Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Views of GTAs Impacted by Cross-Tiered Professional Development: Messages Intended and Received

  • Published:
International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A growing number of university STEM departments are incorporating active learning practices in their courses in response to evidence of the general effectiveness of such practices. Professional development for instructors new to active learning practices is increasingly important as efforts extend to reach past early adopters to engage a wider range of faculty. In some cases, the professional development is cross-tiered and involves stakeholders, people who have a direct interest in the course, at multiple positions of power in a department including faculty and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs). In these cases, it is often assumed that graduate students interpret the messages and buy-in to the training in the same way as faculty; however, there has been little research validating this process. We worked with a cohort of mathematics GTAs and their supervising faculty member during a year-long program aimed at increasing the use of active learning in the undergraduate introductory calculus sequence; here, we focus on a calculus I instructor and the five GTAs working with her. We used a worksheet (based on the Real Time Instructor Observation Tool), classroom observations, and interviews to analyze the messages that were intended and received by the GTAs, faculty member, and professional development team. Although our data shows a misalignment of expectations between the professional development team and the supervising faculty member, the GTAs did not perceive a large discrepancy between them. Rather, the GTAs interpreted the messages of both parties to be in the middle of what each intended. The GTAs bought in to the messages they perceived although they believed in and engaged in a larger amount of instructor-centered practice (Explaining) than the professional development team was expecting. Implications for this work include the need for strategies to make cross-tiered professional development more aligned and effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Only one action can be coded at a time, and an action must persist for 10 s before an observer switches codes.

References

  • Adams, C., & Dove, A. (2018). Calculus students flipped out: The impact of flipped learning on calculus students’ achievement and perceptions of learning. PRIMUS, 28(6), 600–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2017.1332701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alsardary, S., & Blumberg, P. (2009). Interactive, learner-centered methods of teaching mathematics. PRIMUS, 19(4), 401–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballen, C. J., Wieman, C., Salehi, S., Searle, J. B., & Zamudio, K. R. (2017). Enhancing diversity in undergraduate science: Self-efficacy drives performance gains with active learning. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(4), ar56. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-12-0344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, E. A., Easlon, E. J., Potter, S. C., Guzman-Alvarez, A., Spear, J. M., Facciotti, M. T., et al. (2017). The effects of practice-based training on graduate teaching assistants’ classroom practices. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16(4), ar58. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-05-0162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bligh, D., & Cameron, B. J. (2000). What’s the use of lectures? The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 30(1), 192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. 1991 ASHE-ERIC higher education reports. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University

  • Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate teaching assistants. Innovative Higher Education, 22(3), 157–179. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025183225886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, B., Bremser, P., Duval, A. M., Lockwood, E., & White, D. (2017). What does active learning mean for mathematicians? Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(2), 124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Wright, D. A., Dubick, R. A., & Newman, I. (1997). Graduate assistant expectation and faculty perception: Implications for mentoring and training. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 410–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chini, J. J., Straub, C. L., & Thomas, K. H. (2016). Learning from avatars: Learning assistants practice physics pedagogy in a classroom simulator. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(1), 010117–010111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly, M. R., Lee, Y. G., & Savoy, J. N. (2018). The effects of doctoral teaching development on early-career STEM scholars’ college teaching self-efficacy. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(1), ar14.

  • Corbo, J., Rundquist, A., Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. (2016). Using asynchronous communication to support virtual faculty learning communities. In D. L. Jones, L. Ding, & A. Traxler (Eds.) 2016 Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings (pp. 84–87). Sacramento, CA. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2016.pr.016.

  • Cormas, P. C., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2011). The effective research-based characteristics of professional development of the National Science Foundation’s GK-12 program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9228-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2013). Impact of cold-calling on student voluntary participation. Journal of Management Education, 37(3), 305–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, F., Amezcua, F., Sabella, M., & Van Duzor, A. (2018). Exploring the underlying factors in learning assistant-faculty partnerships. In L. Ding, A. Traxler, and Y. Cao (Eds.) Physics Education Research Conference Proceedings. Cincinnati, OH. https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.021.

  • Dieker, L. A., Hynes, M. C., Hughes, C. E., Hardin, S., & Becht, K. (2015). TLE TeachLivE™: Using technology to provide quality professional development in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(3), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragisich, V., Keller, V., & Zhao, M. (2016). An intensive training program for effective teaching assistants in chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(7), 1204–1210. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, E. M., & Cooper, M. M. (2020). Assessing TA buy-in to expectations and alignment of actual teaching practices in a transformed general chemistry laboratory course. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 21, 189–208.

  • Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human Resources, XL(3), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XL.3.647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J. F. (2014). Preparing future college instructors: The role of graduate student teaching assistants (GTAs) in successful college calculus programs. eScholarship, University of California.

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, J., Maher, M. A., Feldon, D. F., & Timmerman, B. (2014). Exploration of factors related to the development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics graduate teaching assistants’ teaching orientations. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1910–1928. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.806459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertzen, R. M., Scherr, R. E., & Elby, A. (2009). Accounting for tutorial teaching assistants’ buy-in to reform instruction. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5(2), 020109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.5.020109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goertzen, R. M., Scherr, R. E., & Elby, A. (2010). Tutorial teaching assistants in the classroom: Similar teaching behaviors are supported by varied beliefs about teaching and learning. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 6(1), 010105. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.6.010105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, G., Froman, J., & Surles, J. (2009). The professional development of graduate mathematics teaching assistants. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(1), 157–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, C. N., & Laursen, S. L. (2018). Supporting instructional change in mathematics: Using social network analysis to understand online support processes following professional development workshops. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0120-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2007). Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 3(2), 020102–020101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., & Dancy, M. H. (2008). Physics faculty and educational researchers: Divergent expectations as barriers to the diffusion of innovations. American Journal of Physics, 76(1), 79–91.

  • Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, C. E., Dieker, L. A., Nagendran, A., & Hynes, M. C. (2016). Semi-automated digital puppetry control. Google Patents.

  • Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2014). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39(3), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-9269-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langdon, L. (2019). The learning assistant alliance for supporting a diversity of institutions, faculty, and students. Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 64, 3.

  • Laursen, S. L. (2019). Levers for change: An assessment of progress on changing STEM instruction. Retrieved from American Association for the Advancement of Science website: https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-07/levers-for-change-WEB100_2019.pdf.

  • Lindaman, B. J. (2007). Making sense of the infinite: A study comparing the effectiveness of two approaches to teaching infinite series in calculus. ProQuest Information & Learning.

  • Maggelakis, S., & Lutzer, C. (2007). Optimizing student success in calculus. PRIMUS, 17(3), 284–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marbach-Ad, G., Schaefer, K. L., Kumi, B. C., Friedman, L. A., Thompson, K. V., & Doyle, M. P. (2012). Development and evaluation of a prep course for chemistry graduate teaching assistants at a Research University. Journal of Chemical Education, 89(7), 865–872. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed200563b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mittag, K. C., & Collins, L. B. (2000). Relating calculus-I reform experience to performance in traditional calculus-II. Primus: Problems, Resources & Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 10(1), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970008965950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natasha, S., Timothy, G., & Teri, J. M. (2005). Mathematics teaching assistant preparation and development. College Teaching, 53(2), 75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norwood, K. S. (1995). The effects of the use of problem solving and cooperative learning on the mathematics achievement of underprepared college freshmen. Primus, 5, 229–252.

  • Olson, S., Riordan, D. G., & Executive Office of the, P. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Report to the President. Executive Office of the President.

  • Otero, V., Pollock, S., & Finkelstein, N. (2010). A physics department’s role in preparing physics teachers: The Colorado learning assistant model. American Journal of Physics, 78(11), 1218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piburn, M., Sawada, D., & Arizona State Univ, T. A. C. f. E. i. t. P. o. T. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) reference manual. Technical report.

  • Pilgrim, M., & Gehrtz, J. (2018). Sustaining change in calculus I. PRIMUS, 28(6), 562–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., et al. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. CBE – Life Sciences Education, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225.

  • Reinholz, D. L., Matz, R. L., Cole, R., & Apkarian, N. (2019). STEM is not a monolith: A preliminary analysis of variations in STEM disciplinary cultures and implications for change. Am Soc Cell Biol.

  • Roddick, C. D. (2001). Differences in learning outcomes: Calculus and mathematica vs. traditional calculus. PRIMUS, 11(1), 161–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saroyan, A., Dagenais, J., & Zhou, Y. (2009). Graduate students’ conceptions of university teaching and learning: Formation for change. Instructional Science, 37(6), 579–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9071-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, K., Braddy, L., Bailer, J., Farinelli, R., Holm, T., Mesa, V., et al. (2015). A common vision for undergraduate mathematical sciences programs in 2025. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schussler, E. E., Read, Q., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K., & Ferzli, M. (2015). Preparing biology graduate teaching assistants for their roles as instructors: An assessment of institutional approaches. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14(3), ar31.

  • Smith, M. K., Jones, F. H. M., 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spike, B. T., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2010). Examining the beliefs and practice of teaching assistants: Two case studies. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1289(1), 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3515231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., et al. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamp, N., & O’Brien, T. (2005). GK – 12 partnership: A model to advance change in science education. BioScience, 55(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0070:GPAMTA]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., Warzon, K. B., & Christensen, A. (2011). Motivating mathematics learning: Changes in teachers’ practices and beliefs during a nine-month collaboration. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 718–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasco, J. B., Knedeisen, A., Xue, D., Vickrey, T. L., Abebe, M., & Stains, M. (2016). Characterizing instructional practices in the laboratory: The laboratory observation protocol for undergraduate STEM. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(7), 1191–1203. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, E. A., Paul, C. A., Webb, D., & Potter, W. H. (2013). Variation of instructor-student interactions in an introductory interactive physics course. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 9(1), 010109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.9.010109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, M., Yang, Y., & Chini, J. J. (2016). Quicker method for assessing influences on teaching assistant buy-in and practices in reformed courses. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 12(2), 020123. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.020123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE) project Award #1505322 in collaboration with Xin Li, Michele Gill, Brian Moore, & Melissa Dagley.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA

    Erin K. H. Saitta

  2. Department of Physics, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd, Orlando, FL, 32816, USA

    Matthew Wilcox, Westley D. James & Jacquelyn J. Chini

Authors
  1. Erin K. H. Saitta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Wilcox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Westley D. James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacquelyn J. Chini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin K. H. Saitta.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saitta, E.K.H., Wilcox, M., James, W.D. et al. The Views of GTAs Impacted by Cross-Tiered Professional Development: Messages Intended and Received. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 6, 421–445 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-020-00115-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-020-00115-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation