1. Program Elements: Accomplishments

1.  Program Elements: Accomplishments

Over the course of the last nine months, we succeeded in involving all of our Graduate Teaching Associates in the GTA Enhancement Program. At the same time, we involved the participating faculty, lab instructors, and undergraduate assistants in the process through either participation in the Microteaching sessions or through direct observation in the classroom. Also, while one GTA would be presenting, his/her peer on the instructional team would be evaluating. With twenty-three teaching sessions presented by the GTAs, the total number of different persons evaluating was approximately 90. This broadened the indirect impact of the program beyond our initial intentions and provided the GTAs with additional written feedback that otherwise would not have been provided. Additional observations were made by either the program coordinator or director.

GTA Enhancement Program Participation (number of graduate students)

AU03 / WI04 / SP04
Microteaching / 15 / 5
Teaching, Observation and Feedback / 15 / 8*

* Three students had a microteaching session as part of FABE 810

At our annual program orientation meeting in September, 2003, we introduced the GTA Enhancement Program to the instructional teams of the First-Year Engineering Program (FEP) – approximately 75 people (faculty, GTA, and UTAs). At our weekly training sessions we would provide updates on the program (e.g., current microteaching sessions scheduled) and discuss teaching tips for all to consider. In December, we held a special team meeting at the end of the quarter to review the observation form that we were going to use in the Winter for evaluating the GTA presentations. This effort was well received in that the FEP team has a practice of evaluating students’ oral presentations at the end of the quarter, and this was seen as an extension of that practice.

We did not make any substantial changes to the original plan. One thing we added was to provide each GTA a video record of his/her teaching session on a CD.

2. Budget

$4000 was used to support a 50% GTA position in the Summer 2003 to develop the implementation plan and assessment format. $1000 was used in Autumn 2003 as a faculty stipend to further assist with implementation and training.

These funds were adequate to plan and complete the project. A major part of our effort went into the logistics of scheduling and recordkeeping. With those two components worked out, we plan to run the program again in 2004-2005.

3. Assessment

Assessment of the GTA program is based on four elements:

·  Feedback from the GTAs after their microteaching session

·  Feedback from the GTAs after their TOF session

·  Student journal entry comments and ratings

·  Observation of the microteaching and TOF process

After giving their microteaching session, GTAs were asked the following questions:

Briefly describe your experience with reference to the Microteaching session you had. What steps did you take to prepare for Microteaching? How long did it take to prepare?

What was your reaction to the feedback you received (oral and/or written)?

What improvements would you suggest to make the Microteaching sessions more useful to you as a GTA?

Please feel free to share any comments, views or concerns about the GTA Enhancement Program. Keep in mind that the next step in this program is the Teaching Observation & Feedback Session that will be conducted next quarter.

One complete response:

The experience was very positive. I had some anxiety about the session because speaking has always been a difficultfor me but I am glad that I participated.

It took me about 1/2 day to prepare for the session. This included modifying class slides and reviewing them to prepare my talk.

The feedback was positive. The feedback from peers/faculty was useful, but the best feedback was watching the video. This really helped methe most inseeing where I need to improve.
My only suggestion is that Microteaching sessions should be plannedfor early in the quarter when students are not too busy withmidterms or finals etc. 1/2 day of preparation doesn't seem like a lot, but that can make a big difference when you are really busy.

Response comments from others:

I would like to work more closely with senior faculty before preparing my next session. The two things I would specifically appreciate help with is evaluating the lesson plan/lecture slides before I present so that I do not run overtime or rush through things. Tips on how to manage time and space around us would be helpful. The second would be general tips on classroom management and general pitfalls to avoid, where the faculty could share from experience. Although a formal "mentorship program" may not be possible, it would be useful to have a faculty member we could approach to talk about this

I think the best part of the Microteaching is being able to watch other GTA to give presentations and learn from the peers. Professors are always good. It's quite different to see a peer doing the teaching.

I can quickly see what are the common pitfalls for doing the presentation. Iam actually very impressed by other GTA's great presentations.

Maybe if we had the freedom to make a presentation onsome topic that is not necessarily connected to the FE program there would be a better varietyin the sessions. Also the TA would feel more comfortable than having to present a lecture in front of an Instructor and the other TAs.

After their TOF session, GTAs were asked a similar set of questions:

How would you describe your experience teaching during your TOF session? What steps did you take to prepare for your presentation? How long did it take to prepare? Did you have previous in-class teaching experience?

What was your reaction to the feedback you received?

In what ways do you think that the TOF experience has been helpful to you?

What would you suggest to make either the TOF session or the GTA enhancement program work better for you?

Selected response comments:

I just came back from a conference in which I had to give a presentation in front of a room full of faculty, research scientists and graduate students, and I was very comfortable speaking in front of a large group of people, b/c the feedback I got

indicated that I did a good job (in the TOF) speaking and explaining things....

