James Eison, University of South Florida; Marsha Vanderford, University of South Florida

Faculty developers can assist supervisors of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) and department chairpersons in examining the quality and comprehensiveness of their GTA training program. Five general guidelines and a series of 30 specific self-assessment questions are described to assist in this process.

Undergraduate students can benefit from the fact that graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) often bring to the classroom a general sense of freshness and enthusiasm for both teaching and their discipline, as well as the ability to relate to students' difficulties in learning course subject matter. Without adequate preparation and training, however, GTAs and the students they teach often experience considerable frustration and disappointment. A GTA training program, led skillfully by faculty in the discipline, demonstrates to GTAs that teaching excellence is important and can be learned; this is especially true when participation in training activities is required and/or when course credit is awarded. The impact of departmentally-based GTA training programs can and should be enhanced by faculty development practitioners.

Academic departments generally are, we believe, in the best position to offer GTA training. As Smock and Menges (1985) have noted, departmental programs of GTA training are "controlled by the discipline; the content and methods are based in the discipline and reflect the discipline's beliefs about learning and teaching" (p. 25). Further, the teaching assistants of today are the potential faculty members of tomorrow (Diamond & Gray, 1987b); thus, training in the art, craft, and science of teaching merits a significant place in students' graduate studies. Unfortunately, relatively few faculty assigned to supervise GTAs have received systematic assistance in establishing GTA training programs. Some, in fact, were never GTAs themselves. Faculty developers can provide significant assistance to faculty supervisors of departmentally-based GTA training programs by offering general guidelines for establishing successful GTA training programs, by conducting appropriate skill-building workshops, and by identifying resources for further study.

To assist faculty developers, GTA supervisors, and department chairpersons in stimulating examination and discussion of departmentally-based GTA training, five general guidelines for self-assessment are described below. Each is followed briefly by a short statement of rationale. In addition, a series of self-assessment questions based upon each guideline is presented. One note of caution-these questions are best used to stimulate candid reflection and open conversation about a broad range of GTA training issues. They should not be used simplistically as a checklist nor should faculty feel compelled to grade existing programs with such familiar symbols as D- to A+.

Further, these guidelines and accompanying self-assessment questions are neither exhaustive in nature nor equally appropriate to every campus or department. They can, however, provide a useful starting point for promoting honest and scholarly reflection on the quality of currently available GTA training offered within one's department.

Guidelines for a Departmental Self-Assessment

Guideline 1: GTAs should be provided with a substantive orientation program designed to facilitate their introduction to both their department and their teaching assignment.

Departments have one opportunity to make a strong and positive first impression on the GTAs; a thoughtfully designed and skillfully implemented orientation program can create this type of first impression. Further, survey data suggest that GTAs prefer "preservice" instruction for several reasons: freedom from personal academic responsibilities allows concentration, TA camaraderie develops, professors and graduate teaching assistants interact without the pressures of undergraduate student responsibilities, practice is possible in empty classrooms, and free time is available to develop teaching materials and collaborate on curriculum and syllabus development (Parrett, 1987, p. 71).

For purposes of self-assessment in this area, a department might want to ask itself the following seven questions:

1. Are GTAs given adequate advance notice and sufficient information about the department's orientation program and their upcoming teaching assignment to arouse interest and motivation rather that create unnecessary stress?
2. Do the planned orientation activities offer GTAs a comprehensive introduction to the people in, and policies of, the department?
3. Do the planned orientation activities provide enough guidance and instruction to raise GTAs' confidence in their ability to be successful as both classroom instructors and students?
4. Do the planned orientation activities include sessions on teaching methods needed in the first weeks of class (e.g., what to do on the first day, creating a supportive classroom environment, and facilitating discussions)?
5. Do the planned orientation activities provide adequate opportunities to address the unique instructional challenges facing international teaching assistants?
6. Do the planned orientation activities enable GTAs to form a strong support network with both their faculty and peers?
7. Do the faculty members and staff who facilitate the orientation activities demonstrate the professional competencies and personal attributes that provide GTAs with a compelling model of dedication to excellence?

Guideline 2: GTAs should be provided with a comprehensive set of written materials that assist them in their initial teaching efforts.

