David W. Brooks, J. D. Lewis, Karron Lewis, a n d Donald W. McCurdy University of ~ e b r a s k a - L ~ ~ C O I ~ Lincoln. 68508
The Teaching Coach A means of enhancing studen teaching ,VJassistant interactions during recitations
I t is our belief that a high degree of student-teaching assistant interaction during general chemistry recitation classes generally leads to increased learning levels on the part of students. That is, we believe students are likely to learn more in recitation classes where there is a high degree of active student participation than in recitation classes where the students are passive observers. Achieving a high degree of interaction during recitation is the responsibility of the eraduate teaching assistant. In chemistrv, most teaching assistants have little or no training in teaching methods. and receive little or no feedback germane to their teaching performance. This paper describes a unique and perhaps controversial mechanism for providing supportive non-evaluative feedback to chemistry graduate teaching assistants. The setting is the first year chemistry program a t the University of Nebraska-Lincoln where three tracks of twosemester first year chemistry courses are offered. The programs involve courses with seven weekly contact hours: three lecture hours given by senior staff to student sections as large as 200 students, and one recitation hour followed bv three lahoratorv hours conducted hv. eraduate teachine " assistants to student sections no larger than 24 students. Prior to their first teachine in the chemistrv. deoartment. . new teaching assistants attend pre-teaching seminars aimed a t providing them with formal training in teaching techniques.' The formal training provides the TA's with guidelines for determining what teaching strategies may he effective in a given situation. Perhaps, more importantly, they provide the TA's with a precise vocabulary which can he used for objectively discussing and analyzing their teaching behavior. In order to clarify the method described in this paper, one of our teaching method topics-analysis of verbal interactions betwee' teacher a& students-needs further elucidation. A scheme for the analysis of teacher and student verhal statements, Interaction Analysis, has been developed by Flanders.' In this scheme, teacher verhal statements and student verhal statements are classified into one of ten categories. Seven statement classifications pertain to teacher statements, two to student statements, and one classification is used to describe silence or confusion. Classifications are made every three seconds, and more often as needed to record classification changes. The Flanders' classification data are easily displayed in the form of a matrix which can serve as an objective focus for the discussion of a teaching performance. ~~~
~~
-
'The tiwmal training program for new TA's will be described in detail in a separate publication. Topics covered include: performance objectives, interaction analysis, microteaching, reinforeement theory, questioning skills, and tutoring skills. We hope that suitable materials for use by the academic chemistry community at large will soon be available as the result of a grant to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln by the Exxon Education Foundation. Also, committees of the Council of the American Chemical Society and the Division of Chemical Education are working in this area to assist chemistry graduate teaching assistants. Vlanders. N. A . "Analyzing Teaching Behavior," AddisonWesley Publishing Co., Reading. Mass., 1970. " I f the feedback germane to teaching methods rather than subject matter is to he truly "on-evaluative, it is preferable that the coach have little or no formal training in chemistry. 186 / Journal of
Chemical Education
On a regular basis, about once every three weeks, a tenminute segment of a recitation class conducted by our teaching assistants is videotape recorded. The recording is analyzed by our teaching coach. The teaching coach is a person skilled in teaching methods. T h e background of the coach in chemistry plays no role in this p r o g ~ a man , ~ aspect of our approach that we shall return to later in the discussion. The coach prepares for a meeting with the teaching assistant by viewing the tape and preparing an interaction analysis matrix of the ten-minute lesson segment. (That is, all of the verhal statements are classified and recorded in matrix format.) From the tape and matrix, the coach is able to assess the degree of student-teacher interaction taking place during the lesson segment. No commentary is developed relative to the richness or accuracy of the chemical content of the lesson segment. Based upon the tape, matrix, and the results of earlier meetings with the teaching assistant, the coach develops a strategy to be used in conference with the teaching assistant. Particular aspects of the lesson are noted: effective use of nonverbal reinforcements; evidence of distracting mannerisms; frequent use of higher order or probing questions; a missed opportunity for a question; patterns whereby the TA's behavior hronght about a great deal of content related student response; and so forth. The coach's suggestions for further practice by the TA are usually written a t this point. Having thus prepared, the coach confers with the teaching assistant. Both view the videotape and the matrix together. The tape serves as an objective record of the lesson. T h e matrix now provides a time base to keep track of the approximate percentage of time devoted to a given type of verhal statement (e.g., 32% teacher lecture, 7% teacher questions, 14% student response to questions). Also, it provides a means for identifying patterns that occur with some frequency (e.g., lecture followed by more lecture, question followed hy student response, or question followed by silence). Because the teaching assistant has received some formal training,' the matrix and statement classifications are familiar, and the coach and TA can ohjectively discuss the significance of the matrix using a commonly nnderstood vocabulary. The TA-coach conference has one primary functionsupportive feedback for the TA. Viewing the videotape alone (without the coach) would provide feedback, But it is the experienced coach who is able to make the feedback supportive by highlighting the successful pedagogical features of the lesson and making specific suggestions for improvement. These suggestions may also include references to obvious distractive mannerisms (e.g. pacing back and forth, failure to maintain eye contact, speech habits, etc). We refer to the feedback as non-evaluative. The coach plays no role whatsoever in any departmental evaluation of the teaching assistant. No records are transmitted to the department. In fact, the only records kept are the anonymously coded interaction analysis matrices. These are retained for research purposes. It is important to note that an interaction analysis matrix in and of itself is never an adequate means for judging the quality of a lesson. Some lessons stressing lecture are extremely successful; some lessons whose matrices reflect much interaction were, in fact, chaotic exchanges so loosely structured and poorly con-
