Session F1J
Preparing Undergraduates to Teach Computer Applications to Engineering Freshmen Rebecca Brent1, Jason Maners2, Dianne Raubenheimer3, and Amy Craig4 Abstract – A course on “Introduction to Computing Environments” is taught each year to roughly 1500 firstyear engineering students at North Carolina State University. In the Fall 2006 semester, the course was revised to accommodate the use of student-owned notebook computers in class, provide better integration between lectures and labs, and increase the extent of active student involvement during class. A program to train the 37 undergraduates who taught the course was designed, implemented, and assessed. This paper outlines the structure of the training program and reports on the assessment outcomes. Index Terms – Freshman engineering, Introduction to computing, TA training, Undergraduate teaching assistants INTRODUCTION At North Carolina State University, a course called “Introduction to Computing Environments” (E115) is taught each year to roughly 1500 first-year engineering students. The instructors are undergraduate teaching assistants working under the supervision of staff of the Computer Science and Academic Affairs programs in the College of Engineering. The course covers maintaining one’s own computer, campusbased computing resources and applications (how to access and use them), ethics and professionalism in the use of computing resources, and introduction to Web development. Historically the course consisted of an introduction to computing hardware configuration, on-line help and communication, file and directory manipulation and frequently-used software packages. The course was taught in 110-minute time blocks once a week, with instruction occurring in university-provided computing labs. The instruction was primarily lecture-based with little student involvement, and the undergraduate TAs were given a 2-hour orientation session before the start of classes. The end-ofsemester course evaluations were consistently less than stellar, with students commonly complaining of inconsistency in course delivery and an environment that was not conducive to learning. In 2006 a policy was instituted whereby all N.C. State engineering students were expected to have notebook computers. This expectation coupled with the chronically unsatisfactory student evaluations in E115 led to a staff
decision to revise the instruction to accommodate student notebook computers in class, better integrate lectures and labs, and incorporate active learning into the lectures. It was clear that the undergraduate TAs would need more preparation for the revised course than could be provided in a two-hour orientation session, and so the training program was also redesigned. In the Fall of 2006 a program was undertaken to prepare 37 undergraduate teaching assistants to teach 52 sections of E115. Training was provided in four 2-hour sessions shortly before the start of classes and weekly 1-hour sessions during the semester. The TAs were given a pre-survey regarding their confidence levels in various aspects of course instruction before classes began and an identical post-survey at the end of the semester, and end-of-course student evaluations were collected and compared with E115 evaluations from the Fall of 2005. This paper will outline the training program content and strategies and summarize the assessment data. TA TRAINING PROGRAM The leadership team comprised Jason Maners, Lecturer in Computer Science and E115 coordinator; Rebecca Brent, College of Engineering faculty development coordinator; Dianne Raubenheimer, Director of Assessment; and Amy Craig, Coordinator of the College Student-Owned Computing program. The goals of the training were to familiarize the TAs with the content and instructional format of the course and with their responsibilities and to equip them to deal as a team with problems that commonly arise in teaching E115. Detailed objectives for the training are given in Table 1. Pre-Semester Training •
Morning of Day 1. The first session was held for all TAs in the Computer Science department who were assigned to be in charge of laboratory courses, a total of about 70 students. Topics included basic orientation and working with students individually or in small groups in the lab and during office hours. Two team leaders role-played a poor TA-student interaction in office hours, and the TAs critiqued the role-play and suggested ways to improve the interaction. Then the team leaders role-played an improved version of the same interaction followed by group discussion of the improvements and remaining questions about conducting office hours.
1
Rebecca Brent, Faculty and TA Development, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University,
[email protected] Jason Maners, Lecturer, Computer Science, North Carolina State University,
[email protected] 3 Dianne Raubenheimer, Director of Assessment, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University,
[email protected] 4 Amy Craig, Coordinator, Student-Owned Computing, College of Engineering, North Carolina State University,
[email protected] 2
1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F1J-19
Session F1J At the end of training, the participants will be able to: 1. 2.
3.
4.
5.
