Jacob Bishop holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering. He is currently a graduate student at Utah State University pursuing a Ph.D. in Engineering Education. His research interests are multidisciplinary. In educational research, his interests include model-eliciting activities, open online education, educational data mining, and the flipped classroom. In quantitative methodology and psychometrics, his interests focus on the use of latent variable models to analyze variability and change over time.

Teaching Assistants (TAs) are vital to teaching large classes. TAs often function as students' primary contact within a large course, and, in many cases, they evaluate the majority of student work on assignments. For TAs, evaluating students' work on open-ended problems is challenging because students produce a variety of solutions that the TA must interpret to accurately apply a given rubric. Reliable evaluation of student work is desirable. This paper describes and begins to explore a TA training protocol for identifying TAs who are in need of additional guidance on how to evaluate students' work on open-ended engineering problems in a large class. This work is set in a large first-year engineering program context in which open-ended problem solving has been incorporated and TA training has been implemented to facilitate the use of such problems. This paper will do the following: (1) explore the history and need for TA training in this context, (2) describe the context in which training occurs, (3) describe the training process and protocol in detail, (4) examine current data to explore the effectiveness of the TA training protocol, and (5) identify future direction for informing the design of the TA training protocol. History and Need for TA Training Bringing authentic 1 , open-ended learning experience into early undergraduate engineering courses is encouraged as a means of showcasing and engaging students in the nature of engineering practice as well as laying the foundation for addressing multiple ABET and institutional program objectives that go beyond purely the development of content knowledge and analytical skills. The challenge is that many first-and second-year engineering courses are large and assessment and evaluation of student work is in the hands of TAs who are often provided little to no training to perform more traditional short answer problem grading much less complex student work assessment. So, bringing authentic open-ended problem solving into a large engineering course necessitates a level of TA training for which there is little precedence in the teaching of engineering. Much of the development and research on training and professional development of TAs has focused on large introductory courses, particularly in science where graduate TAs (GTAs) duties entail leading laboratory and discussion sessions. 2,3 Formal training for TAs, provided at the university level, department level, and course level 4 , often focuses on the basics and mechanics of being a TA. The most basic training for new TAs includes topics such as TA responsibilities and grading (e.g. homework and exam). More advanced, yet still introductory, TA training topics include knowing students, lecture techniques, leading discussions, classroom management, creating optimal learning environments, academic integrity, class planning and instructor evaluations. 5,6 Opportunities for in-depth development of TAs pedagogical skills are limited, and the prevalence of optional versus mandatory training leaves many TAs floundering to de...

No abstract

Engineering Fundamental department, teaching all the courses offered by the department. His focus is on teaching and preparing students for the upper-level classes that follow in their educational experience.