Karron G. Lewis, Ph.D.
Assistant Director
Center for Teaching Effectiveness
The University of Texas at Austin, U.S.A.

"The traditional way a graduate student is prepared for a faculty position is to become steeped in the subject matter of his or her chosen field--the relevant current knowledge, methodologies to generate new knowledge, and research skills. The assumptions underlying this practice are that a) once a person acquires knowledge, she/he can teach it, and b) teaching a subject is unaffected by the type of institution or qualities of the student body."

-- Gaff & Lambert, 1996, p. 41.

Introduction

In many, if not most, of the doctoral degree granting institutions in the U.S.A., the graduate teaching assistantship is an important means for providing financial support to graduate students. In addition, these positions fulfill the very critical role of providing teaching and teaching-related functions for the university. Originally, the teaching assistantship was based on an apprenticeship model. In this model, teaching assistants directly assisted professors in a specific course, primarily by grading and preparing class materials. Seldom, if ever, did these graduate TAs have direct contact with undergraduate students.

The boom period of the 1960's and 1970's, however, brought more students to universities and colleges than could be accommodated using the existing model. To compensate, institutions moved to increase the number of large classes and supplemented them with small discussion or laboratory sections led by teaching assistants. The initial success of this new model led to having TAs perform a variety of instructional tasks including conducting discussions and laboratory sessions, holding office hours, lecturing, and even assuming total responsibility for teaching a course (see Figure 1). (Nyquist, Abbott, Wulff & Sprague, 1991, p. 1) Most TAs are employed 20 hours per week and for most of these graduate students, being a TA is the financial support that enables them to attend graduate school.

Figure 1

In recent years, criticism has surfaced related to the quality of undergraduate education in our colleges and universities. This criticism has been aimed at all levels of teaching in higher education and the public has focused on the lack of training in "how to teach" that is provided to faculty members at this educational level. The protests of the late 1960s and early 1970 exposed the myth that all that was required to teach well was a thorough knowledge of the subject matter. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, colleges and universities began responding to these criticisms and the changes in the student population by establishing faculty and instructional development programs.

Within the public criticism has been concern about the extensive use of TAs to instruct undergraduates in lower-division courses and labs. "TAs are frequently criticized for their lack of communication and pedagogical skills even though in many fields it is assumed that if the person teaching has an undergraduate or graduate concentration in the subject being taught, he or she is qualified to teach" (Lewis, in press, p. 14). We are also beginning to understand that this reliance on inexperienced, and often untrained instructors has detrimental effects on the professoriate itself. Graduate students who have unsuccessful experiences as TAs often do not enter the professoriate, thus contributing to the national shortage of those choosing to become professors. Or, if these graduate students do decide to enter the professoriate, their lack of adequate training during the TA experience "results in the need for very expensive remedial actions later such as reduced loads to improve teaching competence, hours of mentoring by members of their departments, or failure to achieve tenure and thus loss of potential members of the next generation of professors" (Nyquist, Abbott, Wulff & Sprague, 1991, p. 1).

To help quell criticism and to encourage more emphasis on excellence in undergraduate education, institutions have begun to develop training programs for teaching assistants and new faculty. The remainder of this paper will look at the programs that have been developed and the research that indicates these programs are quite effective in many respects.

TA Training Program Content

As early as 1930, discussions of training graduate students to be college teachers began to appear in the literature (Nyquist, Abbott & Wulff, 1989). At a conference on college teachers' preparation programs in 1949, speakers "lamented the fact that little was being done to prepare college teachers for their jobs, and they expressed the overwhelming sentiment that the role of the graduate school was to produce learned scholars, in the hope that they might also become accomplished teachers" (Nyquist, Abbott & Wulff, 1989, p. 8).

