognitive apprenticeship model provides a novice structure for the transformational process of becoming an expert (Lave and Wenger, 1991). In cognitive apprenticeship, novices first observe an expert model appropriate behavior and language. This allows them to absorb the “culture of practice”, or see what they need to do in order to become masters (Lave and Wenger, 1991, p. 95). Second, novices have multiple opportunities to practice the language and skills, while the expert coaches and provides feedback. Effective learning through coaching, according to Lave and Wenger (1991), is an interactive, student-centered process. Didactic approaches to coaching hinder the apprenticeship process and learning. Finally, the expert fades coaching as novices increase their participation within the community of practice and transition to becoming experts themselves.
Characteristics of situated learning theory mirror TA training components identified in the research literature (Table 1). The TA community of practice includes both new TAs (novices), experienced TAs (transitional), and course instructors (experts). The established community of practice includes the experienced TAs and course instructors, with the new TAs entering in to the community of practice through legitimate peripheral participation. Within this community of practice, TAs experience authentic learning by engaging in opportunities such as inquiry-based instruction and completing experiments as students; two pedagogical approaches suggested as effective in the TA training literature. Learning how to become an expert in facilitative interactions with students can be achieved through the instructor modeling appropriate interactions and providing feedback on these interactions and having TAs discuss teaching and pedagogy within the context of the course. The modeling, feedback, and discussion components of TA training align with the steps of cognitive apprenticeship.
| TA training component | Characteristics of situated learning | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Community of practice | Authentic context | Cognitive apprenticeship | |
| Practical course details | × | ||
| Feedback | × | × | |
| Pedagogy | × | × | × |
| Modeling | × | × | × |
| Teaching Culture | × | ||
As TAs increase participation within the community of practice they tend to become empowered (Lave and Wenger, 1991). However, the focus on research in university science departments impedes the development of an empowered group of TAs within this type of community of practice. Thus, one suggested component of effective TA training, a science teaching culture is essential to the success of a TA teaching-based community of practice. We believe this process best illustrates what TAs do as they participate in training with sustained follow-up support.
Purpose
This study contains three distinct components that address the gaps and limitations of the current TA training literature. First, we developed, implemented, and assessed a training to support TAs implementing an inquiry-based laboratory curriculum, which has rarely been reported in the literature (e.g., Roehrig et al., 2003; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). Second, the training model integrated what is known about TA training from the TA training literature and situated learning theory. Use of a learning theory helped inform the unique inquiry-based training examined in this study. Third, we provided this training to both UTAs and GTAs who were instructors for the inquiry-based laboratory course. Employing UTAs as laboratory instructors in an inquiry context and supporting UTAs through inquiry-based training is a novel approach yet to be examined in undergraduate science education research. This examination of the TA training seeks to understand the training from the TA perspective. The research questions that informed the study were:How did the TAs perceive the training supported their ability to implement the guided inquiry approach?
How did TAs with different prior teaching experiences interpret the training as supporting their ability to implement the guided inquiry approach?
What differences existed, if any, in UTA and GTA perceptions of the training?
How did TAs perceptions of the training and the guided inquiry approach change over time?
Methodology
A constructivist perspective framed the study (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). According to constructivism, knowledge is actively constructed based upon interactions with the surroundings and one's prior experience, and each individual has their own model of reality based upon the interplay between personal experience and interactions (Tobin, 1993; Ferguson, 2007). Thus, the TAs' perception of the training is an appropriate method to begin understanding how training supports TAs in their instruction. Further, the research approach was dialectical and hermeneutical (Guba and Lincoln, 1994), with the researchers constructing meaning about participants' perceptions of the training from varied qualitative sources.Participants
Participants were 16 female and 12 male TAs teaching General Chemistry laboratory ranging in age from 20 to 26 years old (see Appendix A for complete demographics). Of the participants, 20 were part-time GTAs and 8 were part-time UTAs. Five of the 19 GTAs reported having no previous teaching experience (26%), three GTAs had experience tutoring or being a TA as undergraduates (16%), five GTAs had previously been a GTA (26%), and four TAs had co-instructor teaching experience (21%). Six of the eight UTAs (75%) had no previous teaching experience, and two UTAs (25%) had previously tutored students in science courses.The graduate students, all PhD students in chemistry, were first-, second-, or third-year students whose funding came from their TA assignment. The first-year graduate students (n = 11) taught while concurrently taking graduate science classes. The second- and third-year graduate students (n = 9) worked in a research laboratory and were required to TA because their advisor could not provide funding. Each graduate participant taught two laboratory sections in the fall and/or spring semester, totaling approximately 50 students (approximately 24 students per section). Undergraduate participants (n = 8) were third- or fourth-year undergraduates majoring in chemistry who applied to be a TA. Only undergraduates with high GPAs and positive references from chemistry professors were accepted as UTAs. Undergraduate participants only taught one laboratory section in the fall and/or spring semester. Both UTAs and GTAs had the same roles and responsibilities, the only difference being the number of sections taught. All participants consented to data collection activities following IRB approval of the study and pseudonyms are used throughout.
Context
The training was situated within the context of a guided inquiry general chemistry laboratory curriculum, in which students are given a problem with a driving question they have to solve over time by engaging in research and data analysis (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Eastwell, 2009; Maeng et al., 2013). In this approach students learn laboratory techniques (e.g., weighing on a balance), scientific practices (e.g., analyzing and interpreting data), and chemistry concepts (e.g., precipitation reactions, acid/base chemistry). In the first semester of general chemistry laboratory, students have a 3.5 hour laboratory period once a week for twelve weeks. Students worked with a single TA who was responsible for their section. The defined role of these TAs included: (1) interacting with students as a guide/facilitator, (2) supporting students acting as scientists, (3) maintaining safety in the laboratory, (4) helping students with experimental techniques, (5) grading student work, (6) fostering student discussions through the use of questioning, and (7) encouraging students to try multiple experimental methods to solve each problem.In the guided inquiry approach, students completed four projects over the course of each semester. For each project, students were provided an overarching scientific research question within a real world context. The students worked collaboratively to plan and implement their approach to the project. The TA interacted with the students on a weekly basis and assessed student work, including experimental plans, experimental summaries, presentations, and laboratory reports. Over the course of the year, the projects increased in complexity both in experimental techniques and chemical concepts. The first project during the fall semester asked students to determine the accuracy and uncertainty of certain glassware. By the end of the project, students should have been familiar with weighing on a balance and measuring volumes of liquids (laboratory skills), developing an experiment and analyzing data (scientific practices), and understanding density and uncertainty (chemistry concepts).
In a later investigation, students were tasked with an overarching goal of identifying and synthesizing an unknown white compound over the course of three experimental days. Prior to the first experimental day, students developed a procedure for identifying their unknown compound. Guiding questions helped students think about certain physical and chemical properties that could be tested. During the planning process TAs encouraged students to create flow charts to illustrate how the data from different tests could be used to identify the unknown. Students spent two days testing their unknown and verifying their unknown's identity through additional tests or comparison with known compounds. Each experimental day, students experimented using appropriate laboratory techniques, analyzed their results to identify their unknown, summarized their results, and planned for the next experimental day. After the second experimental day, groups planned how they would synthesize their unknown, isolate their unknown, and confirm the compound's identity. On the fourth day, students presented to the class; explaining how they arrived at the identity of their unknown and how they synthesized their unknown. Finally, students wrote a formal laboratory report to link their project with chemical concepts emphasized in lab and explained the importance of the project and/or tests in other applications.
By the end of the spring semester, students completed more complex projects. The last project tasked students with creating and characterizing a buffer at a specific pH. By the end of the inquiry, students should have been familiar with titrating and using probeware to obtain data (laboratory skills), drawing evidence-based conclusions and communicate results (scientific practices), and understanding buffer capacity and acid/base equilibria (chemistry concepts).