trolled by the TA that little meaningful learning was possible. The reactions of our teaching assistants are, of course, all important in determining the teaching behavior outcomes of this feedback system. What are these reactions like? T h e first taping session is probably the most difficult experience. Almost invariably, the TA looks up during the lesson to note for the first time that recording is taking place. He or she thinks about-"How long has that recorder been here? What did I just say?" The trepidation experienced during the first taping declines rapidly; by the fourth session, TA's are likely to pay only casual, if any, attention to the camera equipment. Responses to the coaching conferences vary from concerned to disinterested. Concerned TA's respond very well; they view tapes and respond to the coach with earnest concern reflecting their desire to improve. The tapes, matrices, and comments from the coach give them ample feedback for self-evaluation. These TA's all show imorovement. alheit to widelv varvine degrees. After one or 'two sessions, some of the inl'tially'disinter&ted respond to feedback and become concerned. The hard core disinterested TA's fall into two groups. One group includes experienced TA's alreadv adequate to excellent in their cl&room technique. noth her in-cludes those who just don't care (as of this writing only a single individual was classified in this group). The coach asks disinterested TA's if they wish to discontinue participation. Only four of 30 individuals have removed themselves from the videotaping schedule. We have worked steadfastly to ensure that no TA is threatened by the program; we have squarely addressed the problem that no TA feel threatened by the program. Having succeeded in these regards, the program has been successful as a teachine strateev. For the concerned oarticion-the-job training program that we are aware of works as well or shows results as quickly as does this one. There are many drawhacks. First, much attention must he paid to maintaining the supportive nun-evaluative nature of the feedback. Were the feeling of security that a TA develops about the program to disappear, then the negative reactions of those threatened would become a counterbalance to those helped, and the net gain to our teaching program would significantly decrease. Second, the program is expensive. We need adequate videotape recording equipment (-$3,00O/unit), cameraman salary ($2/hr), and coach salary. Third, there are scheduling problems and problems associated with the potential of the videotape recording activity disrupting classroom activities. Sometimes the recording equipment arrives during the first minute of a ten-
minute quiz, and a new session is rescheduled for a suhsequent lesson. Fourth, there are inherent problems involved with evaluation of cognitive learning differences among students as a function of TA training (because of the numerous other factors affecting student learning). Thus far we have avoided this problem by assuming that increased teacher-student interactions are desirable and have not tried to relate student performance to TA training. However, in many cases it is readily possible to perceive differences in student attitudes simply by viewing student reactions as recorded on videotaoe. Finallv. - . this nroeram navs attention ouly to TA teaching techniques, and ignores chemical content. There is ahsolutelv no doubt that several of our TA's have subject matter problems. We are developine procedures for dealine with these nrohlems seoarate. . 1". 'chat i s , a n will nc,t use direct frrd1,;rck as a mean; of det e c t i n ~suhiecr maltrr def~cicnries.\Ve see no a a v in which this could be done without altering the non-evacuative nature of the program. Many initial concerns that a program such as this stultifies creative teaching have definitely not materialized. The coach works with TA's as individuals and evolves strategies with them which the TA's find comfortable. The success or failure of a strategy is measured in terms of student responses as recorded on succeeding videotapes. Other than our desire to encourage student-TA interaction, we have no preconceived notions about required patterns for successful teaching. Attentive listening by students to lecture during the recitation, as evidenced by videotape record would he regarded as positive evidence of student participation. The teaching coach must he someone who is naturally supportive and perceived by others as non-threatening. However, the coach must he an experienced teacher, well aware of a wide variety of acceptable teaching behaviors and philosophies, able to diaanose teachine deficiencies. and able to suggest meaningfurremedies in alforthright but acceptable manner. Such individuals are usually found in or through colleges of education. Direct supportive nun-evaluative feedback relative to teaching performance is ouly one of many mechanisms for improving teaching, but it has a definite role to plav . . in anv scheme designed td improve instruction.'
.
- .
A
In the Fall of 1914, a campus wide program was made available to faculty who voluntarily requested professional counsel relative to their teaching performance. Though broader in scope (all departments, all courses, all teaching modes, all aspects of teaching) and much less structured than the chemistry program, the university wide program of direct supportive non-evaluative feedback has enjoyed tremendous success.
Volume 53, Number 3. March 1976 / 187
