Graduate Teaching Assistants and Inquiry-Based Instruction

Research: Science and Education

Graduate Teaching Assistants and Inquiry-Based Instruction: Implications for Graduate Teaching Assistant Training Gillian H. Roehrig* Center for Research in Mathematics and Science Education, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92120; *[email protected] Julie A. Luft Science and Mathematics Education Center, SZB 340, University of Texas Austin, Austin, TX 78712 Josepha P. Kurdziel and Jessica A. Turner Department of Teaching and Teacher Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721

In the past thirty years, chemistry departments have been challenged to change their approach to teaching undergraduate chemistry (1). A major impetus for this transformation has been reform documents that call for undergraduate science educators to incorporate scientific inquiry-based experiences into undergraduate laboratory classes (2, 3). The National Science Education Standards (4) describes scientific inquiry as “the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on evidence derived from their work”. Scientific inquiry-based instruction should actively involve students in scientific investigations allowing them to develop the abilities that characterize scientific inquiry: identifying questions that guide investigations, designing and conducting investigations, formulating and revising explanations and models using logic and evidence, recognizing and analyzing alternative explanations and models, and communicating and defending a scientific argument (4). Creating these new instructional environments will not be problem-free. Undergraduate educators will need to revise curricula, design new assessments, and reconsider current instructional practices. There exists a large literature base on modules and individual experiments using discovery-based and inquiry-based pedagogies in chemistry (5–7). Given that the majority of undergraduate chemistry laboratory instructors are graduate teaching assistants (GTAs), the successful implementation of these inquiry-based experiments will depend on the instructional expertise of GTAs. This will ultimately entail the development and enactment of training programs for GTAs (8–10). Even though GTAs teach the majority of laboratory courses at most universities, little has been written about their training programs (9, 11–13). Furthermore, the literature that exists indicates that few training programs include adequate follow-up or feedback to GTAs. Only a few studies track how well the training programs actually facilitate instructional change (12). Creating effective GTA training programs is critical if chemistry departments are to be successful in implementing inquiry-based practices. In the past three decades, there has been an emphasis on how to design GTA training programs (14–17), with the result that the majority of universities now have some form of GTA training program (8, 18). However, GTA training programs vary greatly among institutions; they range from half day, university-wide orientation sessions that introduce new GTAs to university policies and no departmental training; to multiday, university-wide training as well 1206

as department-specific training; to university-wide training coupled with full-semester courses and seminars on teaching methods offered by specific departments (12). GTA training programs also vary greatly among chemistry departments; a recent survey of institutions offering undergraduate chemistry programs approved by the American Chemical Society found that 37% of these institutions provided no formal GTA training (8). For those offering formal GTA training, only 17% of institutions spent more than one day on training activities. This article presents the findings of a semester-long study that specifically examines the teaching environment and experiences with inquiry-based instruction of chemistry GTAs at a research–doctoral university through interviews and observations of the GTAs. Staff and faculty were interviewed as well. The findings from this study provide insight into the attitudes towards inquiry-based instruction and difficulties with the implementation of inquiry-based instruction experienced by GTAs. As a result of understanding the barriers to implementing inquiry-based teaching, we suggest directions for GTA training programs that are specific to the discipline of chemistry and inquiry-based instruction. GTA Training All incoming chemistry GTAs participate in two forms of GTA training: a mandated general training provided by university staff for GTAs of all colleges and a training session provided by the chemistry department. The general GTA training lasts two days and is held the week before fall classes commence. During this mandated program, all GTAs are introduced to university policies and procedures; GTAs also attend seminars of their choice on topics such as teaching methods, learning styles, and instructional design. The four-day, chemistry GTA training program follows the general GTA training session. It includes workshops designed to address the specific needs of chemistry GTAs. Both faculty and staff lead sessions that cover an introduction to the department, laboratory facilities, responsibilities and expectations of chemistry GTAs, laboratory safety, equipment checkout procedures, and what to expect from undergraduate students. Activities are designed to inform GTAs about their responsibilities as instructors and to help them make the transition from student to teacher. Key instructional activities include practicing student tutoring sessions, rehearsing prelaboratory lectures, and grading sample laboratory reports.

Journal of Chemical Education • Vol. 80 No. 10 October 2003 • JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu


A “practice laboratory” is used by the laboratory coordinator to determine whether a GTA is better suited to work with nonscience majors or science majors. During the practice laboratory, GTAs act as students with the laboratory coordinator acting as the instructor. The selected laboratory is the first laboratory in the second semester science-majors laboratory sequence. It requires GTAs to determine the molar absorptivity coefficient of four commercially available food dyes. GTAs need to prepare a series of food dye solutions to be used in generating a Beer’s law plot for each dye using a spectrophotometer. GTAs who can explain concepts without using extensive terminology are placed in nonmajors laboratory sections. GTAs needing additional support and directions regarding the laboratory exercise are placed in the first semester science-majors laboratory sections, as this curriculum involves a series of traditional verification laboratories. Those GTAs who are able to prepare solutions and operate the spectrophotometer without guidance are placed in the second semester science-majors laboratory sections, as this course uses guided inquiry-based activities and student projects as opposed to the traditional curriculum of the first semester course. This placement is based solely on a beginning GTA’s demonstrated laboratory competence rather than any stated preference to be placed in a particular course or documented teaching ability. To further enhance the teaching proficiency of incoming GTAs, a mandatory one-credit college teaching seminar is required during the fall semester. This course convenes once a week and is run by the chemistry laboratory coordinators to provide additional instruction to new chemistry GTAs. Course topics include laboratory safety, technical writing, and evaluation and assessment of student learning. A key component of the course is peer observation and feedback. GTAs are assigned to groups of three people to observe and provide feedback on each other’s teaching. GTAs are required to observe the prelaboratory lecture and at least 30 minutes of the laboratory activity of a group member. Following their observation GTAs write an assessment about the lesson and provide feedback to the observed GTA. In addition to the chemistry teaching seminar, GTAs attend weekly course-specific meetings that address the logistics and content of the laboratory to be taught the following week. Staff meetings have traditionally addressed GTAs’ potential content deficiencies and the specifics of the prelaboratory lecture. The staff meeting has also become the venue to discuss strategies for teaching in an inquiry-based environment for those GTAs assigned to the second-semester science-majors course. Owing to time constraints, however, there was no explicit modeling of these inquiry-based strategies. Participants Twenty-six chemistry GTAs had responsibilities for instructing introductory undergraduate chemistry laboratory classes during the spring semester. Given the focus of this article on the inclusion of inquiry-based instruction into the undergraduate laboratory curriculum, only GTAs assigned to the second-semester science-majors course were considered. This course is the only nontraditional laboratory course in the freshman laboratory offerings. Approximately one thousand students take this course each year; the course is required