In this curriculum the TA's role was to interact with students and help students successfully meet the instructional goals of each project in the laboratory. Thus, the TA supported the students in the laboratory through each project through the cognitive apprenticeship model in which they to modeled, coached, and scaffolded the support provided to students during planning, experimenting, analyzing data, and communicating results. The TAs helped guide students through the planning process and ensured students have a detailed enough (not necessarily correct) plan to be able to experiment. During experimentation time, the TA provided students with feedback on experimental techniques, ensured students' safety in the laboratory, encouraged them to run multiple trials, write down all procedures in their notebook, and make sense of their data during the experiment. After each groups' presentation, the TA facilitated a group discussion about groups differing experiments and results. These expectations were explicitly discussed and outlined for the TAs during training (Appendix B).
| Inquiry-based training components | TA training components (characteristics) | Situated learning characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| a Included in week-long training. b Included in weekly follow-up meeting. | ||
| Plan and experiment for each projecta | Practical course details (weekly meetings about lab content) | Authentic context, community of practice |
| TA-led content-based discussionsb | ||
| TA expectationsa | Practical course details (roles/responsibilities/expectations) | Community of practice |
| Weekly lab practicalitiesb | ||
| Community of practicea | Pedagogy (use of cooperative groups, group discussions), culture (required TA meeting, develop community of practice), feedback (peer, mentor), reflection | Community of practice |
| Discussion of interactions with studentsb | ||
| TAs run projects as studentsa | Modeling, pedagogy (reforms-based practice, TAs acting as students, learning theory, micro-teaching) | Authentic context, cognitive apprenticeship, community of practice |
| Modeling appropriate interactionsa,b | ||
| Discourse circlea | ||
| Reading/discussing learning theory articlea | ||
| Grade sample lab reports/plans/summariesa | Grading | Authentic context, cognitive apprenticeship |
| Practice grading presentationsb | ||
TAs began the week-long training by getting to know each other and were given opportunities to work collaboratively through each project and have small group and whole group discussions about the course and TA expectations. These experiences provided new TAs (novices) opportunities for legitimate peripheral participation in the teaching community of practice already established by the experienced TAs (transitional) and course instructors (experts). In order to reflect on their teaching, each TA wrote on a notecard one thing they were excited about, one thing they were nervous about, and one goal they had for teaching. The TAs revisited this notecard throughout the year to gauge their progress.
A major component of the training was TAs completing each project as students to prepare for the semester. TAs worked in collaborative groups where new TAs (novices) and experienced TAs (transitional) interacted as they planned, experimented, and analyzed data as students would for each project. During this time, the first researcher took on the role of the TA in order to model how TAs should interact with students as a facilitator. After this interaction the researcher facilitated a debrief session to talk about what occurred during the interaction. Having TAs act as students to complete experiments, modeling interactions, and debriefing are pedagogical approaches aligned with best practices of TA training components.
TAs also completed a session on discourse during the week-long training. This component, not included in the literature as an effective component of TA training, was added to emphasize the cognitive apprenticeship model. TAs read an article on guided inquiry, observed a discourse circle, and practiced facilitating a discourse circle. The researcher asked the TAs to complete a think, pair, share to come up with examples of how they might use discourse in their own teaching. Grading is one of the main roles of the TA in the general chemistry laboratory, so time was designated during the week-long workshop to practice grading lab reports, plans, and summaries. The TAs were given sample laboratory reports, plans, and summaries, along with the rubric for each assignment to grade during the training. The TAs discussed the grading of each assignment as a whole group and came to a general consensus of the score for each sample assignment.
During each weekly follow-up meeting, the researcher discussed the practicalities of the following week's experiment. This included safety, waste management, grading issues, and agenda for the laboratory (i.e. whether it was planning or presentation day). The TAs also continued discussing and practicing facilitative student–TA interactions during the weekly meetings. The researcher led group discussions on interactions with students to allow TAs to share how they were feeling about being a facilitator in the laboratory. The researcher asked questions such as “Can anyone share a really great interaction they had with a group of students?” and “How have you dealt with groups who just want you to give them an answer?” Sharing stories about their experiences helped further develop the TA community of practice and an understanding of teaching. TAs were also able to practice how to interact with students during the content-based discussions. These discussions were another component added to the TA training to emphasize the cognitive apprenticeship model and provided opportunities to practice facilitative language and increased participation in the community of practice. For the discussion, a group of 2 to 3 TAs came up with challenging content questions that were the basis for the TA-led discussion during each weekly meeting. The TAs leading the discussion circulated around to each group and facilitated small group discussions before leading a whole group discussion.
Data collection
In order to assess the training described above, participants completed surveys and interviews. Survey and interview protocols were reviewed by a panel of three science education experts and three chemistry content experts, who provided support for face and content validity (Haynes et al., 1995; Newman and McNeil, 1998).| Participant (pseudonyms) | Program | Highest degree | Teaching experience | Research experience | Intentions after graduation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| a International TA. b Only one interview due to end-of-semester illness. c Completed end-of-semester interview only. | |||||
| Christine | 3rd year undergraduate | None | None | None | Undecided |
| Andrew | 4th year undergraduate | None | Tutoring | Faculty lab – undergraduate | Medical school |
| Sharonc | 1st year graduate | Bachelor's | None | Faculty lab – undergraduate 3+ years pharmaceutical research | Undecided |
| Stevena | 1st year graduate | Master's | Tutoring | Faculty lab – undergraduate | Undecided |
| Marthab | 1st year graduate | Bachelors | Tutoring | Faculty lab – undergraduate 1 year lab technician | Research – industry |
| Jessica | 2nd year graduate | Bachelors | TA – general chemistry lab | Faculty lab – graduate | Research – industry |
| Seth | 2nd year graduate | Bachelors | TA – general chemistry lecture (guided inquiry); TA – general chemistry lab; TA – analytical lab | Faculty lab – undergraduate and graduate | Forensic science lab |
| Helen | 3rd year graduate | Bachelors | TA – general chemistry lab; TA – analytical lab | Faculty lab – undergraduate and graduate | Research – industry |
Data analysis
Survey and interview responses were analyzed using systematic data analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994). First, a priori categories about the training originating from the TA training literature were used to code the data by Researcher A. These included the following categories: practical course details, feedback, pedagogy, modeling, and teaching culture. After this round of coding, the data set was reread holistically to identify any additional categories arising inductively. For example, a category related to the supporting documents used during the training inductively arose from interview data. After coding the data, another reading through the data across participants helped collapse or expand categories. For example, the category related to reviewing logistics was expanded to include expectations for the following week and grading. A subset of 33% of the survey data was coded by Researcher B to ensure the categories were clear and consistent. Using the TA training coding scheme, inter-rater reliability for Researcher A and B was 75%. Discrepancies between the subset of data coded by both researchers were resolved through discussion.Researcher A then analyzed the coded data based upon TA experiences and time. TAs' teaching experiences were used to organize their perceptions of the training to elucidate any emerging themes based on experience. For example, when examining perceptions from TAs with no TA experience, the code for logistics was frequently associated with these participants. The same analysis was performed with whether the TA was an undergraduate or graduate student to identify any components of training that were most or least helpful for this subgroups of participants. The coded data were also organized by time to understand how TAs' perceptions changed across the semester and year.
Finally, TA perceptions of different training components were analyzed based on characteristics of situated learning, including: community of practice, authentic experience, and cognitive apprenticeship. Researchers A and B used Table 1 to begin a discussion on how the training components aligned with the three characteristics of situated learning. They also discussed additional training components that arose from the data set (e.g., completing experiments) and came to a consensus about how these components of the training also aligned with the three characteristics of situated learning. For example, the two researchers discussed how participants discussed the training component of completing experiments emphasized the authentic experience and cognitive apprenticeship characteristics of situated learning. After coming to consensus, the data set was again read holistically by Researcher A to identify where TAs discussed the training as it related to situated learning theory. For example, when TAs indicated they appreciated discussions with other TAs, this was coded into the community of practice category. As another example, when TAs stated they would have liked more opportunities to practice facilitation, this was coded in the cognitive apprenticeship category. Researcher A and B discussed the data categorized under each situated learning theory characteristics and confirmed the data were accurately represented within these categories.