In 1972, discussions of training programs for teaching assistants began to appear more regularly (Siebring, 1972; Rose, 1972; Smith, 1972). Much of this early literature focused primarily on descriptions of programs in an effort to help others understand the process and institute similar training on their own campuses. In her review of the literature on TA training programs from 1976-1986, Joan Parrett (1987) found that a majority of the programs were discipline-specific and included pre-service orientations along with semester long courses. The courses ranged from 1 hour/week to 3 hours/week for 14 weeks. In most of the programs attendance was required and TAs were often paid for pre-service orientation time and given credit for the semester-long courses. While a majority of these courses concentrated on the specifics of "how to" teach a specific course, the spectra of topics are quite extensive (see Appendix A).

In the 1990s, TA training programs have expanded and many universities offer year-round support services for teaching assistants, including occasional seminars on teaching, teaching consultation services, newsletters, and awards for outstanding teaching assistants. More and more programs are also including advanced development in the form of 3-hour credit courses that delve into college teaching in many ways, including curriculum development, reflective teaching, theories of learning and motivation, the non-teaching aspects of being a faculty member (e.g., committee work, sponsoring student groups, research, etc.), and internship programs in cooperation with comprehensive, two-year and four-year institutions in the region or vicinity of the research university (Witherspoon & Gilbert, 1996; Johnson, 1996). Teaching certification programs are also being implemented to provide teaching assistants with documentation of their development as college teachers (Border, 1993; Diamond, 1996; Seidel, 1997). (See Figure 2 for The University of Colorado at Boulder Certification Continuum.) Most of these certification programs require TAs to take part in 200-400 hours of courses and workshops or seminars. For example, at the University of New Hampshire, TAs can earn a Master of Science in Teaching with a major in College Teaching by completing a 32 credit hour program (which equals over 400 class hours). Or, if the student prefers, they may acquire a Cognate in College Teaching by completing a 12 credit program (168 hrs.) that includes a general course in college teaching, a discipline-specific course in college teaching and at Teaching Praxis that must be completed twice. (Seidel, 1997)

Certification Continuum
		Seat Time Program		Elite Time Program		Complete Time Program
Participants		All first-year TAs		Selected applicants		Registrants (grad students in good standing must be teaching section of a course.
Requirements		Attendance at orientation		- Individual Program Plan - Mentored Teaching Experience - Activity Contract - Round table discussions (14) Possible activities: -teaching full course -selected projects -internship		- Attendance at 20 workshops on teaching - Attendance at departmental discipline-specific TA training activities (20 hrs) - Consultation on learning and teaching styles - Classroom videotape consultations (2) - Observation by home-department faculty - Compilation of a Teaching Portfolio
Areas Covered		- Course planning - Classroom management - Lecturing - Test construction & grading - Diversity issues - Microteaching		- Developing teaching skills - Student Needs - Teaching as a profession		- General Pedagogy - Measurement & evaluation - Academic ethics & behaviors - Personal & professional development - Gender and multi-cultural issues - Teaching & learning styles - Course development & planning
Evaluation	Evaluation by participants	Evaluation by faculty mentor	Evaluation by home department faculty - Final assessment by GTP Director
Time spent	8 - 16 hrs	30 - 50 hrs	55 - 60 hrs

(Border, 1993, p. 121)

Figure 2

Many of these expanded programs are part of the "Preparing Future Faculty (PFF)" initiative started by the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. PFF takes a broader conception of graduate preparation, saying we should prepare graduate students for a variety of responsibilities, not just research or teaching. The PFF programs espouse that graduate students should be considered "colleagues-in-training." To this end, they advocate the following principles:

1. "The graduate experience should include a) increasingly independent and varied teaching responsibilities, b) opportunities to grow and develop as a scholar, and c) opportunities to serve the department and campus.
2. Apprentice teaching, research, and service experiences should be planned developmentally so that they are appropriate to the student's stage of development and progress toward the degree.
3. PFF programs should build upon and go beyond teaching-assistant orientation and development programs.
4. The graduate program should include a formalized system of mentoring in teaching and other aspects of professional development.
5. Graduate students should learn about the academic profession and have direct and personal experience with the diverse kinds of institutions that may become their professional homes.
6. The graduate experience should prepare future faculty for the classrooms and campuses of tomorrow. (This includes becoming familiar with the role of technology in the delivery of instruction, dealing with the diverse needs of students, and using some of the more active and collaborative methods of teaching and learning.)" (Gaff & Lambert, 1996, p. 42).