for science majors, engineering majors, and premedical students. Of the thirteen GTAs assigned to teach this course, six volunteered to participate in interviews and classroom observations. All six volunteers were first-year graduate students in the chemistry Ph.D. program. Five of the volunteers entered the Ph.D. program directly from their undergraduate institution, whereas one student, John, had prior experience in industry. None of the volunteers had previous teaching experience, and three came from schools that did not use GTAs as instructors. These six volunteers are considered to be education enthusiasts and are not representative of the “average GTA”. Given their enthusiasm as undergraduate educators, they provide a unique perspective with which to view GTA training and reform initiatives in undergraduate laboratory courses. Data Collection The six volunteer GTAs completed a semistructured interview (19) about being a GTA. The 45–60 minute interview was conducted at the beginning of the spring semester. Interviewers asked the GTAs in-depth questions about previous laboratory experiences, the role of laboratory instructors, views of students, and views on the training program. Detailed notes were taken during these interviews. Four researchers conducted observations of the volunteer GTAs’ instructional practices in the laboratory and in the discussion sections. Each GTA was observed three times for the entire laboratory period, which lasted three hours. Observations were intentionally scheduled so that the same researcher did not collect data repeatedly from the same source. The date and focus of the observations were not announced in advance to the GTAs. Prior to the start of laboratory GTAs were asked to state the goals of the class and any concerns they had related to the laboratory exercise. Researchers made detailed notes during the observations, with a focus on the nature of the prelaboratory lecture and directions and GTA questions and interactions with students during the laboratory. GTAs were debriefed at the end of the laboratory period to understand the GTA’s perceptions of the success of the class. To better understand the experiences of GTAs, key faculty and staff in the chemistry department were also interviewed. Semistructured interviews were conducted with two faculty members about their involvement in undergraduate education and GTA training and evaluation. The two introductory chemistry laboratory coordinators were also interviewed to determine the type of GTA training and evaluation provided by the department and their individual roles in the professional development of GTAs. Each subject interview provided a unique perspective in regard to the instruction of undergraduate chemistry laboratories by GTAs. Data Analysis The qualitative interview and observation data were examined separately by the four researchers involved in the study. Each qualitative data source was read by the researchers in isolation, with passages labeled with descriptive terms. These labels were then discussed by all researchers, grouped into emergent themes, and placed in a matrix that had axes for each participant and the emergent themes (19). All four re-

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 10 October 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education

1207


searchers then examined both the interview matrix and observation matrix to discern trends and possible explanations. From the analysis of the data, three themes emerged that represent difficulties GTAs experienced in implementing inquiry-based instruction. An understanding of the underlying causes of these difficulties was developed. Throughout the presentation of the results, pseudonyms will be used for each GTA.

GTAs’ Prior Inquiry-Based Experiences as Students Affected Their Instructional Decisions The GTAs had very limited experiences with inquirybased laboratories as undergraduates, which influenced their views on the utility of inquiry-based instruction in freshman laboratory classes. All GTAs reported experiencing an inquirylike activity during one of their senior-level courses. For example, Allison was asked to find the salt content in potato chips and was expected to devise her own procedures to solve the posed problem. Allison and John enjoyed these inquirylike activities, but expressed concerns about whether inquirybased approaches were appropriate at the freshman level as their experiences had been in upper-level courses. These personal experiences with inquiry-based instruction as students impacted their perceptions of their students’ abilities to do inquiry-based laboratories, which influenced all aspects of their instruction, especially the content of their prelaboratory lectures. The other four GTAs had frustrating experiences with inquiry-based laboratories. For example, a representative comment from Bill was: “We were thrown to the wolves; we were given no directions or assistance. There is no way students in general chemistry could do inquiry.” These unsatisfactory experiences with inquiry-based laboratories clouded the GTAs’ perception of the value of inquirybased instruction as a teaching strategy. The GTAs did not want their students to have the same experiences that they had as undergraduates in an inquiry-based environment. GTAs were required to give a 20–30 minute prelaboratory lecture at the start of each three-hour laboratory session. Weekly staff meetings addressed the topics to be covered in these prelaboratory discussions. The first inquiry-based laboratory, which was two weeks in length, directed the students to determine the order for the reactants in the reaction between bleach and a food dye. Students were to use information from the previous laboratory where molar absorptivity constants for the food dyes were calculated using a spectrophotometer and were expected to adapt these techniques to explore the reaction of the dyes with bleach. In the weekly meeting for this laboratory GTAs were told to cover the following topics in their prelaboratory lecture: (1) statement of the problem, (2) dynamics of the discovery process (experiment, discussion with group, additional experiment, additional discussion with group etc.), (3) a brief discussion of method of experimentation (producing plots of absorbance versus time), and (4) the importance of reproducibility (all solutions need to be agreed upon as a group, all solutions need to be made accurately, and multiple trials need to be incorporated into the procedure). However, this nontraditional prelaboratory format was only discussed briefly and not explicitly modeled. Consequently, the GTAs’ actual practice was different. The observed prelaboratory lectures were typically 40 minutes in length for all of the GTAs and cov1208

ered the statement of the problem and a very detailed lecture on the method of experimentation that included sample data tables, dilution calculations, conversions from absorbance to concentration of dye, graphical analysis of data including measurement of tangents and natural log plots. There was no discussion about the dynamics of the process and how to work as a group. GTAs gave three reasons for changing the format of the prelaboratory lecture: (1) The students will have a better experience with inquiry-based laboratories than I had as a student. (2) The students are not capable of figuring this out for themselves. (3) I do not want to get bad student evaluations as a result of their frustrations with inquiry-based laboratories.