Researcher as instrument
The three researchers in this study all have chemistry teaching and science education research experience. Researcher A implemented the training and worked closely with the participants during the semester. The purpose of this relationship was two-fold: (1) to provide participants with the best support in implementing the project-based guided inquiry laboratory curriculum, and (2) to gain insight into participants' experience during the training to ensure the meaning-making reported in this study reflected participants relative views. However, this approach had the potential to introduce bias into the study as the participants may have behaved in ways they thought Researcher A wanted, and Researcher A may have interpreted data in ways that aligned with her expectations. Researchers B and C had no involvement with the training and played an important role in reducing potential bias. Participants were interviewed by these two impartial researchers to ensure the responses were representative of the TAs' actual experience, which may have reduced the tendency of participants to limit their responses to positive answers. Thus, any absence of discussion about particular training components from participants were likely due to impartiality of their perceptions rather than a negative perception they did not want to state. Analysis of data was completed by Researchers A and B to improve the reliability of the conclusions drawn from the data. Finally, Researcher A also personally reflected on and discussed with Researchers B and C her role as implementer and researcher, which facilitated awareness of potential bias by Researcher A.Results
The purpose of this study was to assess TA training informed by situated learning theory from the TA perspective for UTA and GTA participants implementing a guided inquiry approach in a large-enrollment undergraduate general chemistry laboratory course. We first describe how participants perceived different components of the training as supporting their implementation of guided inquiry. Then we organize the components of training based on TAs' teaching experience, the type of TA (i.e. UTA and GTA), and perceptions across time to explain how the training was perceived in different ways. These results are then interpreted through a situated learning theory lens to provide additional insight on the TA training.TA training support
Survey responses indicated the 28 participants perceived specific components of the training, including completing experiments (43%), reviewing logistics (39%), and supporting documents (32%), aided their teaching (Table 4). TAs indicated on surveys that the least helpful component of the training was content-based discussions (39%). Follow up interviews with the purposefully selected subset of participants supported these survey responses and also revealed other components not mentioned in surveys were also perceived as beneficial to TAs. For example, of the 7 interviewed participants, all (100%) indicated modeling was helpful to them. Further, 3 of the 7 interviewed participants (43%) indicated the learning theory component of the training was unhelpful to them and none (0%) indicated the learning theory component was helpful to them. Trends existed between participants' experiences, goals, and perceptions of the TA training that may help explain which components of the training were most effective for certain participants. Each component of the TA training will be discussed separately and trends based upon subgroups of participants are described.| Reviewing logistics | Completing experiments | Content-based discussions | Supporting documents | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Helpful n (%) | Unhelpful n (%) | Helpful n (%) | Unhelpful n (%) | Helpful n (%) | Unhelpful n (%) | Helpful n (%) | Unhelpful n (%) | |
| Note: all survey questions were open-ended; TAs chose the characteristics they found to be most important to discuss. Therefore the number of participants indicating components were helpful or unhelpful does not necessarily equal the total number of participants. | ||||||||
| All TAs (n = 28) | 11 (39.2) | 0 (0.0) | 12 (42.9) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (14.3) | 11 (39.3) | 9 (32.1) | 2 (7.1) |
| GTAs (n = 20) | 7 (35.0) | 0 (0.0) | 8 (40.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (5.0) | 9 (45.0) | 7 (35.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| UTAs (n = 8) | 4 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (50.0) | (0.0) | 3 (37.5) | 2 (25.0) | 2 (25.0) | 2 (25.0) |
Participants' teaching experience appeared to relate to how they appreciated completing the experiments. Two of the 3 participants who had been co-instructors for other courses and 9 of the 16 TAs who had no TA experience (e.g., no experience or only tutoring experience) indicated either on surveys or interviews they appreciated completing the experiments, while only one of the eight participants with previous TA experience found completing the experiments helpful. Those participants with co-instructor experience may have perceived completing the experiments as helpful due to more experience with a variety of different instructional contexts. Interviews with Helen and Seth, GTAs who had previously taught in the traditional general chemistry laboratory and had both had been co-instructors for other courses, provided insight into the possible relationship between participants' experience and perception of completing experiments. When asked about her prior teaching experience, Helen discussed her role in a traditional laboratory context, “I didn't feel like I got to teach in that class. It was just very prescribed, and there was no real learning emphasis. It was just having them filling out the worksheets” (interview 1). Helen went on to discuss how she interpreted students' perception of the guided-inquiry curriculum:
I think that inherently the students get frustrated with the new approach because it is a lot more work on them. I think inherently you feel like there is not a lot of structure so I think it is hard for them to feel like you know what you are supposed to do with that new structure. I think that is what is really frustrating but it gets you thinking a lot more about things, really figuring things out, and being a scientist (interview 1).
Helen's previous experience teaching in a traditional general chemistry laboratory allowed her to understand the differences in what and how students approach the course and the challenges students face in an inquiry-based laboratory context.
When asked about the most helpful components of the TA training, Helen replied, “Yeah, I think really putting me in the position of the students' shoes, kind of seeing firsthand where I had questions, they're obviously going to have questions” (interview 1). Helen realized it was important to know where students were coming from specific to the inquiry labs and experiencing the experiments as if she were a student allowed her to understand where students might struggle. This understanding of the TA's role in the guided inquiry laboratory and the importance of experiencing the inquiry-based projects was only described by the participants with the most extensive teaching experience. Thus, the authentic experience of completing the experiments as students was perceived by the more expert TAs as an important component of TA training.
Participants with little (e.g. tutoring) or no previous teaching experience held similar sentiments regarding completing the experiments during TA training. In addition to identifying potential problems students might run in to, Christine also indicated an additional reason why she felt completing the experiments were helpful:
Doing the labs I think was really valuable too. Sometimes in the lab I was like, “I did this while you were still at home.” And they were like, “Oh okay,” so then they like, took me more seriously which was nice (interview 2).
In both of her interviews, Christine discussed her lack of confidence in teaching the laboratory course due to being a UTA and lacking teaching experience and that completing the experiments boosted her confidence. Thus, for Christine and others with little experience teaching, completing experiments as students were an important component of TA training because it improved their teaching confidence.
The logistics component of the TA training appeared to be most helpful for participants with no previous teaching experience. Ten of the 11 participants with no prior teaching/some tutoring experience indicated on surveys or interviews the logistics were the most helpful component of the TA training. In her end-of-semester interview, Sharon, a GTA with no previous teaching/tutoring experience stated, “I had no previous teaching experience, and no experience with TAs from my undergrad institution, so I did not know what to expect coming into the course” (interview 2). Sharon attended a small undergraduate university where she interacted directly with the faculty member in charge of the laboratory, so she did not understand what role the TA had in the laboratory setting. When asked how the TA training prepared her for being a TA, Sharon responded, “I think it set the expectations for how we were supposed to handle our classes, which I thought was very good” (interview 2). Thus, for Sharon, going through logistics and more specifically the expectations for TAs was helpful because she had no previous experience from which to draw on.
Of the seven GTA participants who were international TAs, five indicated they appreciated the supporting documents. Steven, an international GTA explained why this was important in an interview, “Especially at the beginning I cannot understand English very well, but if I have a reading material I can read it and understand them” (interview 2). The international GTA participants also appreciated emails, PowerPoints, and any other written communication to help them understand the course and TA expectations. The need for supporting documents appeared to be most important to international students, who all happened to be GTA rather than UTA participants.