One of the most commonly reported problems that GTAs experience involves not having enough time to meet both their teaching and academic responsibilities; instructional materials should be developed, therefore, to help maximize GTAs' efficiency in meeting their instructional responsibilities. For example, on student evaluations undergraduates often report that a course and/or instructor lacked structure and organization. Most new GTAs, however, are doubly disadvantaged in this regard because they lack personal familiarity with the course, and they generally have been given very limited advance notice to prepare for their first teaching assignment. Departmentally provided written materials are probably the best method to help GTAs be better prepared and feel more self-confident as they enter their classrooms on the first day of classes.

For purposes of self-assessment in this area, a department might want to ask itself the following three questions:

1. Are materials given to GTAs describing department policies and procedures written in a thorough, thoughtful, and well-organized manner?
2. Are GTAs given sufficient written materials to prepare them for the course they have been assigned to teach (e.g., an exemplary syllabus to follow, samples of handouts and/or visual aids to enhance class presentations, several well-constructed examinations)?
3. Are GTAs given adequate information about instructional resources available from various campus service units [e.g., Learning Resource Centers, the Faculty and TA Enrichment Program, and the Office of Measurement Services]?

Guideline 3: GTAs should be provided with periodic, discipline-based, instructional skill-building training programs.

Based upon a survey of GTA training offered by 136 speech communication departments, Yoder and Hugenberg (1980) noted that "A fairly common assumption of communications departments-and college teaching in general-is that if the teacher knows the subject matter, then he/she will be able to communicate that material to the students" (p.16). But, as one GTA in architecture noted on a recent national survey (Diamond & Gray, 1987a), "Just because I can draw, doesn't mean I can teach" (p.21). And noted by Kaufman-Everett and Backlund (1980), "A large portion of graduate teaching assistants are expected to learn instructional techniques as they teach... [This] method encourages the floundering of many novice instructors" (p. 343).

Just as graduate students are expected to participate in a series of structured experiences to learn the scholarship of a discipline (i.e., through academic course work, internships, individual study projects, etc.), GTAs also should be provided with substantive structured learning experiences that teach them how to teach skillfully (e.g., a credit-bearing course, and a workshop series with required attendance).

A recent survey of nearly 1,400 teaching assistants at eight major research universities (Diamond & Gray, 1987b) noted that GTA responsibilities most commonly included grading (97%), holding office hours (94%), preparing tests (72%), leading class discussions (71%), conducting review sessions (69%), and lecturing (60%). Though training in such areas can contribute significantly to GTAs' skill and proficiency in these fundamental areas of instruction, between 25% and 32% of the survey respondents reported receiving inadequate supervision in these areas. Well-designed and skillfully delivered workshops will arouse GTAs' motivation, stimulate personal reflection, teach important pedagogical skills, model alternative approaches to instruction, and potentially enhance GTAs' self-confidence (e.g., Eison, Bonwell, & Janzow, 1990).

For purposes of self-assessment in this area, a department might want to ask itself the following seven questions:

1. Are GTAs offered a systematic series of workshops that provide a discipline-based context for enhancing their understanding of the teaching/learning process and for further developing their instructional skills?
2. Does the department offer adequate incentives to encourage active and regular participation by GTAs in these programs?
3. To what degree have seminars and workshops addressed GTAs' major instructional issues and concerns and modeled instructional excellence?
4. To what degree have seminars and workshops provided participants with handouts, article reprints, and bibliographic materials to assist their post-workshop learning efforts?
5. Are experienced GTAs actively involved in designing and conducting training activities for their colleagues in the department?
6. Have seminar planners solicited appropriate evaluative feedback from participants to revise and improve subsequent programs?
7. Are more intensive opportunities for individual assistance routinely provided for and used by GTAs with special needs in instances in which workshops and/or other types of group training are not enough (e.g., training to improve one's public speaking skills, and counseling to address personal problems that interfere with skillful teaching)?

Guideline 4: GTAs should be observed in action periodically in the classroom and provided with appropriate feedback.