GTAs Did Not Have the Instructional Skills Needed in an Inquiry-Based Environment GTAs equated teaching with giving a prelaboratory lecture and grading laboratory reports. All of the GTAs prepared for class by writing a detailed outline of their prelaboratory lecture and dutifully graded the students’ assignments. Yet once the lecture was delivered, the GTAs were unsure of their role other than knowing they had been told not to give answers to the students during an inquiry-based activity. The observations revealed that GTAs did not often approach student groups with questions about their work, rather students initiated all conversations. When GTAs did approach student groups it was to correct experimental procedures so that students could come to the “correct” conclusions. For GTAs, the instructional environment outside of prelaboratory instruction and assessment tended to be void of practices consistent with inquiry-based instruction. A representative example of this was in the observations of the endof-semester projects. The last two weeks of the course were devoted to student-driven projects in which student groups were required to select a question to investigate that utilized laboratory techniques learned during their freshman chemistry experience. Each student group worked on a different project; for example in Cheryl’s class student groups analyzed dog blood for pH and iron levels, titrated antacids to determine the “best-buy”, determined vitamin C concentrations in juices, determined the aluminum concentrations in canned corn, and determined the dissolved-metal content in multivitamin pills. Owing to the wide variety of projects GTAs were unable to give their usual prelaboratory lecture on procedures and expectations. During the laboratory GTAs were observed to spend unequal quantities of time with student groups. Some groups did not have an opportunity to interact with the GTA for the whole laboratory period, yet these groups were observed to have procedural problems, and in many cases they left the class with no usable data. Other groups dominated the attention of the GTAs. GTAs were unable to question effectively to help students but rather gave direct answers, frequently telling the students exactly how to proceed with their experiment and in several observations taking the equipment from the students’ hands and doing the laboratory themselves. GTAs Had Ill-Formed Conceptions about How Students Learn The GTAs had a very limited view of learning, which influenced their instruction. All GTAs felt that students



learned passively. Learning, according to the GTAs, requires two things: effort from the students and student’s ability to listen and follow directions. The belief that students learn by having the material digested, organized, and clearly presented to them was a frequent theme among the GTAs. Not surprisingly faculty perceptions of how students’ learn were also limited to a transmission model of learning. One faculty member noted that while in the tutor room he noticed that GTAs had content misconceptions, and his solution to this problem was to have the GTAs attend the freshman lecture class. In other words, by hearing the content they would thus learn the content. Student motivation was a topic that came up in every conversation with the GTAs. GTAs were perplexed by their students’ lack of motivation to learn and did not believe that unmotivated students could learn in their class. As John stated, “I should not need to motivate students who are too lazy to do their lab reports; they chose to be here, right?” However, GTAs also had low expectations of motivated students, as Allison stated, “Even though students read the manual, they often don’t understand; interest and understanding is lacking on the part of the students.” In line with their beliefs about how students learn, GTAs compensate for their students by giving detailed prelaboratory lectures and answers to student questions. As Bill stated “If they really cannot do it, I walk them through the steps”; similarly John said “These students don’t know how to solve problems, so I give them the mechanism, here is step 1, here is step 2; it’s just a systematic approach you see.” It is interesting that John goes on to add “It’s not working, but what else can I do? They need to understand the steps.” Summary Unlike the situation in other professions, teachers, including GTAs, enter the classroom with extensive prior knowledge of teaching gained through their many years spent in classrooms as students. GTAs’ beliefs about teaching and how students learn are centered on their experiences as students. This was evident for the GTAs in this study. All of the GTAs were successful in traditional classes and had been exposed to many traditional experiences that they replicated as teachers. Two common attitudes of beginning teachers are reported in the K–12 literature: first, teachers who were successful as students will replicate these experiences in their own classrooms; and second, teachers who had bad experiences as students will work to remedy this situation for their own students. GTAs’ experiences with inquiry-based instruction clearly fell into this pattern; they accommodated for their own students by providing the structure they felt was lacking in their own experiences. Differing needs and interest levels in teaching of chemistry GTAs make it difficult for laboratory coordinators to design a GTA training program. The majority of GTAs have a desire to learn more about “how to teach” and “how to assess” for their specific teaching assignment. GTA training programs need to be structured to meet these immediate needs for new instructors; however, there is clearly a need to go beyond the mechanics of teaching and individual course content if inquiry-based instruction is the desired outcome. From the observations of GTAs in their classrooms it is clear that