I think the idea [of content-based discussions] is fantastic, I think how it has been implemented has not been as fantastic. It's been kind of a bullet point lecture of content we kind of know….There was just minimal discussion with the TAs” (interview 2).
She appreciated the idea of doing them, but the TAs who led the discussions utilized a lecture-based format rather than a discussion format. Thus, these discussions were not perceived by Helen as helpful in supporting TAs in the laboratory setting.
When asked why the content-based discussions were not helpful, Seth, a GTA, stated “It kind of became a little too reiterative for graduate students in the fourth year undergraduate students to be going over those concepts over and over again” (interview 2). He perceived his and other TA's content knowledge as substantial enough to not to need continual refreshing over the course of the semester.
Jessica, a GTA, provided a different explanation for why the content-based discussions were unhelpful. In her end-of-semester interview, she stated:
I've always had a hard time with learning from my peers and I feel like I don't get across to my peers, either. And I don't – even when you give group presentations in class or any class that you do, I never feel like I learn anything from my peers. And likewise, I think I'm terrible at getting across to them. I don't know why that is, but I always feel like that (interview 2).
Contrary to Seth's perceived content knowledge confidence, Jessica did not express her confidence in her own content knowledge but a lack of confidence in presenting to other students and her ability to get across her message during that presentation. Differences in why Seth and Jessica perceived the content-based discussions as unhelpful may be related to their confidence in teaching.
Both of the interviewed participants who perceived the content-based discussions as helpful were UTAs, and they had similar perceptions of this component of the training. For example, Christine stated, “It definitely was really good to help review the material because I think it just made me more comfortable in terms of my own class” (interview 1). Andrew explained how the content-based discussions helped him refresh his content knowledge:
I was a little rusty on a lot of the topics so that was really useful and since we were in groups and asking each other questions and someone didn't understand something, everyone was really open and asking questions and I feel like the TAs would kind of ask the hardest – usually the students won't be asking harder questions than the TAs so I kind of made sure everyone knew what was going on for the lab (interview 2).
Andrew appreciated the opportunity to interact with other TAs who asked challenging conceptual questions because that helped him feel more comfortable with the questions students might ask about the content during lab. GTA participants did not hold the same perception of rusty content knowledge. Thus, the content-based discussions may have been helpful to UTA participants in two ways: (1) it helped UTA participants re-learn content from previous courses that was relevant to the laboratory, and (2) it improved UTA participants' confidence in interacting with students about the content.
[Implementer] will mimic being one of us and she'll go around and interact with us like we should be doing with our students. That's always really helpful to kind of get a feel for how we should be interacting with them and what kinds of questions we can pose to them when they ask us. You know, instead of directly telling them the answer, which is so tempting often times, to sort of learn how to guide them to it, rather than just explicitly telling them how to do something. I felt like that really helped prepare us (interview 1).
Jessica perceived modeling helped her envision how to use questions to facilitate student discussions. She clearly understood how easily she could take a different approach when interacting with students, but because facilitative questioning was modeled for her she knew what it should look like for an inquiry-based laboratory setting.
Sharon, a GTA with no prior teaching experience, expressed a similar view on the importance of modeling in the TA training. When asked what had been the most helpful component of the TA training, Sharon stated, “I wasn't used to that teaching style it was good to have that modeled for me” (interview 2). Similar to Jessica, Sharon appreciated seeing what a facilitator-type interaction would look like; however, Sharon realized her lack of experience with inquiry as either a student or teacher limited her ability to understand what that interaction should look like. While modeling was only discussed by participants during interviews, it appeared to be beneficial for these participants despite their previous teaching experience.
I felt like we spent maybe too much time going through the educational theory behind guided inquiry. I understand why it's important to know that. But I'm not interested in going into academia. So I didn't feel like it was maybe pertinent to my course or career trajectory (interview 1).
Her career interests did not align with her role as a TA, so while she understood the value of the theory she did not find it relevant or applicable for her.
However, each participant who found the discussion of learning theory as unhelpful provided feedback on how to improve this component of TA training. For example, Helen noted that since participants did not have an option in what they were implementing, whether guided inquiry is an effective teaching method was not important to discuss. She suggested:
Instead of looking through a lens of guided inquiry as a theory and as a knowledge base, [look at] how it's relevant to our students… We're going to be doing [inquiry] whether my ideology on education and teaching strategy is different from yours. In reality we're applying guided inquiry. So through a more focused situational lens and less abstract. But the format in terms of groups and then bringing it together as a whole, I think that was effective (interview 2).
Helen suggested the learning theory component of TA training could be improved by “Making it more relevant to our institution and our curriculum, as opposed to this abstract guided inquiry theory and that kind of thing, and just like, we're scientists, you know?” (interview 1). When examining these three participants' teaching experience, two of the three participants had co-instructor experience (i.e., Seth and Helen), and one had GTA teaching experience (i.e., Jessica). Thus, a more extensive teaching experience may have helped them think more critically and constructively about the TA training. The learning theory component was identified as abstract and unhelpful by interviewed participants with non-teaching career interests and more teaching experience.
In summary, participants most frequently mentioned performing the experiments, discussing logistics, and receiving supplemental documents to be helpful in supporting their instruction in the inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory course. Interviews of a subset of participants also revealed modeling what interactions should look like in the laboratory may have also been useful to TAs. In addition, sub-groups of TAs perceived training components differently (Table 5). For example, participants with no previous TA experience found logistics and completing experiments helpful compared to participants with more experience. Discussing logistics and completing experiments helped those participants with no previous TA experience better understand how to work with students in an inquiry-based laboratory context and also improved their perceived confidence in being a teacher. Participants with the most teaching experience also valued completing experiments, which appeared to relate to their experiences teaching in different learning contexts. Completing experiments for this subgroup was valuable because they understood the importance of knowing where students might struggle during an experiment. Supporting documents appeared most useful for international TAs who were better able to understand the course and expectations in writing rather than orally. Interview data revealed modeling was beneficial for those participants with varied previous teaching experiences as it helped these participants understand what a facilitative TA–student interaction should look like in an inquiry-based laboratory context. Participants had mixed views on the helpfulness of the content-based discussions; participants who perceived their chemistry content as rusty (typically UTAs) found these discussions helpful, while GTAs more frequently found the content-based discussions unhelpful due to the TA-led nature of these discussions. The most abstract component of the TA training, learning theory, was perceived as unhelpful by interviewed participants and was mentioned by GTAs whose career trajectories were non-teaching focused.
| Training component | Sub-groups of TAsa | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UTA | GTA | No teaching | Co-instructor | Intl TA | High content | Rusty content | Research careers | |
| Note: 1 = more than 50% of subgroup found the component helpful. 0 = subgroup generally found the component unhelpful. Blank = subgroup generally did not mention this component as helpful or unhelpful in interviews or surveys.a Participants may be in multiple sub-groups. | ||||||||
| Experiment | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Logistics | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Documents | 0 | 1 | ||||||
| Content discussions | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||||
| Modeling | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| Learning theory | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||
Situated learning and TA training
Examining participants' perceptions using a situated learning lens, specifically perceptions related to authentic learning opportunities, cognitive apprenticeship, and community of practice, provided additional insight into how the training supported participants' implementation of the guided inquiry general chemistry laboratory curriculum.Further examination of participant responses regarding completing experiments suggested the authenticity of these experiences during training were limited due to the chemistry experience, rather than the teaching experience, of the participants. For example, Andrew acknowledged the limited ability for TAs to truly act as students. When asked about the most helpful training components he responded, “I mean obviously it's going to be a little bit different when TAs do it versus students but kind of the structure of how things will go and I thought that was definitely good to do” (interview 1). Participants completing the experiments themselves during training may not have adequately prepared participants for how students may approach an experiment. Thus, most participants' prior knowledge and background experience precluded their ability to truly act as a first year undergraduate student taking their first general chemistry laboratory in college.
