1
The Pedagogical Prac.ces of Teaching Assistants in Polysynchronous Classrooms: The role of Professional Autonomy Dr. Greg Mayer Academic Professional Associate School of Mathema.cs Georgia Ins.tute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia
[email protected]
Dr. Dia Sekayi Associate Professor School of Educa.on and Urban Studies Morgan State University Bal.more, Maryland
[email protected] AMS Spring Southeastern Sec7onal Mee7ng, Charleston, SC Session on Ac.ve Learning in Undergraduate Mathema.cs Saturday March 11 2017 4:00 – 4:45
2
TAs Facilitating a Polysynchronous Learning Environment • polysynchronous learning: synchronous instruc.on for both online
and face-‐to-‐face students[5] • benefits • greater access equity[1,10,14] • improved comple.on rates over completely asynchronous[15]
• challenges • teaching demands can be higher[2,15,29]
• the Teaching Assistants (TAs) who facilitate instruc.on in these
environments: • asked to simultaneously meet needs of instructor, local and distance students • their experiences and perspec.ves not extensively studied
3
Our Research Questions • What teaching prac.ces do TAs, who facilitate instruc.on in
polysychronous environments, use in their recita.ons? • How do TAs describe their experience facilita.ng recita.on sessions in a polysynchronous learning environment?
4
Context: Distance Mathematics Program Structure • A mul.-‐sec.on course: linear algebra (plus a bit of integral calculus) • Offered Fall 2015 • 3 mornings per week – lectures led by faculty • 2 mornings per week – 50 minute recita7ons led by TAs Simultaneously taught to • roughly 200 undergraduate students: face-‐to-‐face • roughly 450 high school students: web conferencing The high school students • receive equivalent credit for this course • tend to receive rela.vely high grades in this course • have completed AP Calculus BC
5
Recitation Environment • Recita.ons simultaneously delivered to local and distance students • Distance students can interact with TA to ask/answer ques.ons • University staff present for technology support • All recita.ons recorded, made available to students
6
TA Preparation and Support The teaching assistants: • are undergraduate or graduate students • have prior experience as a TA for face-to-face classes • attend training on technology they use • completed a TA training course emphasizes active learning (but for
face-to-face environments) • didn’t meet instructors throughout semester to discuss recitations • didn’t have recitation worksheets
7
Study Participants • 8 TAs in Fall 2015 • 4 TAs agreed to par.cipate • We coded TAs names as A, B, C, D
TA
A B C D
Number of local undergraduate students
Number of distance high school students
22 15 9 0
51 49 76 25
8
Data Collection 1) Teaching observa7ons • Two observa.ons per TA • Observa.ons conducted on recorded video • Modified version of the COPUS[24] 2) Focus group discussions • Coded (qualita.ve analysis) • Data described using self-‐determina.on theory[22] 3) Teaching Perspec7ves Inventory[3,17] • Online survey • Administered once, 3 weeks into semester • 45 ques.ons • measures teaching beliefs, inten.ons, prac.ces, across 5 scales
9
Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS)[24] • dura.on of recita.ons is 50 minutes • 50 min broken down into 2 minute intervals • researchers iden.fied TA ac.ons in each interval .me (minutes)
lecture
0-‐2
✓
2-‐4
✓
4-‐6
✓
wri.ng
follow-‐up to student input
✓
asked ques.on
answer ques.on
one-‐on-‐one discussion
moving about room
wai.ng
solicit ques.on
✓
6-‐8
✓
✓
8-‐10
✓
✓
10-‐12
✓
46-‐48
✓
✓
48-‐50
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
10
COPUS Results for TAs A, B, C • two recita.ons per TA coded using COPUS, by two researchers (agreement 97%, Cohen’s kappa 91%) • A, B, C had both local and distance students, and 134 two-‐minute intervals TA ac7on real-‐.me wri.ng lecturing TA solicited ques.ons TA asked their students a ques.on wai.ng TA answered a ques.on posed by a student moved about the room follow-‐up to input from a student
count 127 122 25 19 17 4 4 1
frequency 95% 91% 19% 14% 13% 3% 3% 1%
ac.ve learning not the focus of recita.ons with local and distance students
11
Content Analysis: Results for TAs A, B, C and D • TA D did not have local students, had 25 distance students 100% 80% % of 2-minute 60% intervals 40% 20% 0% lecture
writing
A
B
asked students question C
answered question
solicited question
D
TA D, who did not have local students, fostered more TA-‐student interac.on
12
Focus Group Data Interview transcripts were: 1) transcribed 2) coded (open/axial/selec.ve) 3) codes and other data were • •
aligned to a set of hypotheses using analy.c induc.on[20] to produce a grounded theory[30]
4) aligned to categories of self-‐determina.on theory[22] (SDT), which
gives three psychological needs for their well-‐being:
• competance (ability to control outcome and achieve mastery) • autonomy (choice and control over decisions) • community (related, interact, connect with others) We added a 4th dimension, program structure, for findings that didn’t fall under SDT.