the GTA training does a good job with the prelaboratory discussion portion of the class for traditional laboratory courses; GTAs are clear on the content to be covered and the objectives for the laboratory. The problematic areas are prelaboratory activities for inquiry-based laboratories and the time after the prelaboratory discussion while students are actually conducting the laboratory. GTAs lacked role models for implementing these inquiry-based strategies either from their prior experiences as undergraduates or from experienced GTAs (GTAs who do return to teach for a second year are usually placed in upper division courses.). All of the GTAs in the study understood the content they were required to teach. They struggled, however, with how to help students learn the content. GTAs tended to give direct answers to students rather than to help them learn it for themselves. The GTAs would repeat an explanation over and over rather than try different approaches to the problem. It would be beneficial for GTA training to go over the content of the laboratory and also how to teach the content. In other words, GTA training must focus not only on what to teach but also on how to teach it. This is particularly necessary when reform practices, such as inquiry-based laboratories, are being implemented. GTAs had limited experience with inquiry-based instruction as students and struggled to teach effectively in an inquiry-based environment. For reforms that incorporate inquiry-based instruction into the chemistry curriculum to be successful, GTAs need explicit training on teaching strategies to meet the intended instructional goals. There is a growing body of literature on specific experiments using discovery-based and inquiry-based pedagogies (5–7), yet there exists little literature on how to train GTAs to teach such inquiry-based units. The following section makes recommendations for how to help GTAs teach effectively in an inquiry-based environment based on the GTAs’ experiences with inquiry-based teaching and their reflections on those experiences. We invite other chemistry educators to contribute and add to our work, for if inquiry-based curricula are to be effectively enacted, we need to carefully consider who is teaching these courses and how are they trained and supported. Recommendations The assignment of GTAs is a critical factor in successfully implementing an inquiry-based approach in a general chemistry laboratory course. While GTAs are usually the sole instructors in laboratory courses, they are not always interested in making a switch to teaching in an inquiry-based format, which leads to many problems. By careful assignment of GTAs it is possible to get a match between GTA interests and abilities and course objectives. A survey of GTAs’ experiences with inquiry-based instruction as students and attitudes to teaching using this format along with observations of the GTAs in a laboratory setting are quick and useful tools in the assignment of GTAs to laboratory courses. Given the GTAs limited experience with inquiry-based laboratories, we recommend that this laboratory exercise be inquiry-based to give the GTAs a more positive and recent experience from which to model their teaching. A traditional 30-minute prelaboratory lecture is not beneficial in an inquiry-based laboratory. The following struc-

JChemEd.chem.wisc.edu • Vol. 80 No. 10 October 2003 • Journal of Chemical Education