Five participants valued the opportunity to practice grading to help prepare them teach. Four of the five participants who discussed grading as a component of the training did so on the fall survey. For example, Sharon indicated she appreciated “Working on grading as a group” (survey 1), and Jessica stated “It was nice to be able to review important concepts of grading during the meetings” (survey 1). Participants practiced grading student work during the week-long training and discussions of grading occurred periodically during the weekly meetings, so the frequency of responses during the fall semester are to be expected.
All seven interviewed participants stated modeling of appropriate TA-student interactions while they were completing the experiments as students was helpful in supporting their practice. For example, when asked about the most helpful component of the TA training, Helen stated,
I would say that the most effective part of TA training was doing the experiments, playing the student, having [instructor] play the TA, and just seeing what the interaction should look like. I thought that the best teaching was just by doing it by example and playing those roles. I really felt like that was the most effective (interview 1).
Taking on different roles to model teaching as a TA was perceived by most participants as effective as it helped them understand what was required to become a more expert teacher within the inquiry-based laboratory context. Given that TAs spent the majority of their time completing experiments as students, the focus the modeling component of cognitive apprenticeship was expected.
Examining the less frequent participant responses related to the coaching and fading components of cognitive apprenticeship revealed two interviewed participants would have appreciated more opportunities to practice facilitation. This was illustrated in Christine's interview:
Honestly we could probably even practice [how to interact with students] more during the week. I feel like I still could have needed practice because I'm still getting used to doing that. There are a couple of times where I was totally stuck [in lab] and I sit there trying to think of the best way to frame the question without giving the answer away so that they come up with it (interview 1).
Christine understood the importance of practicing in addition to modeling as facilitating her ability to use guiding questions in the inquiry-based laboratory. Seth similarly felt there could have been more opportunities to practice how to interact with students. When asked about the training, Seth reviewed what he experienced related to practicing facilitation, “At one point we did a brief talk about what [inquiry] is and then it's sort of like almost a practice discussion about [inquiry]” (interview 1). When asked what could be improved about the training, Seth stated, “I would have liked to see more on full how to properly facilitate inquiry” (interview 1). Seth acknowledged the time spent practicing facilitation but would have appreciated more time learning about facilitation.
Examining Christine and Seth's previous teaching experience revealed Christine had no previous teaching experience while Seth had been previously been a UTA in an inquiry-based chemistry lecture course, making them novice and more expert teachers, respectively. Despite varied teaching experience, these two participants indicated they would appreciate more opportunities for the coaching component of cognitive apprenticeship which would promote transformation to more expert teacher.
For the content-based discussions, TAs were expected to lead a discussion focused on the content relevant to one of the projects where they practiced facilitation and guiding. However, TAs resorted to lecture during the majority of these content-based discussions, and most participants perceived the implementation of the content-based discussions as unhelpful in preparing them to TA. Helen suggested integrating scenarios into the content-based discussions as a way to increase the practicality of this training component and reduce the lecture-based format utilized by TAs. In her interview, she suggested TAs come up with scenarios that might arise during the laboratory and focus on how to deal with these situations. She provided an example of the types of questions she envisioned:
Say you have three different things: the group that's already finished and just twiddling their thumbs, how do you encourage them to dive deeper? You have a group that's really stuck on this, they can't get their iron to stabilize. How do you help them? And then a group that has no idea what they're supposed to be doing. Because there is a spectrum of the students you'll be about to help and you're already kind of practiced and know what to say to them so you don't have to think on your feet as much (interview 2).
She firmly believed the TAs needed to see a clear relationship between the training and teaching in the laboratory and perceived this type of discussion would support TAs having an understanding of how they might approach different laboratory situations. While the development of the content discussions aligned with situated learning, the actual implementation of the content-based discussions was not perceived as situated in the context of the lab and did not provide opportunities for participants to practice facilitative interactions.
Conversely, 12 participants suggested less time be spent in TA training and the weekly meetings. Nine of the 11 participants who had never had any TA teaching experienced expressed this sentiment. When asked about the TA training Sharon, a GTA who had never taught, felt that the training was too long and suggested, “Some of the preparation to do on our own as we're moving in to college. Like how the course would be organized, the goals for the course, something like that” (interview 2). Similarly, a UTA who also had no teaching experience stated “I think we could have gotten most of the training without the pre-semester meeting” (survey 1). Andrew, a UTA with tutoring experience, also expressed his views on spending meeting time on discussions, “I thought maybe a little bit too much just kind of group discussion with maybe it may be good to add a little bit more just here's what going to happen, here's what you have to do” (interview 1). Andrew would have appreciated more direct instruction on the course expectations and did not perceive discussing expectations with other TAs as a helpful component of TA training.
The intention of going through the course expectations and goals in groups rather than independently or through lecture-type instruction was to facilitate legitimate peripheral participation of novice TAs in the community of practice. However, participants did not perceive this component of the training beneficial in learning how to teach. These data suggested that most participants with no experience did not value or understand the importance of the time spent in training talking with their peers to engage in a community of practice. This may be because they did not see the direct connection between participating in a community of practice and TAing in the laboratory.
Participants' perceptions of the larger culture from interview data indicated two factors impacted TAs participation in the community of practice; TAs lacked power associated with teaching, and teaching was not emphasized within the larger culture of research. These sentiments were only stated by the GTA interview participants. All four of the interviewed GTAs perceived the course expectations presented in the training limited their power to teach in the manner that they desired. This was not evident in any of the UTA interviews. For example, Martha, a GTA, indicated:
I don't have as much freedom, I think, to be able to guide them the way that I think I need to because there are so many students and we have to stay consistent with all the TAs, so I think that role is kind of limited (interview 1).
The training, to Martha, emphasized consistency over facilitation which she felt limited her ability to teach. Martha went on to state she wanted to teach students particular concepts, and she didn't feel like she was allowed to teach students concepts that other TAs were not teaching. Steven, an international TA, also held similar perceptions and indicated he was unclear on “what he could and could not tell the students.” Since the goal of guided inquiry is for students to learn concepts through the analysis of data, it appeared Martha and Steven's views on teaching may not have aligned with the guided inquiry approach. This suggested that participants who perceived a lack of power did not feel like a teacher or a true participant in the community of practice.
The larger context of a TAs role and responsibility as a graduate student was voiced by one of the participants. In response to her thoughts on the TA training, Helen, a third-year graduate student, stated “I totally get why this needs to be done, this exercise but, I don't know if it is because I am a third year grad student and I just want to be doing research, but I feel like it is excessive kind of thing” (interview 1). Helen desired to be doing research over teaching, and she felt the time spent in training was preventing her from doing the research. This may suggest that as graduate students advance in their degree, the larger culture of research may de-emphasize the culture of teaching, precluding graduate students, such as Helen, from understanding the importance of teaching.
In summary, analyzing participants' experiences and perceptions through a situated learning theory lens suggested TAs with little prior teaching experience appreciated the authentic experiences (e.g., experiments and grading) provided by the training, and the authentic components of training were most helpful during the fall semester. Interview data suggested participants may have been limited in their ability to authentically take on the role of a student during experimentation due to prior chemistry experience, not prior teaching experience. Modeling was appreciated by both novice and expert TAs, but more opportunities to engage in the coaching component of cognitive apprenticeship were desired. Components of the training that were developed to align with the characteristics of situated learning theory (e.g., content-based discussions as a venue for cognitive apprenticeship) may not have played out in practice. Finally, participation in a community of practice focused on teaching may be precluded by beliefs about teaching, experience with teaching, and the larger culture of research.
