A Teaching Assistant Training Protocol for Improving Feedback on Open-Ended Engineering Problems in Large Classes

Abstract

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...

A Pilot Study of Supporting GTA Professional Development and Educator Identity in Engineering

“…Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) play a significant role in shaping the learning experiences of undergraduate students (Chen Musgrove & Schussler, 2020;Gardner & Jones, 2011). However, their potential as higher education practitioners is often hindered by a lack of opportunities and support systems in their preparation (Verleger & Diefes-Dux, 2013). GTAs are expected to perform various pedagogical practices, including lab instruction, lab demonstrations, and grading student work while often experiencing minimal opportunities to fully comprehend the implications and rationale behind these activities.…”

“…As GTAs often have a high level of interaction with students and as they often act as agents of the course instructor, especially in large enrollment courses, any positive impact on GTAs' teaching practices could directly improve students' learning experiences (Hsu, 2019;Verleger & Diefes-Dux, 2013). GTAs often have little or no preparation for their roles as educators and as such may lack awareness of the significance of their role in higher education.…”

Efforts to Improve Undergraduate Grader Consistency: A Qualitative Analysis

“…The training for this study is based off of the multiple multi-phased training described previously [24], [29], [30]. However, as we wanted to train the UTAs for each new LO covered, it was necessary to have weekly training.…”

“…There are many different models for training teaching assistants [24]. The vast majority of training models tend to be single-day workshops [25], but others use week-long workshops [26], weekly courses [27], periodic training videos [28], or multiple multi-phased sessions [24], [29], [30]. These training sections are often interactive, including opportunities for discussions and group exercises [31].…”

“…These training sections are often interactive, including opportunities for discussions and group exercises [31]. In the multi-phased approach, the teaching assistants were first asked to complete the assignment they would be grading first, followed by in-person training reviewing and applying the rubric, and then feedback in the form of comparison of their grade selection with the expert selection for calibration purposes [24], [29], [30]. This strategy informed the training design used for this paper.…”