The Pedagogical Prac^ces of Teaching Assistants

4 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
polysynchronous learning: synchronous instruc^on for both online ... A mul^-‐sec^on course: linear algebra (plus a bit of integral calculus) ..... Retsinas, J. (1983, March). ... 7th Edition. ... Stewart, A. R., Harlow, D. B., & DeBacco, K. (2011).
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.