1209


ture spreads the 30 minutes of “lecture” time throughout the three-hour laboratory, providing information to students as they require it rather than front-loading the information. First, a brief 5-minute overview of the objectives for the laboratory, any safety issues, and a brief discussion of the procedure is given. For example in the kinetics laboratory, the GTA could demonstrate the reaction of food dye and bleach and recommend that students first investigate their reaction visually rather than with the spectrophotometer. After 30 minutes of preliminary investigation students could be brought back together as a class for 5–10 minutes to discuss what they have found. Each group could report their progress to the class, as other students, not only the GTA, have information beneficial to the class. The GTA can give guidance on more detailed procedures as needed at this time. The class could be brought back together for the last 15–20 minutes of the three-hour period to discuss the data they have collected. Now is the appropriate time for GTAs to discuss analysis of the data and to have the students write a summary of their data and what they need to do for the following week in laboratory. For the kinetics laboratory we suggest that GTAs assign graphing of collected data and analysis of the graph to be collected at the beginning of the next laboratory session. We have found weekly staff meetings to be the most effective time to discuss teaching strategies with GTAs as these strategies relate directly to their assignment. GTAs used this time to determine what is needed to be addressed in their prelaboratory lecture, in fact most GTAs were observed to give an identical lecture as that given in the staff meeting. The staff meeting needs to model the expected behavior of the GTA in an inquiry-based laboratory. We recommend that the supervisor run the staff meeting in the format prescribed in the previous paragraph, allowing shorter time intervals for GTAs to work with the chemicals and spectrophotometers. GTAs must understand the need to focus, question, and challenge students at all stages of the laboratory period. GTAs were positive in their interactions with students but waited for students to come to them with a question rather than questioning student groups. Two strategies would be useful to help GTAs focus on their student-questioning techniques. We recommend that GTAs observe an experienced GTA or staff member interact with student groups and focus on the questioning strategies employed by the instructor. In the absence of an experienced instructor video cases can be used. Secondly, we recommend that GTAs be encouraged to analyze their own interactions with students through an audiotape analysis. GTAs need to recognize that all students do not approach learning in chemistry the same way that they did as students. It was noticeable that GTAs did not see learning as a cognitive activity that involved students constructing their own

1210

knowledge. This could be addressed by introducing a small quantity of student learning theory into the one-credit college teaching seminar. A useful introductory reading would be How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School (20). Acknowledgment J. P. Kurdziel was supported by a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education (DGE-9906478). Literature Cited 1. Browne, L. M.; Blackburn, E. V. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 1104–1107. 2. Science Teaching Reconsidered: A Handbook; National Research Council; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1997. 3. Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology; National Science Foundation: Arlington, VA, 1996. 4. National Science Education Standards; National Research Council; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1994. 5. Mills, P.; Sweeney, W. V.; Marino, R.; Clarkson, S. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1161–1165. 6. DeMeo S. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 201–203. 7. Centko, R. S.; Mohan, R. S. J. Chem. Educ. 2001, 78, 77– 79. 8. Abraham, M. R.; Craolice, M. S.; Graves; A. P.; Aldhamash, A. H.; Kihega, J. G.; Gal, J. G.; Varghese, V. J. Chem. Educ. 1997, 74, 591–594. 9. Nurrenbern, S. C.; Mickiewicz, J. A.; Francisco, J. S. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 114–117. 10. Travers, P. L. College Teaching 1989, 37, 147–149. 11. Jones, J. L. Innovative Higher Education 1993, 18, 147–161. 12. Rushin, J. W.; De Saix, J.; Lumsden, A.; Streubel, D. P.; Summers, G.; Berson, C. Am. Bio. Teacher 1997, 59, 86–90. 13. Hammrich, P. L. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development 1996, 3, 109–117. 14. Barrus, J. L.; Armstrong, T. R.; Renfrew, M. M; Garrard, V. G. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 1974, 3, 350–352. 15. Clark, D. J.; Mc Lean, K. Am. Bio. Teacher 1979, 41, 140– 144. 16. Druger, M. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 1997, 26, 424–427. 17. McComas, W. F.; Cox-Petersen, A. M. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching 1999, 29, 120–125. 18. Shannon, D. M.; Twale, D. J.; Moore, M. S. J. Higher Educ. 1998, 69, 440–466. 19. Miles, M. B.; Huberman, A. M. Qualitative Data Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994. 20. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School; National Research Council; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999.


Graduate Teaching Assistants and Inquiry-Based Instruction

Recommend Documents