We need to recognize that TA training is "the first stage of faculty development" (Lambert & Tice, 1993, p. 131). It is a development continuum that should be sustained throughout a faculty member's professional life.

Research on TA Development/Training

Much of the research in TA development/training has taken place in the last 17 years. As is the case with most new areas of study, the research develops from looking at broad areas (e.g., a comparison of topics covered in training programs) to more rigorous research about the effects of the training on teaching and learning. Unfortunately, we are just moving into this latter emphasis at the present time. Thus, research studies that give us insight into whether or not student learning is influenced by TA development/training are just now being undertaken. Some of the research that has been done in the past 17 years is briefly discussed below.

TA stages of development. Each of us develops in our understanding and competence as we spend time in our work. TAs are no different. Sprague and Nyquist (1991) have identified three phases in the development of the TA role: Senior Learners, Colleagues in Training, and Junior Colleagues. Within those three phases are four Indicators of TA Development: their concerns, their discourse level, their approach to authority and their approach to students. As TAs progress through these developmental phases, the way they respond to the four indicators changes. Although the stages provide a way of thinking about how TAs become scholars, the process is complex and not yet fully understood. Thinking about stages helps us think about TA assignments and how best to move them through their graduate programs. (See Figure 3.)

Program Design Implications of the Three Phases of TA Development
		Senior Learner		Colleague in Training		Junior Colleague
Relative emphasis in supervisor's role		Manager		Educational model		Mentor
Teaching assignment		Assist prof Grade papers Hold office hours		Take larger role in course, some lecturing, etc. Teach own section of a course		Take primary responsibility for course design Assist prof with advanced course
Teacher-training activity		Orientation Briefing		Proseminar designed to build repertoire of teaching skills		Reflective practicum
Relationship with other TAs	As co-learners As support system	As colleagues As resources	As senior TA assisting with orientation of new TAs
Function of evaluation	Assess performance in initial teaching assignments	Provide feedback on instructional skills	Provide feedback on developing a personal teaching style Learn collegial ways of giving and receiving feedback

(Sprague & Nyquist, 1989, p. 47)

Figure 3

Student ratings of teaching by TAs and observation feedback. The importance of feedback for the improvement of TA teaching has been shown in numerous studies (McKeachie et al, 1980; Bingman, 1983; Murray & Smith, 1989, Fowler, 1996). This feedback is shown to be especially helpful if it is incorporated with consultation and follow-up assistance if needed. In all of these studies student evaluations of the TAs' teaching indicated statistically significant improvement after the training.

Teacher confidence. Researchers indicate that TAs are better able to involve students, communicate content, create enthusiasm and prepare exams following training programs (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994, p. 485; Johnson, 1987; Andrews, 1981). In addition, new teachers increase their confidence and self-efficacy if this training is done prior to their first teaching assignment (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994). These findings have implications for the timing of TA Development programs. Orientations that provide key information and skills training prior to teaching should be designed to give the TAs more confidence in their teaching abilities.

Changes in TAs' pedagogical understanding. While the development of teaching skills is a very important part of any TA training program, changing their ways of visualizing the teaching process is also of great importance. Understanding the substance of the content without understanding how to communicate it is an issue that plagues many graduate teaching assistants. Research that identifies ways to challenge TAs to relate pedagogy to the subject matter is being reported in recent literature (Hammrich, 1996; Kline, 1994).