Discussion & conclusion
This study examined TA perceptions of a TA training designed to support their instruction in a guided inquiry general chemistry laboratory setting. The nature of this qualitative study limits its ability to transfer or generalize our results to other TA training programs; however, many informative points can be drawn from these results.TA experience, confidence, and beliefs
A plethora of studies examine the role prior experiences play in shaping TAs' self-efficacy, beliefs, and practice (e.g.Prieto and Altmaier, 1994; French and Russell, 2002; DeChenne, et al., 2012); however, no study to our knowledge examines the relationship between TAs' prior knowledge and their perceptions of TA training. Our results suggest both prior experiences with teaching, content, and English language may play a role in how TAs perceived training. A TAs status as a UTA or GTA was less important than these prior experience factors in their perceptions of training. Further, TAs perceptions of a training component being helpful appeared to improve some TAs self-reported confidence in teaching. For example, modeling helped Sharon feel more confident in knowing how to interact with students and completing experiments helped Catherine feel more confident teaching as a novice teacher. This is promising as confidence has been shown to impact TA practice (Bond-Robinson and Bernard Rodriques, 2006).Differences in TAs' experiences made some components more helpful to some groups of TAs and less helpful for other groups. For example, supporting documents were most helpful to international TAs, such as Steven, but less helpful for native English speakers, such as Andrew. Content-based discussions helped TAs with rusty content knowledge, such as Andrew, but were unhelpful for TAs with self-reported high content knowledge, such as Seth. TAs with less prior teaching experience found the most authentic experiences helpful (e.g., grading, modeling, completing experiments), while the components focused more generally on teaching (e.g., engaging in discussions with other TAs) were perceived as helpful by TAs with more teaching experience. Identifying TAs experiences with content, language, and teaching and addressing these in training may help more TAs perceive more components as helpful.
Based on the data from our study and the previous work in this area, we suggest that training be differentiated to address TAs' prior experiences. Differentiation is an approach to teaching that addresses learners' experiences that has been used extensively in K-12 instruction (e.g., Tomlinson, 2003). The use of differentiation as an approach to professional development for school leadership has been suggested to facilitate changes in teachers' perceptions and practice (Whitworth, 2014). Finding ways to differentiate for teaching experience, content knowledge, and English proficiency in TA training may help TAs of varied experiences transform to more expert teachers. For example, one way to differentiate for TA content knowledge within a situated learning framework may be to assess for and heterogeneously group TAs during content-based discussions so that content ‘novices’ can learn from content ‘experts’.
Situated in theory and practice
This study utilized situated learning theory as a framework for developing assessing TA training within an inquiry-based laboratory context and provides new information for the TA literature base.Many studies assessing TA training utilize different theories to frame the research (e.g.Hammrich, 2001; Sandi-Urena et al., 2011). To our knowledge only two studies integrate a situated learning theory framework for understanding how TAs learn how to teach. These studies employed a traditional laboratory context (Bond-Robinson and Bernard Rodriques, 2006) and a lecture context (Dotger, 2011), respectively. The authors suggested coaching (Bond-Robinson and Bernard Rodriques, 2006) and building a community of practice (Dotger, 2011) were effective in changing TAs beliefs and practice. While different contexts can be challenging to compare, our study suggests further emphasis be placed on the cognitive apprenticeship model, specifically coaching, if TAs are going to be successful facilitators of inquiry.
We also found some differences in what TAs perceived as helpful over time. The more authentic components of TA training (e.g., completing experiments and grading) and the components that allowed international TAs to better understand their role (e.g., supporting documents) were initially the most helpful components. Changes in TA perceptions across time may be evidence of the transformation process from novice to more expert teacher.
In the present investigation, it appeared that the TAs fell along a continuum of participation in the community of practice. TAs with some teaching experience were more willing to participate in the community of practice than TAs with no teaching experience. Further, TAs' beliefs about teaching and the larger culture of research appeared to mitigate some TAs full participation in the community of practice as intended through the TA training. Thus, engaging TAs in the teaching community of practice may not be effective unless it is explicitly linked to their TA position and unless TAs buy into that community. One way to facilitate buy-in for TAs into the community of practice may be to engage expert faculty instructors involved in other courses in the training. These faculty may be able to encourage TAs to participate in the community of practice and help TAs understand the importance of the idea of a community of practice as promoting development in any profession, teaching or otherwise.
Our involvement in the development, implementation, and assessment of the training revealed a disconnect in how the components of situated learning theory were developed and implemented in practice. Components of training that were developed to align with situated learning but were implemented differently than intended were perceived as less helpful in supporting TAs teaching in the inquiry-based laboratory context. For example, learning theory was intended to illustrate the importance of teaching using inquiry-based methods; however, some interviewed TAs found the learning theory unhelpful because they did not see the immediate relevance to their teaching. As another example, the content-based discussions were intended to provide a venue for TAs to practice and receive coaching on how they interacted with other TAs; however, some TAs perceived the content-based discussions as unhelpful because they were conducted in a lecture-style format. What is promising is that TAs provided feedback for improving both the learning theory and content-based discussions, suggesting they value these components of training. We propose content-based discussions be modeled to help TAs better understand how they should be leading these discussions and that learning theory be explicitly linked to teaching through reflection.
An alternate explanation for the misalignment between development and implementation is the misalignment between TAs beliefs about teaching and teaching through inquiry. TA beliefs about teaching and learning were evident in some TAs responses. For example, some TAs in our study held beliefs that appeared to conflict with best practices associated with inquiry-based instruction. Martha and Steven had views of effective laboratory instruction that did not align with the guided inquiry approach. Andrew and other TAs with limited teaching experience did not value or see the importance of opportunities to interact with peers as a way to improve and support their teaching guided inquiry in the laboratory setting. These findings add to the literature that suggests TA prior knowledge and beliefs should be incorporated into TA training within an inquiry-based context (Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2013).
Specifically, incorporating reflection and significance of teaching within a larger research context may promote changes in TAs' beliefs about teaching. TA beliefs about best teaching practices may not align with inquiry-based instruction, and may not be able to be changed through a cognitive apprenticeship model alone. The use of modeling along with reflection has been shown to promote change in inquiry-based beliefs for secondary chemistry teachers (Rushton et al., 2011). Further, the discussion of how teaching can improve TAs' ability to do research, as suggested by French and Russell (2002), may help TAs understand the importance of teaching despite their focus on research. The combination of reflection and explicit discussion of the significance of teaching with cognitive apprenticeship may be a more effective model for supporting TAs in implementing inquiry-based general chemistry laboratories. For example, having participants reflect on the similarities between the learning theory article, their own experience, and its application to professional careers throughout the semester, may better situate this component of training for participants who may not see the its relevance.
One important component of both TA training literature and situated learning theory not explicitly incorporated or addressed in the present study is the idea of teaching culture. Unfortunately teaching is typically not considered important for TAs or science departments (Shannon et al., 1998) and some researchers indicated TAs are a marginalized population of teachers who typically are “overworked, underpaid, and generally underappreciated” (Bomotti, 1994, p. 383). By shifting the culture around TA training to emphasize the importance of TAs in teaching, more effort may be put into supporting TAs in transforming their teaching to more student-centered approaches. This more global change may influence TAs' beliefs and practice about teaching to take on a more student-centered focus. However, this calls for a better understanding of science department culture in order to make systemic changes in the value of TAs on student learning and quality undergraduate science education.
Future directions
This study provided a foundational understanding the TAs' perspective of training for UTAs and GTAs, TAs with little or extensive experience, and TAs with different overall goals within a guided-inquiry context. From this understanding of TA training, we can build on this research in a variety of ways. First, a plethora of research has examined how students learn (e.g.Leonard, 1997; Abraham, 2011); however, no studies seek to understand what and how TAs learn, or more specifically how to understand TAs' learning of how to teach inquiry through a situated learning-informed TA training. Given the findings of the present study that suggests TAs varied experiences are important considerations in creating an effective situated TA training, we can now focus on understanding the TA learning process from the TA training and how that may play out as they engage with students.Second, researchers suggest beliefs about teaching are difficult to change (e.g.Kagan, 1992; Kane et al., 2002) and that a relationship exists between TAs' perceptions and practice (e.g.Addy and Blanchard, 2010). Research on GTAs in inquiry-based laboratory contexts also suggests TAs' self-image may influence practice and practice may influence self-image (Sandi-Urena and Gatlin, 2013). By using a TA perspective to improve TA training in the present study, future research can focus on understanding how a situated TA training can change TAs' beliefs, self-image, and perceptions for both UTAs and GTAs. Understanding the relationship between TA training, perceptions, and practice in an inquiry-based setting would be an important addition to the literature.