Chickering and Gamson (1987), along with numerous other experts on higher education, have noted that "Learning is not a spectator sport." After being introduced to current writing and research on the art, craft, and science of skillful university teaching during orientation programs and follow-up workshops, GTAs should have opportunities to practice what they have learned, followed by constructive feedback and/or coaching. Weimer (1990) has echoed the views of many experienced faculty developers when she noted that "Teaching can be improved in two ways: weakness can be eliminated and strengths can be emphasized. Most often the emphasis is on the first way, and certainly that does work. But the value of making strengths still stronger should not be overlooked" (p. 26). Both approaches, however, require that the GTA supervisor be personally familiar with each GTA's individual strengths and limitations in the classroom, and that the GTA view his or her supervisor as a credible (i.e., knowledgeable and trustworthy) source of instructional feedback and guidance.

For purposes of self-assessment in this area, a department might want to ask itself the following seven questions:

1. How often is each GTA's teaching observed by his or her supervisor and is this schedule sufficient to provide the GTA with needed feedback?
2. Are GTA supervisors skilled in using sound classroom observation techniques?
3. How helpful and effective is the supervisor-provided feedback in assisting the GTA's efforts to improve his or her teaching performance?
4. Are more experienced and talented GTAs used by the department as peer observers and mentors to assist less experienced GTAs?
5. Is videotaping and collaborative viewing by the GTA and GTA supervisor used to supplement supervisor feedback following classroom visits?
6. What additional types of formative evaluation data (e.g., mid-semester student feedback) are regularly provided to the GTA and what assistance for improvement based upon this data is provided?
7. How satisfactory are existing departmental procedures or policies describing what supervisors are expected to do if a GTA's teaching performance fails to meet minimum levels of acceptability?

Guideline 5: GTA supervisors should meet regularly to design collaborative strategies which enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of GTA training activities in the department.

In their recent analysis of faculty collaboration, Austin and Baldwin (1991) note that faculty collaboration involves individuals who "work closely together and share mutual responsibility for their joint endeavor" (p. 4). According to Wildavsky (1986) the ultimate rationale for collaboration "is for the participants to make use of each others' talents to do what they either could not have done at all or as well alone" (Cited in Austin and Baldwin, 1991, p.5).

Recent summaries of research findings on cooperative/collaborative learning in college and university classrooms (e.g., Cooper & Mueck, 1989; Cooper, McKinney, & Robinson, 1991; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991) suggest that, in general, cooperative approaches are significantly more effective than individualistic or competitive efforts. One might expect similar outcomes from projects undertaken as cooperative efforts among GTA supervisors.

For purposes of self-assessment in this area, a department might want to consider the following six questions:

1. When discussing the role of GTAs in the department and designing GTA training activities, do GTA supervisors consider such important structural issues as GTA teaching loads and types of teaching assignments?
2. Do GTA supervisors meet to develop strategies to
   1. address current GTA training needs and problems,
   2. formulate long-range training plans,
   3. enhance their own competencies as GTA supervisors,
   4. enhance departmental compliance with standards for GTA training and supervision established by collective bargaining agreements or by various accreditation agencies (e.g., Southern Association of Colleges and Schools)?
3. Do GTA supervisors discuss how published scholarship and research on GTA training can contribute productively to departmental training efforts (e.g., Andrews, 1985; Chism, 1987; Eckstein, Boice, & Chua-Yap, 1991; Nyquist, Abbott, & Wulff, 1989; Nyquist, Abbott, Wulff, & Sprague, 1991), and mentoring in higher education (e.g., Boice, 1990; Fink, 1990; Lavery, Boice, Thompson, & Turner, 1989; Merriam, Thomas, & Zeph, 1987)?
4. Are GTAs given frequent and systematic opportunities to provide GTA supervisors with input regarding the types of training activities they believe are most beneficial?
5. Do GTA supervisors seek the assistance of, or collaboration with, appropriate campus service units when designing or offering training activities [e.g., Learning and Academic Skills Center/University Counseling Service, the Faculty and TA Enrichment Program, and the Office of Measurement Services]?
6. Are GTA supervisors provided with adequate time, resources, and support from the department for this important teaching function?

Conclusion

In light of current demands for increased accountability, academic departments are searching for new ways to assess the effectiveness of their instructional endeavors. The self-assessment guidelines suggested above can provide one means for departments to assess the quality of their GTA training programs. These criteria constitute a comprehensive and grounded instrument for fulfilling assessment purposes. The guidelines identify numerous avenues for improving GTA teaching and indicate additional means for enhancing training programs.