Videotaping in conjunction with general training. Videotaping of actual classroom lectures or mini-lectures given to peers is an integral part of most TA development/training programs. This process allows the TAs to practice some of the teaching techniques they are learning in their training seminar in a non-threatening environment. Studies indicate that such activities definitely improve the quality of subsequent lectures and other teaching techniques (Dalgaard, 1982; Hendricson et al, 1983; Bray & Howard, 1980; Rodriguez, 1985; Garner et al, 1987). In my experience training TAs, they always cite the microteaching experience as the most useful activity of the class.

ITA training. International Teaching Assistants provide wonderful cultural diversity in universities, but this cultural diversity can cause misunderstanding and difficulty in a teaching situation. Numerous studies have been done to try to explain how to relate to other cultures and how to best train ITAs so they can more quickly adapt to the U.S. university system (Smith & Logan, 1995; Smyrniou, 1995; de Berly, 1995; Lewis, 1993). Many states have mandated training programs for ITAs to ensure that classes are "taught in clear English" and the quality of these programs is subsequently judged by the English and teaching proficiencies of the ITAs who participate. (See Figure 4.)

The research and training efforts are now being recognized by funding agencies at the national level. This summer The Pew Charitable Trusts and Stanford University's Center for Teaching and Learning are sponsoring a three-day workshop on "Preparing Graduate Students to Teach". The Pew Charitable Trusts and the Spencer Foundation are leaders in funding TA and Faculty Development projects. For example, they are currently funding a four-year longitudinal study to examine the development of graduate students as prospective teaching scholars. this study is being undertaken by researchers at the University of Washington and San Jose State University. Drawing on nearly 200 interviews of graduate students during the first year of the study, the researchers identifiy themes about what attracted the students to teaching careers in higher education, the students' visions of teaching/learning at entry to the graduate programs, and challenges they faced during their first year as developing teaching scholars.

The Preparing Future Faculty programs at many universities provide opportunities for graduate students to see what being a faculty member might be like at an institution that is different from the university at which they are currently studying. (See Figure 5 for the types of institutions found in North American Higher Education.) For example, the teaching requirements and committee service expectations are usually much different at a smaller four-year liberal arts institution or community college. Though the PFF programs, graduate students are matched with a faculty mentor from the smaller institution. This faculty mentor may take the graduate student along to departmental meetings, allow the graduate student to teach some classes, discuss grading criteria and teaching techniques, and essentially give the graduate student a "feel" for what it might be like to be a faculty member at this smaller place. Often graduate students have no idea that there are other kinds of institutions of higher education that might be more amenable to them and the way they would like to interact with their students.

Figure 4

Continuum of Institution Types
in North American Higher Education

Research I

Research II

Doctoral Granting

Comprehensive (Master's Degrees)

4-year Liberal Arts (BA & BS Degrees)

Community/Junior Colleges (AA Degree & Vocational Certificates)

Figure 5

National TA Conferences

Since 1986, five National Conferences on the Employment and Education of Teaching Assistants have been held in the U.S.A. These conferences have heightened interest in undergraduate education and the people who teach them. The last conference, held in Denver, Colorado, was attended by over 600 faculty members, TAs, ITAs, and faculty/TA development professionals. Over time, the emphasis of the sessions presented at these conferences has changed. Now that there are TA Development programs at most universities, there has been a shift away from administrative issues and toward instructional strategies and skill development (Hayward, 1995; Carlton, Garcia & Gates, 1995; Wollman, 1995; Gray, 1995). There is also an upsurge in interest in training within academic departments (Gappa et al, 1995; Taylor & Eschenbach, 1995; Carlton & Kowalski, 1995) and a continued interest in international TAs (Jenkins, 1995; Smith & Logan, 1995; Smyrniou, 1995; de Berly, 1995).