Finally, studies continually indicate students learn more science concepts and skills in inquiry-based labs than traditional labs (e.g.Basaǧa et al., 1994; White, 1996; French and Russell, 2002; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005), and some research suggests the interactions students engage in during lab impact their learning (e.g.French and Russell, 2002; Krystyniak and Heikkinen, 2007). Only one study to our knowledge connects the impact of the TA on student learning (Greenbowe and Hand, 2005). In this study the authors assessed the effectiveness of TAs' practice in an open inquiry-based laboratory context and found that students who had highly effective laboratory TAs had significantly higher American Chemical Society California Diagnostic test scores. However, the lack of clarity in the studies' methods (e.g., how were scores calculated and quantified for observations) and the focus on science and engineering majors makes it difficult to make claims about TAs' impact on student learning. More research understanding how TA training can promote TA–student interactions and assessing how TAs impact student learning is essential.
Every context is different, so we do not presume that our model of TA training will work for all TAs implementing inquiry-based general chemistry laboratories. However, we encourage other researchers interested in TA training in inquiry-based settings to use these findings to inform their own training. Further, we have found that interviews and surveys of TAs provide constructive feedback in modifying TA training and suggest the TA's perspective provides a unique understanding of TA training components that are more or less supportive of TAs in their teaching.
The TAs examined in our study are a unique population of teachers; they do not enter the profession by choice, nor do they remain in teaching for more than a few years. Thus, a situated TA training should be situated not just in teaching but in the larger context of the TAs' reality. For TAs whose focus is typically on a research-based career (for the GTAs) or medical school (for the UTAs), a TA training situated in becoming an expert teacher may not be enough to support their role as a TA in an inquiry-based laboratory context. Providing teaching experiences authentic to their career goals and understanding the significance of teaching both in and outside of the classroom may be a more appropriate way to implement situated learning in TA training.
References
- Abraham M. R., (2011), What can be learned from laboratory activities? Revisiting 32 years of research, J. Chem. Educ., 88, 1020–1025.
- Addy T. M. and Blanchard M. R., (2010), The problem with reform from the bottom up: instructional practices and teacher beliefs on graduate teaching assistants following a reform-minded university teacher certificate programme, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 32, 1045–1071.
- Barak M. and Dori Y. J., (2005), Enhancing undergraduate students' chemistry understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment, Sci. Educ., 89, 117–139.
- Basaǧa H., Geban, Ö. and Tekkaya C., (1994), The effect of the inquiry teaching method on biochemistry and science process skill achievements, Biochem. Educ., 22(1), 29–32.
- Bell R. L., Smetana L. and Binns I., (2005), Simplifying inquiry instruction, Sci. Teach., 72, 30–33.
- Birk J. P. and Kurtz M. J., (1996) Using cooperative learning techniques to train new teaching assistants, J. Chem. Educ., 73, 615–616.
- Blumenfeld P. C., Soloway E., Marx R. W., Krajcik J. S., Guzdial M. and Palincsar A., (1991), Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning, Educ. Psychol., 26, 369–398.
- Bomotti S. S., (1994), Teaching assistant attitude toward college teaching, Rev. High. Educ., 17, 371–393.
- Bond-Robinson J. and Bernard Rodriques R. A., (2006), Catalyzing graduate teaching assistants' laboratory teaching through design research, J. Chem. Educ., 83, 313–323.
- Borgon R. A., Verity N. and Teter K., (2013), PILOTing undergraduate students to hands-on teaching and research skills, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 14(1), 35.
- Brickman P., Gormally C., Armstrong N. and Hallar B., (2009), Effects of inquiry-based learning on students' science literacy skills and confidence, Int. J. Scholarship Teach. Learn., 3(2), 1–22.
- Burke K. A., Hand B., Poock J. and Greenbowe T., (2005), Using the Science Writing Heuristic, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 35(1), 36–41.
- Burke K. A., Greenbowe T. and Hand B., (2006), Implementing the science writing heuristic in the chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 83, 1032–1038.
- Calkins S. and Kelley M. R., (2005), Mentoring and the faculty-TA relationship: faculty perceptions and practices, Mentoring and Tutoring, 13, 259–280.
- Chapin H. C., Wiggins B. L. and Martin-Morris L. E., (2014), Undergraduate Science Learners Show Comparable Outcomes Whether Taught by Undergraduate or Graduate Teaching Assistants, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 44(2), 90–99.
- Cho Y., Sohoni S. and French D. P., (2010), Need assessment for graduate teaching assistant training: identifying important but under-prepared roles, a paper presented at the Midwest Section Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education.
- Clark J. D. and McLean K., (1979), Teacher training for teaching assistants, New Dim. Biol. Educ., 41, 144–187.
- Cooper M. M., (1994), Cooperative chemistry laboratories, J. Chem. Educ., 71, 307.
- Cooper M. M., (2010), The case for reform of the undergraduate general chemistry curriculum, J. Chem. Educ., 87, 231–232.
- Cooper M. M. and Kerns T. S., (2006), Changing the laboratory: effects of a laboratory course on students' attitudes and perceptions, J. Chem. Educ., 83, 1356–1361.
- Cooper M. M., Cox C. T., Nammouz M. and Case E., (2008), An assessment of the effect of collaborative groups on students' problem-solving strategies and abilities, J. Chem. Educ., 85, 866–872.
- DeChenne S. E., Enochs L. G. and Needham M., (2012), Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Graduate Teaching Assistants Teaching Self-Efficacy, J. Scholarship Teach. Learn., 12, 102–123.
- Deckert A. A., Nestor L. P. and DiLullo D., (1998), An example of a guided-inquiry, collaborative physical chemistry laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ., 75, 860–863.
- Domin D. S., (1999), A review of laboratory instruction styles, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 543–547.
- Dotger S., (2011), Exploring and developing graduate teaching assistants' pedagogies via lesson study, Teach. High. Educ., 16, 157–169.
- Eastwell P., (2009), Letters: Inquiry Learning: Elements of Confusion and Frustration, Am. Biol. Teach., 71, 263–266.
- Fairweather J., (2008), Linking evidence and promising practices in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate education, Washington, DC: Board of Science Education, National Research Council, The National Academies.
- Ferguson R. L., (2007), Constructivism and social constructivism, in Bodner G. M. and Orgill M. (ed.), Theoretical Frameworks for Research in Chemistry/Science Education, Pearson Prentice Hall.
- French D. and Russell C., (2002), Do graduate teaching assistants benefit from teaching inquiry-based laboratories? Bioscience, 52, 1036–1041.
- Gaddis B. A. and Schoffstall A. M., (2007), Incorporating guided-inquiry earning into the organic chemistry laboratory, J. Chem. Educ., 84, 848–851.
- Gardner G. E. and Jones M. G., (2011), Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate teaching assistant: challenges and implications, Sci. Educ., 20(2), 31–41.
- Germann P. J., Haskins S. and Auls S., (1996), Analysis of nine high school laboratory manuals: promoting science inquiry, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 33, 475–499.
- Greenbowe T. J. and Hand B., (2005), Introduction to the science writing heuristic, Chemists' guide to effective teaching, p. 140.
- Guba E. G. and Lincoln Y. S., (1994), Competing paradigms in qualitative research, Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 163–194.
