Abstract

BackgroundGraduate teaching assistants (GTAs) often lead laboratory and tutorial sections in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), especially at large, research-intensive universities. GTAs’ performance as instructors can impact student learning experience as well as learning outcomes. In this study, we observed 11 chemistry GTAs and 11 physics GTAs in a research-intensive institution in the southeastern USA. We observed the GTAs over two consecutive semesters in one academic year, resulting in a total of 58 chemistry lab observations and 72 physics combined tutorial and lab observations. We used a classroom observation protocol adapted from the Laboratory Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (LOPUS) to document both GTA and student behaviors. We applied cluster analysis separately to the chemistry lab observations and to the physics combined tutorial and lab observations. The goals of this study are to classify and characterize GTAs’ instructional styles in reformed introductory laboratories and tutorials, to explore the relationship between GTA instructional style and student behavior, and to explore the relationship between GTA instructional style and the nature of laboratory activity.ResultsWe identified three instructional styles among chemistry GTAs and three different instructional styles among physics GTAs. The characteristics of GTA instructional styles we identified in our samples are different from those previously identified in a study of a traditional general chemistry laboratory. In contrast to the findings in the same prior study, we found a relationship between GTAs’ instructional styles and student behaviors: when GTAs use more interactive instructional styles, students appear to be more engaged. In addition, our results suggest that the nature of laboratory activities may influence GTAs’ use of instructional styles and student behaviors. Furthermore, we found that new GTAs appear to behave more interactively than experienced GTAs.ConclusionGTAs use a variety of instructional styles when teaching in the reformed laboratories and tutorials. Also, compared to traditional laboratory and tutorial sections, reformed sections appear to allow for more interaction between the nature of lab activities, GTA instructional styles, and student behaviors. This implies that high-quality teaching in reformed laboratories and tutorials may improve student learning experiences substantially, which could then lead to increased learning outcomes. Therefore, effective GTA professional development is particularly critical in reformed instructional environments.

Highlights

  • Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) often lead laboratory and tutorial sections in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), especially at large, research-intensive universities

  • We noticed that the fraction for questions posed by students (1o1-Student question (SQ)) was similar to the fraction for questions posed by GTAs (1o1-TPQ) in a one-on-one setting

  • The fraction for interactions initiated by GTAs (TI, M = 0.22, Standard deviation (SD) = 0.13) was comparable to the fraction for interactions initiated by students (SI)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) often lead laboratory and tutorial sections in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), especially at large, research-intensive universities. Student-centered strategies that promote active learning have been shown to improve student performance in undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (Freeman et al, 2014). Freeman et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis classified classroom activities with varied intensity and implementation as active learning, ranging from occasional group problemsolving and use of personal response systems to flippedstyle studio or workshop courses. The discipline-based education research community has worked at reforming laboratories and tutorials in STEM in order to foster active learning. We refer to reformed laboratories and tutorials as those in which the curricula implemented were developed based on the findings from research on teaching and learning

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.