The 1997 National TA Conference will be held November 6-9 in Minneapolis, Minnesota U.S.A. The theme for this conference is "Changing Graduate Education" and the focus will be on helping graduate students develop the skills and acquire the knowledge they will need to become effective members of the professoriate, should they decide to pursue that career. Some of the sub-themes that will be discussed are given below:

• Instructional development for TAs, international TAs, and future faculty
• Exploration of the faculty role: teaching, research, service
• Preparing future faculty for 21st century learning technology
• Role of graduate education in professional development of graduate students
• Linkage between issues in graduate and undergraduate education
• National future faculty needs: positions, institutions, qualifications
• Change needed or emerging in graduate education

Conclusion

"It is important for the future of higher education to prepare today's graduate students -- the faculty of the future -- to meet the instructional demands of the changing academy. . . . Because the culture of each university and each department is unique, there is no one clear-cut method for preparing professors-to-be. In addition, the stresses and demands of graduate education should be considered when planning teaching enhancement programs" (Wright & Associates, 1995).

As we look toward the future of TA and ITA training programs, we are faced with numerous challenges, some of which will be discussed at the next National TA Conference. We are also being pressured by the students, their parents and the legislative bodies of our states and country to be more accountable for what we do to develop TAs as teachers. This is especially true of our work with ITAs (e.g., many states have mandated training for ITAs to ensure classes are taught in clear, understandable English). With the challenges of globalization, more and more international students are coming to the U.S. to study. We need to prepare these students to teach our undergraduates effectively while they are here, but ultimately, many of them will not go into teaching. How do we motivate them to teach effectively and conscientiously? In addition, the professoriate is in a state of flux -- we are seeing potential loss of tenure, incorporation of technology and distance education, increasing diversity in our student populations, and so forth. This makes it extremely difficult to know exactly what we are preparing our TAs to do.

There are many models of effective TA training programs and those planning to begin a new training program or revamp an existing program should familiarize themselves with the models and results of programs at other universities. It is through scholarly, well-designed and practical policies and activities that graduate programs can meet the challenge of preparing the new generation of teacher-scholars.

References

Andrews, J.D.W. (1981). Teaching format and student style: Their interactive effects on learning. Research in Higher Education, 14 (2), 161-178.

Bingman, R.M. (1983). Use of student evaluations to improve instruction. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Toronto, Ontario, May 1983.

Border, L. (1993). The graduate teacher certification program: Description and assessment after two years. In K.G. Lewis (ed.), The TA Experience: Preparing for Multiple Roles. (pp. 113-121). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.

Bray, J.H. & Howard, G.S. (1980). Methodological considerations in the evaluation of a teacher-training program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (1), 62-70.

Carlton, S. & Kowalski, R. (1995). Revaluing teaching by playing to the disciplinary strengths of English graduate student teaching assistants and the University of Michigan. (pp. 51-54) In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Carlton, S., Garcia, B. & Gates, B. (1995). Free speech/offensive speech: Preparing TAs for conflict in the classroom. (pp. 161-166) In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Carroll, J.G. (1980). Effects of training programs for university teaching assistants. The Journal of Higher Education, 51 (2), 167-183.

Dalgaard, K.A. (1982). Some effects of training on teaching effectiveness of un-trained university teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 13 (4), 321-341.

de Berly, G. (1995). ITA Frustration: Sophisticated first language abilities/second language naiveté (143-146). In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Diamond, N. (1996). Graduate teacher certificate (GTC). Brochure from the Office of Instructional Resources, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.

Fowler, B. (1996). Increasing the teaching skills of teaching assistants through feedback from observation of classroom performance. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 3 (3), 95-103.

Gaff, J.G. & Lambert, L.M. (1996). Socializing future faculty to the values of undergraduate education. Change, 28 (4), 38-45, July/August.