Do the sessions in lab when the TA's are already scheduled to give class presentations. Many TA's already put in over 20hrs/wk, and asking them to do yet another task above and beyond that isn't really fair

It is nice being evaluated by my peers, but Iwould also like someone who has more experience with teaching enhancement to watch the lecture;they might make suggestions that others wouldn't think of.

For one, it was an eye-opener on the amount of preparation that is necessary in order to be able to do a good job. That helps me plan my time before I do lab lectures this quarter. Secondly, it was a good experience to have right before having to do lab instruction this quarter. I think it helped me to anticipate the things that would help and/or hinder student comprehension in class.

Most GTA's in the FE program are required to do Lab instruction which I believe is slightly different from in-class teaching. Also, the structure of the FE program is such that there are a lot of hands-on activities. Hence, if the training can be geared more towards conducting lab instruction, and on the best way to run demos of software programs such as CADKEY, Matlab etc, it would be helpful.

Students were asked through one of their regular journal entries to comment on the strongest aspects of the lecture given by their GTA, the style of presentation, and the effectiveness and helpfulness of the presentation. We were concerned in the beginning that the students’ expectations would have too high and that comments would therefore be not constructive, but the opposite proved to be the case. The vast majority of comments were both positive and/or constructive. It’s a tribute both to the students’ participation in the process and the amount of effort and preparation put into the lectures by the GTAs. Although these questions were aimed at feedback to the GTAs, they also represent an indirect assessment of the overall process.

The students also give assessments each quarter of the performance of their GTAs. During this coming summer we will be looking at GTA evaluations prior to their TOF lecture, during the quarter the TOF was given, and for those GTAs whose TOF session was in the winter quarter the evaluation from the quarter after.

A few selected student comments:

He did an extremely good job at relating the material to us in a way that we could understand it. He did not seem nervous at all and even cracked a couple of jokes. He did a good job.

It was overall effective and helpful. The examples were used decently; however they were poorly placed in the presentation. A very complex problem was in the 5th slide that could not be realistically expected to be do-able with the information already presented, whereas that example would have been far more effective placed later in the presentation.

The strongest aspect of this lecture was her strong voice and enthusiasm. I didn’t feel the need to fall asleep like I normally do.

He seemed nervous but he worked hard to be very outgoing with his presentation and make the information entertaining so we did not lose interest in what he was presenting

He seemed to know what he was doing. He had a good speech pattern, spoke clearly, and used examples.

It was refreshing to hear a lecture that didn’t just read off the slides, but also explained what every part of the slide meant. I thought that she gave good examples.

She kept good eye contact throughout the presentation and spoke in a clear and loud voice.

She was a very good lecturer. Good voice, eye contact, gestures, and enthusiasm.

The TA did a good job teaching the class. The material was covered completely and presented in a way that was easy to understand.

He spoke with ease, very smoothly. He constantly had eye contact with the class and sounded interested in what he was teaching.

It was exciting to watch the GTAs go through the program. For those GTAs who had had no previous in-class teaching experience, having a microteaching session before teaching in class seemed to make them more comfortable. It was also very helpful to have the microteaching presentations given in groups of three or four. The GTAs got to observe other presentations and get comments from their peers. In class, the pace and style of the presentations seemed distinctly improved over the microteaching sessions. This occurred despite the fact that the TOF lectures were typically three or four times longer and covered more themes than the microteaching sessions.

4.  Reflections / Lessons

As mentioned before, we plan to continue in 2004-2005 at the same scale as last year. Implementation details will be handled largely through our GAA, and coordinated by the program’s Director, without having a separate graduate student or staff member assigned this task. Improvements that we are considering are:

·  Start early enough in the quarter so that multiple sessions are not compressed at the end of the quarter. Although the presentations can be scheduled, the follow-up feedback sessions were not always completed in a timely fashion. So the goal here is to conduct the feedback sessions closer to the occurrence of the actual presentation. One holdup in the process was getting the CD videos burned with enough time for the individual GTAs to review them, prior to the feedback session.

·  Systematize the scheduling process to reduce the schedule conflicts and resulting emails.

·  Provide GTAs with more opportunities to present throughout the year. This would not require the same feedback loop in each case, but would simply give them more practice. Some of our GTAs were uncomfortable with presenting to a large group (max =72), even though they were excellent in the lab and in coaching student teams (3-4 students at a time). So the more opportunities the better.

·  Those GTAs who went through the program this year will be expected to make at least one presentation per quarter, compared to those just starting with us.

·  We plan to expand the Certificate of Excellence to more of a Professional Development certificate for the coming year. We are still evaluating their folders for completeness of documentation, and plan to award these at the September team meeting.

·  Documentation is always important in such a large-scale effort, so I would encourage any department to keep accurate and thorough records of participation and feedback. This was not a major issue for us, but one that required diligence to ensure continuity and to maintain sanity.

·  Use the GTAs’ feedback to improve the mentoring we provide

·  Last point – we reduced the number of faculty as lab instructors in Spring due to budget constraints and the GTAs had to make more lab presentations than normal. Due to the presence of this enhancement program, we made the transition smoothly and effectively because the GTAs had more confidence.