13
Focus Group Data: Competance The Teaching Assistants: • struggled finding ways to meet needs of both groups of students simultaneously “I think it was a hindrance having both, because I think they need to be interacted with differently.” • experienced frustra.on because they did not know how to foster a higher level of student par.cipa.on/engagement. “this semester personally was very frustra>ng, teaching it, because I have a certain teaching style, I'm very interac>ve”
14
Focus Group Data: Autonomy • TAs with both local and distance students spent most of their
.me, in recita.on, lecturing to students. “We have no idea how to actually work with them, so we just sit there and lecture.” • The TA who did not have local students facilitated more student-‐instructor interac.ons than the other TAs. “I had a very, very close rela>onship with all my distance students, we talked all the >me”
15
Focus Group Data: Community The Teaching Assistants expressed that: • believe that the support they receive during course delivery impacts course quality. “the in-‐class support on the technology has been fantas>c” • want distance site and/or local faculty and staff to play a proac.ve role in facilita.ng recita.ons/suppor.ng the TAs. “I wish we did meet together more”
16
Focus Group Data: Structure TAs expressed that: • improvements to the technologies they use during recita.ons are needed to engage all students. “maybe ability for us to be able to communicate, not just via voice, but to be able to write things” • high school students and local undergraduate students should not be placed into the same recita.on sec.ons. “mixing live students and distance students is not appropriate because it's unfair for the live students.”
17
Conclusions and Next Steps Conclusions • Without a sufficient knowledge base, community, and structure to
facilitate a teaching environment that extended beyond lecturing, the TAs chose to adopt a knowledge transmission perspec.ve. • TAs experienced frustra.on with their transmission and lecture-‐ focused teaching prac.ces.
Next Steps • TAs in Fall 2016 offered addi.onal pedagogical and curricular support • currently gathering and analyzing data for a similar study, hoping to
compare results
Ques.ons? Greg Mayer,
[email protected]
18
References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
9. 10. 11.
Bower, M. (2011). Synchronous collaboration competencies in web-conferencing environments—their impact on the learning process. Distance Education, 32, 1, 63–83. Bower, M., Kenney, J., Dalgarno, B., Lee, M. J., & Kennedy, G. E. (2014). Patterns and principles for blended synchronous learning: Engaging remote and face-to-face learners in rich-media real-time collaborative activities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(3), 261-272. Collins, J. B., & Pratt, D. D. (2010). The teaching perspectives inventory at 10 years and 100,000 respondents: Reliability and validity of a teacher self-report inventory. Adult Education Quarterly. Cornelius, S. (2014). Facilitating in a demanding environment: Experiences of teaching in virtual classrooms using web conferencing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(2), 260-271. Dalgarno, B. (2014). Polysynchronous learning: a model for student interaction and engagement. Rhetoric and Reality: Critical Perspectives on Educational Technology. Proceedings Ascilite Dunedin 2014, 673-677. Harris, G., Froman, J. & Surles, J. (2009). The Professional development for graduate mathematics teaching assistants. International Journal of Mathematical Education, 40 (1), 157-172. Irvine, V., Code, J., & Richards, L. (2013). Realigning higher education for the 21st century learner through multi-access learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 172. Kajfez, R.L. & Matusovich, H.M. (2013, October). The Practical applications of understanding graduate teaching assistant motivation and identity development. Proceedings of the 2013 Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers Frontiers in Education (FIE) annual conference, Oklahoma (pp. 605-607). IEEE. Kear, K., Chetwynd, F., Williams, J., & Donelan, H. (2012). Web conferencing for synchronous online tutorials: Perspectives of tutors using a new medium. Computers & Education, 58(3), 953-963. Li, K., Amin, R., & Uvah, J. (2011). On Synchronous Distance Teaching in a Mathematics MS (Master of Science) Program. US-China Education Review, A(6), 761-767. Martin, F., & Parker, M. A. (2014). Use of Synchronous Virtual Classrooms: Why, Who, and How? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 192.