•
•
•
Explain their responsibilities as teaching assistants. Formulate a plan for the introductory class session in which they preview the course content, go over key policies and procedures, and provide motivation and confidence-building to the students Articulate strategies for lecturing effectively, getting students actively involved in lectures and labs, and assisting students with questions during office hours and class sessions State common logistical and classroom problems and articulate ways to minimize their occurrence and to respond consistently and appropriately when they occur Prepare grade book and grade assignments following the course guidelines
Afternoon of Day 1. The second session was attended by only the 37 E115 TAs and began with an overview of the course structure and their role in implementing it. They were introduced to active learning [1] and discussed appropriate first-day activities. Three experienced TAs demonstrated how they would introduce themselves and start their first class. The group critiqued the introductions and discussed what should be included to establish credibility and get the class off to a good start. The participants were assigned to prepare their introductions for the following morning and to look over the detailed plans for the first day of class to prepare for discussion. Morning of Day 2. One of the leaders presented common logistical problems TAs might face in the first week and led a group discussion of what to do about them. Problems included students wanting to add or drop the class, excused vs. unexcused absences, and other issues students would be likely to raise about course policies and procedures. Next the TAs were divided into four small groups where they practiced their opening day introductions and provided suggestions to one another. One administrative team leader supervised each group. Back in the whole group, the TAs were presented with a classroom scenario involving nondisruptive and disruptive student behaviors such as sleeping, checking email during class, talking, and arriving late. The TAs brainstormed responses and were introduced to assertive communication strategies to use in response to disruptive behaviors [2]. Afternoon of Day 2. The afternoon session was spent on looking at the class materials for the first week, discussing ways to teach the material effectively, and going over grading procedures.
ASSESSMENT OF THE TRAINING Training program participant evaluations Thirty-seven seminar participants submitted feedback survey forms at the end of the last training seminar, of whom twelve (32%) were experienced in teaching the course and 25 (68%) were new. The overall training received 7 ratings of “excellent,” 24 “good,” 6 “average,” and no “fair” or “poor” ratings, and 33 of the 37 responders indicated that they would recommend the workshop to others. The overall ratings and responses to two additional survey items are reported in Figures 1–3. There were no significant differences between responses for the new and experienced TAs. Assessment of TA Confidence Prior to the training, the TAs were asked to rate their confidence about teaching the course and about various aspects of teaching on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “not at all confident” to “very confident” (see Table 2). They were then given the same questionnaire at the conclusion of the training on the second day. Completed pre- and posttraining questionnaires were collected for 35 TAs and paired sample t-tests conducted. Figure 4 shows that the overall confidence of TAs increased after the eight hours of training. TAs also showed significant improvement in their confidence in their ability to teach class the first week and handle problem student behaviors.
Overall Rating of TA Training 80 70 60 Percentage
TABLE I LEARNING OBJECTIVES OF THE 2-DAY TA TRAINING PROGRAM
distribute materials, ideas for teaching the classes, corrections to problems in homework and classroom materials, and logistical reminders. Individual TAs with problems or concerns were encouraged to come to someone on the administrative team, and many had occasion to do so.
50 New TA's
40
Exp. TA's
30 20 10 0 Poor
Fair
Ave.
Good
Excel.
FIGURE 1 RATING OF TRAINING QUALITY
Training and Support during the Semester Additional support and training were provided to TAs throughout the semester in weekly hour-long meetings led by the administrative team. In these sessions, class materials were presented and discussed along with problems that arose during the preceding week. E-mail was also used extensively to 1-4244-1084-3/07/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE October 10 – 13, 2007, Milwaukee, WI 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F1J-20
Session F1J Student Assessment of TAs
"The training prepared me for being a TA." 70 60
Percentage
50 40
New TA's Exp. TA's
30 20 10
Another component of the assessment was completed at the end of the semester when student course evaluations were collected. Evaluations from Fall 2006 were compared with evaluations submitted by students who took the same class in Fall 2005. In both semesters, evaluations were completed online. The ratings for all questions having to do with the instructor are compared in Table 3. The 2006 ratings showed significant improvement in all but one aspect of training, and the lower standard deviations in the posttest ratings indicate that the training also helped reduce the prior variation in performance among the TAs.
0 Strongly Disagree disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly agree
TABLE 2 PRE- AND POST-TRAINING CONFIDENCE RATINGS
FIGURE 2 RATING OF TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS
N=35 Question 1. How confident are you overall in your ability to TA in E115? How confident are you in your ability to 2. introduce yourself to the class? 3. teach class the first week?
"I feel like I have a team to support me if problems arise in my section." 80 70 Percentage
60 50
New TA's
40
Exp. TA's
30
4. respond to problem behaviors by students in class? 5. help students in office hours? 6. handle issues related to grading?
Pre-training confidence Mean S.D. 4.17 .71
Post-training confidence Mean S.D. 4.49 .56
p