Gappa, L., Gaddis, S., Kalnoski, B., Rogers, E. & Wholey, D. (1995). Teaching associate program: Fusing disciplinary knowledge and University-wide teaching improvement tools. (pp. 43-46) Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Garner, L.C., Geitz, H., Knop, C., Magnan, S.S., & DiDonato, R. (1987). Improved Training of Teaching Assistants Through Interdepartmental Cooperation. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Gray, P. (1995). Face-saving strategies in the classroom. (pp. 175-180) In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Hammrich, P.L. (1996). The impact of teaching assistants' conceptions on college science teaching. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 3 (3), 109-117.

Hayward, P. (1995). You never get a second chance to make a first impression: The importance of the first day of class. (pp. 149-154) In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Hendricson, W.D., Hawkins, D.W., Littlefield, J.H., Kleffner, J.H., Hudepohl, N.C. & Herbert, R. (1983). Effects of providing feedback to lecturers via videotape recordings and observer critiques. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 47 , 239-244.

Jenkins, S. (1995). Strategies for ITA "Language Immersion" programs: Responding to the concerns of the discipline. (pp. 127-131) In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Johnson, G.R. (1987). Changing the behavior of teachers. The Journal of Staff, Program, and Organizational Development, 5 (4), 155-158.

Johnson, G.R. (1996). Mandating that new teaching assistants enroll in a college teaching course. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 3 (2), 77-81.

Kline, B. (1994). Cooperative learning and the role of the TA. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 2 (2), 53-61.

Lambert, L.M. & Tice, S.L. (1993). Preparing Graduate Students to Teach: A guide to programs that improve undergraduate education and develop tomorrow's faculty. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Lewis, K.G. (in press) Improving teaching and learning in post-secondary education (2- and 4-year institutions). In Firth, G. R. and Pajak, E. F. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on School Supervision. Macmillan.

Lewis, K.G. (1993). Section VII: International TA Development (357-419). In Lewis, K.G. (Ed.). The TA Experience: Preparing for Multiple Roles. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.

McKeachie, W.J., Lin, Y-G., Daugherty, M., Moffett, M.M., Neigler, C., Nork, J., Walz, M., and Baldwin, R. (1980). Using student ratings and consultation to improve instruction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 50 (2), 168-174.

Murray, H.G. & Smith, T.A. (1989). Effects of midterm behavioral feedback on end-of-term ratings of instructor effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, March 1989.

Nyquist, J.D., Abbott, R.D., Wulff, D.H., & Sprague, J. (1991). Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow to Teach. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Parrett, J.L. (1987). A ten-year review of TA training programs: Trends, patterns, and common practices. In N. Van Note Chism & S.B. Warner (Eds.), Employment and education of teaching assistants (pp. 67-79). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH: Center for Teaching Excellence.

Prieto, L.R. & Altmaier, E.M. (1994). The relationship of prior training and previous teaching experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 35 (4), 481-497.

Rodriguez, R.N. (1985). Teaching teaching to teaching assistants. College Teaching, 33 (4), 173-176.

Rose, C. (1972). An in-service program for teaching assistants. Improving College and University Teaching, 20 (2), 100-102.

Seidel, L.F. (1997). Future Faculty Programs. A brochure from the Teaching Excellence Program, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire.

Siebring, B.R. (1972). A training program for teaching assistants. Improving College and University Teaching, 20 (4), 98-99.

Smith, A.B. (1972). A model program for training teaching assistants. Improving College and University Teaching, 22 (1), 198-200.

Smith, R.M. & Logan, S.G. (1995). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and ITAs (133-138). In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Smyrniou, G. (1995). Students' perceptions of varying oral English proficiency levels of their ITAs (139-142). In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Sprague, J. & Nyquist, J.D. (1991). A developmental perspective on the TA role. In Nyquist, Abbott, Wulff & Sprague, Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow to Teach., pp. 295-312. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Taylor, M. & Eschenbach, E. (1995). An engineering TA program development program -- Developed and facilitated by graduate students with centralized institutional support. (pp. 47-50) In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Witherspoon, P.D. & Gilbert, J.R. (1996). Preparing the university professoriate for tomorrow: An integrated approach to TA education. The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 3 (2), 69-75.