- Hammrich P. L., (2001), Preparing graduate teaching assistants to assist biology faculty, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 12, 67–82.
- Hampton S. E. and Reiser R. A., (2004), Effects of a theory-based feedback and consultation process on instruction and learning in college classrooms, Res. High. Educ., 45, 497–527.
- Haynes S. N., Richard D. and Kubany E. S., (1995), Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods, Psychol. Assess., 7, 238.
- Herrington D. G. and Nakhleh M. B., (2003), What defined effective chemistry laboratory instruction? Teaching assistant and student perspectives, J. Chem. Educ., 80, 1197–1205.
- Jackman L. E., Mollenberg W. P. and Brabson G. D., (1987), Evaluation of three instructional methods for teaching general chemistry, J. Chem. Educ., 64, 794–796.
- Kagan D. M., (1992), Implication of research on teacher belief, Educ. Psychol., 27, 65–90.
- Kane R., Sandretto S. and Heath C., (2002), Telling half the story: a critical review of research on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics, Rev. Educ. Res., 72, 177–228.
- Kendall K. D. and Schussler E. E., (2013), Evolving impressions: undergraduate perceptions of graduate teaching assistants and faculty members over a semester, CBE Life Sci. Educ., 12, 92–105.
- Kirschner P. A., Sweller J. and Clark R. E., (2006), Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching, Educ. Psychol., 41, 75–86.
- Krystyniak R. A. and Heikkinen H. W., (2007), Analysis of verbal interactions during an extended, open-inquiry general chemistry laboratory investigation, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 44, 1160–1186.
- Lave J. and Wenger E., (1991), Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University press.
- Lawrenz F., Heller P., Keith R., Heller K., (1992), Training the teaching assistant: matching TA strengths and capabilities to meet specific program goals, J. Coll. Sci. Teach., 22(2), 106–109.
- Leonard W. H., (1997), How do college students learn science, Methods of Effective Teaching and Course Management, 5–20.
- Luft J. A., Kurdziel J. P., Roehrig G. H. and Turner J., (2004), Growing a garden without water: graduate teaching assistants in introductory science laboratories at a doctoral/research university, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 41, 211–233.
- Luo J., Grady M. L. and Bellows L. H., (2001), Instructional issues for teaching assistants, Innovative High. Educ., 25, 209–230.
- Maeng J. L., Mulvey B. K., Smetana L. K. and Bell R. L., (2013), Preservice teachers' TPACK: using technology to support inquiry instruction, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 22, 838–857.
- Marbach-Ad G., Schaefer K. L., Kumi B. C., Friedman L. A., Thompson K. V. and Doyle M. P., (2012), Development and evaluation of a prep course for chemistry graduate teaching assistants at a research university, J. Chem. Educ., 89, 865–872.
- McGinnis J. R., (1994), A case study of molding the new generation: factors which impact science education graduate teaching assistants' attitudes and behaviors, J. Grad. Teach. Assist. Dev., 2, 21–29.
- McLellan H. (ed.), (1996), Situated learning perspectives, Educational Technology.
- Miles M. B. and Huberman A. M., (1994), Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook, Sage.
- National Research Council., (2000), Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning, Washington DC: National Academic Press.
- Newman I. and McNeil K. A., (1998), Conducting survey research in the social sciences, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
- Nicklow J. W., Marikunte S. S. and Chevalier L. R., (2007), Balancing pedagogical professional practice skills in the training of graduate teaching assistants, J. Prof. Iss. Eng. Educ. Pract., 133, 89–93.
- Nurrenbern S. C., Mickiewicz J. A. and Francisco J. S., (1999), The impact of continuous instructional development on graduate and undergraduate students, J. Chem. Educ., 76, 114–119.
- Pascarella E. T. and Terenzini P. T., (2005), How college affects students, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Peterson J. J., DeAngelo S., Mack N., Thompson C., Cooper J. and Sesma Jr A., (2013), Communication, Communication, Communication! Growth through Laboratory Instructing, Innovative High. Educ., 1–12.
- Poock J. R., Burke K. A., Greenbowe T. J. and Hand B. M., (2007), Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students' academic performance, J. Chem. Educ., 84, 1371–1379.
- President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010), Prepare and Inspire: K-12 Education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) for America's Future, available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-stem-ed-final.pdf.
- Prieto L. R. and Altmaier E. M., (1994), The relationship of prior training and previous teaching experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants, Res. High. Educ., 35, 481–497.
- Roehrig G. H., Luft J. A., Kurdziel J. P. and Turner J. A., (2003), Graduate teaching assistants and inquiry-based instruction: implications for graduate teaching assistant training, J. Chem. Educ., 80, 1206–1210.
- Romm I., Gordon-Messer S. and Kosinski-Collins M., (2010), Educating young educators: a pedagogical internship for undergraduate teaching assistants, CBE Life Sci. Educ., 9(2), 80–86.
- Rushton G. T., Lotter C. and Singer J., (2011), Chemistry teachers' emerging expertise in inquiry teaching: the effect of a professional development model on beliefs and practice, J. Sci. Teach. Educ., 22, 23–52.
- Sampson V., Grooms J. and Walker J. P., (2011), Argument-Driven Inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: an exploratory study, Sci. Educ., 95, 217–257.
- Sana F., Pachai M. and Kim J. A., (2011), Training undergraduate teaching assistants in a peer mentor course, Transformative Dialogues, 4(3), 1–10.
- Sandi-Urena S. and Gatlin T., (2013), Factors Contributing to the Development of Graduate Teaching Assistant Self-Image, J. Chem. Educ., 90, 1303–1309.
- Sandi-Urena S., Cooper M. M. and Gatlin T. A., (2011), Graduate teaching assistants' epistemological and metacognitive development, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 12, 92–100.
- Schalk K. A., McGinnis J. R., Harring J. R., Hendrickson A. and Smith A. C., (2009), The undergraduate teaching assistant experience offers opportunities similar to the undergraduate research experience, J. Microbiol. Biol. Educ., 10(1), 32.
- Shannon D. M., Twale D. J. and Moore M. S., (1998), TA teaching effectiveness, J. High. Educ., 69, 440–466.
- Sharpe R., (2000), A framework for training teaching assistants, Teach. Dev., 4, 131–142.
- Tien L. T., Roth V. and Kampmeier J. A., (2002), Implementation of a peer-led team learning instructional approach in an undergraduate organic chemistry course, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 39, 606–632.
- Tobin K. G. (ed.), (1993), The practice of constructivism in science education, Psychology Press.
- Tomlinson C. A., (2003), Deciding to teach them all, Educational Leadership, 61(2), 6–11.
- Volkmann M. J. and Zgagacz M., (2004), Learning to teach physics through inquiry: the lived experience of a graduate teaching assistant, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 41, 584–602.
- Walker J. P., Sampson V. and Zimmerman C. O., (2011), Argument-driven inquiry: an introduction to a new instructional model for use in undergraduate chemistry labs, J. Chem. Educ., 88, 1048–1056.
- Weidert J. M., Wendorf A. R., Gurung R. A. and Filz T., (2012), A survey of graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants, Coll. Teach., 60(3), 95–103.
- Wheeler L. B., Bell R. L., Whitworth B. A. and Maeng J. L., (2015), The Science ELF: assessing the enquiry levels framework as a heuristic for professional development, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 37, 55–81.
- White R. T., (1996), The link between the laboratory and learning, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 18, 761–774.
- Whitworth B. A., (2014), Exploring the Critical Role of a District Science Coordinator, Doctoral dissertation, Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
Footnotes |
| † Electronic supplementary information (ESI) available. See DOI: 10.1039/c5rp00104h |
| ‡ An 8th participant was interviewed at the end-of-semester to replace a participant whose illness precluded her from completing interview 2 (see Table 3 for details). |
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2015 |