Few needs are greater in higher education than the need to provide skillful professional training to the graduate students today who will become the college and university faculty of tomorrow. Fortunately, attendance at the first three national conferences on GTA training suggest optimistically that institutional attention to this important concern is growing rapidly. As faculty developers help faculty and administrators prepare to face the challenges of a new century, it is the authors' hope that this trend becomes a national norm and that someday soon structured and systematic instructional training becomes available to all GTAs within their own academic departments. This articles' contribution to the community of faculty developers working toward this end is a set of guiding principles and self-assessment questions to stimulate reflection and discussion about GTA training at the department level.

Sources

• Andrews, J.D.W., (Ed.). (1985, June). Strengthening the teaching assistant faculty. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, 22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Austin, A.E., with Baldwin, R.G. (1991). Faculty Collaboration: Enhancing the quality of scholarship and teaching. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
• Boice, R. (1990, Fall). Mentoring new faculty: A program for implementation. Journal of Staff, Program and Organization Development, 8(3), 143-160.
• Chickering, A.W., with Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
• Chism, N. (Ed.). (1987). Institutional responsibilities and responses in the employment and education of teaching assistants: Readings from a national conference. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Center for Teaching Excellence.
• Cooper, J., and Mueck, R. (1984). Student involvement in learning: Cooperative learning in college instruction. Journal of Excellence in College Teaching, 1, 68-76.
• Cooper, J., McKinney, M., and Robinson, P. (1991, Winter). Cooperative/collaborative learning: Part II. Journal of Staff, Program, & Organization Development, 9(4), 239-252.
• Diamond, R.M. and Gray, P.J. (1987a). National study of teaching assistants. Syracuse: Syracuse University, Center for Instructional Development.
• Diamond, R.M., and Gray, P.J. (1987b). A national study of teaching assistants. In N. Chism (Ed.),Institutional responsibilities and responses in the employment and education of teaching assistants: Readings from a national conference (pp. 80-82). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Center for Teaching Excellence.
• Eckstein, R., Boice, R., with Chua-Yap, E. (1991, Fall). Teaching assistant development. Journal of Staff, Program and Organization Development, 9(3), 163-180.
• Eison, J., Janzow, F., and Bonwell, C. (1990, Summer). Active learning in faculty development workshops: Or, practicing what we teach. Journal of Staff, Program and Organization Development, 8(2), 81-99.
• Fink, L.D. (1990, Winter). New faculty members: The professoriate of tomorrow. Journal of Staff, Program and Organization Development, 8(4), 235-245.
• Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.
• Kaufman-Everett, I.N., and Backlund, P.M. (1980). A descriptive study on the efficacy of orientation programs for novice instructors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Ocean City, MD. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 185 621).
• Lavery, P.T., Boice, R., Thompson, R.W., and Turner, J.L. (1989, Spring). Mentoring for new faculty. Journal of Staff, Program and Organization Development, 7(1), 39-46.
• Merriam, S.B., Thomas T.K., and Zeph, C.P. (1987, Winter). Mentoring in higher education: What we know now. The Review of Higher Education, 11(2), 199-210.
• Nyquist, J.D., Abbott, R.D., and Wulff, D.H. (Eds.). (1989, Fall). Teaching assistant training in the 1990s. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, No. 39, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Nyquist, J.D., Abbott, R.D., Wulff, D.H., and Sprague, J. (Eds.). (1991). Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
• Parrett, J.L. (1987). A ten-year review of TA training programs: Trends, patterns, and common practices. In N. Chism (Ed.), Institutional responsibilities and responses in the employment and education of teaching assistants: Readings from a national conference (pp. 67-79). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Center for Teaching Excellence.
• Smock, R. and Menges, R. (1985). Programs for TAs in the context of campus policies and priorities. In J.D.W. Andrews (Ed.), Strengthening the teaching assistant faculty. New Directions in Teaching and Learning, No. 22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Weimer, M. (1990). Improving college teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Yoder, D.D., and Hugenberg, L.W. (1980, November). A survey of inservice teacher training programs for graduate teaching assistants in basic communications courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New York City. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 207 106).