Ques.ons? Greg Mayer,
[email protected]
19
References 12. Mayer, G. (2016). Small Group Work and Whole Group Discussion Mediated Through Web Conferencing Software. International Journal for Scholarship of 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.
Technology Enhanced Learning, 1(1). Mayer, G., Lingle, J., Usselman, M. (in press). Student involvement, satisfaction, and cohesion in synchronous online recitations mediated over web conferencing software. Educational Technology & Society. Morley, T., Usselman, M., Clark, R., Baker, N. (2009). Calculus at a Distance: Bringing Advanced Mathematics to High School Students through Distance Learning. Paper presented at the ASEE 2009 Annual Conference & Exposition. Norberg, A. (2012). Blended learning and new education logistics in Northern Sweden. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies (pp. 327–330). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE. Pearson, C. (1998). The Prediction of teacher autonomy. Education Research Quarterly, 22 (1), 33. Pratt, D. D. (1998). Five Perspectives on Teaching in Adult and Higher Education. Krieger Publishing Co., PO Box 9542, Melbourne, FL 32902-9542. Retsinas, J. (1983, March). Teachers and professional autonomy. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 25-36). Taylor & Francis Group. Reushle, S., &, Loche, B. (2008). Conducting a trial of web conferencing software: Why, how, and perceptions from the coalface. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 9(3). Robinson, W. S.. (1951). The Logical Structure of Analytic Induction. American Sociological Review, 16(6), 812–818. Rossi, P., Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H. (2003). Evaluation: A systematic approach. 7th Edition. NY: Sage. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68. Shanker, A. (1985). The Making of a Profession. American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American Federation of Teachers, 9(3), 10. Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H., Gilbert, S. L., & Wieman, C. E. (2013). The Classroom Observation Protocol for Undergraduate STEM (COPUS): a new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 618-627. Stewart, A. R., Harlow, D. B., & DeBacco, K. (2011). Students’ experience of synchronous learning in distributed environments. Distance Education, 32(3), 357-381. Szeto, E., & Cheng, A. Y. (2016). Towards a framework of interactions in a blended synchronous learning environment: what effects are there on students' social presence experience?. Interactive Learning Environments,24(3), 487-503. Utschig, T. T., Carnasciali, M., & Sullivan, C S. (2014). Helping teaching assistants foster student-centered learning. International Journal of Process Education, 6(1), 3-20. Webb, P.T. (2002) Teacher power: the exercise of professional autonomy in an era of strict accountability, Teacher Development, 6(1), 47-62. White, C. P., Ramirez, R., Smith, J. G., & Plonowski, L. (2010). Simultaneous delivery of a face-to-face course to on-campus and remote off-campus students. TechTrends, 54(4), 34-40. Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. London: Open University Press.
Ques.ons? Greg Mayer,
[email protected]
20
Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI)[3] • quan.fies individual teaching perspec.ves on teaching adults in any discipline • online survey • 45 Likert items • measures teaching: • perspec7ves that define what effec.ve teaching requires • for each perspec.ve, measures beliefs, inten7ons, ac7ons. • most individuals have one or two dominant perspec.ves
21
Teaching Perspectives Inventory[3] Five perspec.ves that define what effec.ve teaching requires: o Transmission: effec.ve teaching requires a substan.al commitment to the content or subject maler. o Appren7ceship: effec.ve teaching is a process of encultura.ng students into a set of social norms and ways of working. o Developmental: effec.ve teaching must be planned and conducted from the learner’s point of view. o Nurturing: effec.ve teaching assumes that long-‐term, hard, persistent effort to achieve comes from the heart, as well as the head. o Social Reform: effec.ve teaching seeks to change society in substan.ve ways. TPI measures each perspec.ve in terms of their beliefs, inten.ons, ac.ons.
22
Teaching Perspectives Inventory (TPI)
• total TPI score = sum of ac.on, inten.on, and belief scores • Dominant perspec.ves (total score higher than one standard devia.on above the mean) indicated with *. • TAs with both local and distance students adopted a transmission perspec.ve.