Wollman, S. (1995). Cognitive learning strategies and the general chemistry teaching assistant. (pp. 167-173) In Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Wright, W.A. & Associates. (1995). Teaching Improvement Practices: Successful Strategies for Higher Education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Additional References

National TA Conference Proceedings

Chism, N. Van Note & Warner, S.B. (Eds.). (1987). Institutional Responsibilities and Responses in the Employment and Education of Teaching Assistants. Columbus, OH: Center for Teaching Excellence, The Ohio State University.

Nyquist, J.D., Abbott, R.D., Wulff, D.H., & Sprague, J. (Eds.). (1991). Preparing the Professoriate of Tomorrow to Teach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Lewis, K.G. (Ed.). (1993). The TA Experience: Preparing for Multiple Roles. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.

Heenan, T.A. & Jerich, K.F. (Eds.). (1995). Teaching Graduate Students to Teach: Engaging the Disciplines. Urbana-Champaign, IL: Office of Conferences and Institutes, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Border, L.B. (Ed.). (in press) The Professional Apprenticeship: TAs in the 21st Century. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.

Journal

Lewis, K.G. (Ed.). The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.

Dr. Karron G. Lewis is Assistant Director and Coordinator of the TA Training Programs at the Center for Teaching Effectiveness at the University of Texas at Austin, U.S.A. In her positions, she consults with University faculty members and TAs on a one-to-one basis to assist them in improving teaching, conducts departmental and university wide workshops on a variety of topics, assists departments in developing unified course syllabi and objectives for multi-session courses, engages in research activities and periodically acts as a consultant and conducts workshops for faculty members and TAs at other institutions. She is the editor of The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development and The TA Experience: Preparing for Multiple Roles and has written numerous book chapters and journal articles on both faculty and TA development.

Her complete vita may be found on the WWW at: http://www.utexas.edu/academic/cte/staff/lewis/lewis.html

Appendix A

Topics Covered in Typical TA Training Programs

Professionalism - Administrative Policies - Careers and Job Hunting - Course Rationale - Dept Philosophy or Goals - Ethics and Professionalism - Research - Role of the Teacher - Textbooks - University/Department Resources

TA Specifics - Departmental Expectations - Discussions with Undergraduates - Duties - Individual Conferences with Department Heads - Interchange with Experienced TAs - Interpersonal Relations - Personality Test - Problems - Survival and Anxiety

Instructional Aids - Departmental Bulletins - McKeachie's Teaching Tips - Research Articles - TA Manuals and Handbooks

Learning and Students - Advising Students - Cognition - Learning Styles - Student Behavior - Student Characteristics

General Education - Audiotutorial - Behavioral Objectives - Computer Assisted Instruction - Discipline-specific Instruction - Discussion - Evaluation - General Teaching Discussion - General Teaching Methods - Grading - Idea and Problem Sharing - Independent Study - Instructional Innovations - Issues in Education - Laboratory Teaching - Lecture - Media and Audiovisuals - Models of Instruction - Motivation - Participation Techniques - Philosophy of Education - Problem Solving - Questioning - References and Resources in Education - Review of Educational Research - Socratic Method - Student Reinforcement - Teaching Research Methods - Testing - Tutoring

Practice Opportunities - Assignments - Audiovisual Materials - Examinations - General - Grading Papers - Lesson Plans - Study Guides - Supplemental Materials - Syllabus - Textbook Selection

-- Parrett, 1987

[Home] [Site Map] [Search] [Subscribe] [About NTLF] [Current Issue] [Previous Issues] [Discussion Forum] [Special Features] [Library] [Sweepstakes]

© Copyright 1996-2003. Published by James Rhem & Associates, LLC. (ISSN 1057-2880)
All rights reserved worldwide.
Web Weaving™ By InfoStreet, Inc.