Salt Lake City, Utah
June 23, 2018
June 23, 2018
July 27, 2018
Diversity and Faculty Development Constituency Committee
This work in progress describes the pilot study for assessing student instructor professional development in the College of Engineering (CoE). Student instructors are essential to the teaching team at many research institutions and their teaching appointments are often the only teaching experiences they have prior to becoming faculty. Historically, there have been calls for improving the professional development of graduate student instructors , especially since they can play an important role in improving student retention and inclusion .
The CoE at a large public research university requires training for all new student instructors. Separate programs for the undergraduate and graduates students have similar training components on topics such as, leading discussion sections, managing laboratory classes, handling office hours, teaching problem solving, grading, and teaching inclusively. Trainees also practice delivering mock lessons in small groups. At the conclusion of the orientation, student instructors provide written feedback about the program quality. While these program evaluations are useful; they offer a limited perspective. We wanted to know more about their experiences teaching in CoE classrooms and labs, their confidence in their teaching abilities, and their perceptions of the effectiveness of their training to meet their needs.
This study is guided by the following research questions: What are the teaching experiences of new engineering student instructors at the graduate and undergraduate levels in the College of Engineering? How do these experiences vary across their roles? To what extent does the new instructor orientation satisfy the different needs of these instructors, especially as it relates to inclusive teaching practices?
This paper focuses primarily on addressing the second question by discussing results from focus groups with student instructors. The focus group discussion included conversations around student instructors’ teaching experiences and inclusive teaching practices.
Our preliminary analysis indicates some differences between the experiences of graduate and undergraduate student instructors and some discrepancies between the key take-aways that student instructors have regarding inclusive teaching. For feedback, we are interested in sharing the trends with our colleagues to help us refine our programming and our assessment approach.
1. Luft, J. A., Kurdziel, J. P., Roehrig, G. H., & Turner, J. (2004). Growing a garden without water: Graduate teaching assistants in introductory science laboratories at a doctoral/research university. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(3), 211–233. 2. O’Neal, C., Wright, M., Cook, C., Perorazio, T., & Purkiss, J. (2007). The impact of teaching assistants on student retention in the sciences: Lessons for TA training. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(5), 24-29. 3. DeChenne, S. E., Koziol, N., Needham, M., & Enochs, L. (2015). Modeling sources of teaching self-efficacy for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14(3), 1-14.
Pinder-Grover, T. A., & Kusano, S. M., & Agresar, G. (2018, June), Work in Progress: Engineering Student Instructors, What Are Their Needs and How Can We Best Prepare Them? Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--31285
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2018 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015