Instructional Issues for Teaching Assistants

P1: FQS

Innovative Higher Education PH014-294425 January 6, 2001 12:37 Style file version March 31, 1999

Innovative Higher Education, Vol. 25, No. 3, Spring 2001

Instructional Issues for Teaching Assistants

Jiali Luo, Marilyn L. Grady, and Laurie H. Bellows

ABSTRACT: This study examined teaching assistants’ perceptions of various instruc-tional issues and explored whether their perceptions were affected by nationality, gen-der, and academic discipline. The study generated significant, positive results. Logisticregression with dummy coding revealed significant predictors of teaching assistants’ in-structional roles, teaching style, instructional methods, communication strategies, andpotential problems. Discussion of the results, implications, and recommendations for fu-ture research are included.

KEY WORDS: graduate teaching assistants; instructors’ perspectives; teaching styles.

Graduate teaching assistants (TAs) perform a variety of roles atmany institutions of higher education in the United States. Based oninstitutional needs, their instructional responsibilities can range fromgrading, leading discussions, and supervising laboratories to teaching acourse independently (Lewis, 1993; Nyquist, Abbott, Wulff, & Sprague,1991; Nyquist & Wulff, 1996; Pica, Barnes, & Finger, 1990; Sarkisian,1997; Smith, Meyers, & Burkhalter, 1992). Because TAs often teach in-troductory undergraduate courses, both parents and students have ex-pressed concern about the quality of undergraduate education (Smith,Byrd, Nelson, Barrett, & Constantinides, 1992).

In addition, the presence of a large number of international teach-ing assistants (ITAs) on campuses has resulted in widespread attentionto their adequate preparation and supervision. Several national confer-ences on the education and employment of graduate teaching assistants,for instance, have been held. Discussions about the TA issue have pro-duced conference proceedings and generated a growing body of research

Jiali Luo is a higher education analyst in the Office of the Provost at Duke University. Hereceived his Ph.D. in Educational Leadership and Higher Education from the Universityof Nebraska-Lincoln. His current research interests include instructional theories, futurefaculty development, and institutional effectiveness. Marilyn L. Grady is professor ofeducational administration at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She received her Ph.D.in Leadership Theory from Ohio State University. Her recent co-authored books includeRekindling the Flame (2000), From First Year to First Rate (2000), and Principals inTransition (2000). Laurie H. Bellows received her Ph.D. in Psychological and CulturalStudies from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She is an instructional consultantwith UNL’s Teaching and Learning Center, where she coordinates the campus-wide TAtraining and development program.

209 C© 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

P1: FQS


210 INNOVATIVE HIGHER EDUCATION

literature (Bomotti, 1994; Chism & Warner, 1987; Lewis, 1993; Magnan,1993; Nyquist, Abbott, Wulff, & Sprague, 1991; Nyquist & Wulff, 1996;Prieto & Altmaier, 1994; Shannon, Twale, & Moore, 1998; Twale,Shannon, & Moore, 1997). Nonetheless, empirical research pertainingto TA perceptions of instructional issues is scarce.

Research shows that faculty cognitions affect faculty instructionalbehaviors (Morrill, 1980; Singer, 1996). How faculty teach, motivate,and communicate with students relates to a number of factors, includ-ing gender, personal values, and formative experiences. Similarly, TAs’instructional behaviors are likely shaped by attributes such as nation-ality, gender, and academic discipline.

The first purpose of this study was to explore TA perceptions of fiveissues related to classroom instruction: (a) instructional roles, (b) teach-ing style, (c) instructional methods, (d) communication strategies, and(e) potential problems. The second purpose was to examine whetherTA perceptions of such issues were affected by nationality, gender, oracademic discipline. Six research questions guided this study:

• How do TAs view their instructional roles in the classroom?• What teaching style do TAs employ when undertaking classroom

instruction?• What instructional methods do TAs choose to use in their classroom

instruction?• What are the major potential problems that affect TA classroom

instruction?• How do TAs enhance communication in the classroom?• Do TAs’ perceptions of instructional issues differ significantly

based on nationality, gender, or academic discipline?

In the following sections, we review related research. Then we de-scribe our data collection and data analysis. Third, we report the re-sults of our study. Finally, we discuss its implications and limitationsand make recommendations for future research.

Research Findings

TA Roles

According to the Bloom (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives,teaching has three domains: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Us-ing this taxonomy, Feinman (1991) defined two roles for law school TAs:cognitive and affective roles. The cognitive role requires TAs “to help

P1: FQS


Instructional Issues for Teaching Assistants 211

students learn better what the teacher wants them to learn, includingboth substance and skills.” The affective role requires TAs “to provideemotional support for students in their learning and, for first-year stu-dents, in their adjustment to law school” (p. 270).

Menges and Rando (1989) examined TAs’ assumptions and theoriesof teaching. Their interviews showed that TAs differed in their per-ceptions; although some viewed teaching as content, others regardedteaching as process or as motivation. Investigating TAs’ teaching styleand teaching attitude, McDowell (1993) found that the personality ofthe instructor and interpersonal relationships with students playedsignificant roles in TAs’ teaching. No matter how TAs view their in-structional roles, they are expected to be confident in subject matterand comfortable with their position of authority and, at the same time,to be open, approachable, interested in students, and concerned aboutstudent learning (Smith, Meyers, & Burkhalter, 1992).

TA Nationality

It is commonly assumed that ITAs are more likely to have difficultywith their instructional responsibilities than U.S. teaching assistants(USTAs). Many ITAs are educated in different cultural environmentsand do not know specifics about U.S. educational settings and the in-teractive teaching approaches employed in the U.S. classroom (Bauer,1996). ITAs also tend to perceive their instructional roles solely as con-veyors of information and therefore approach teaching more formallyand noninteractively than USTAs (Bauer, 1996; Twale, Shannon, &Moore, 1997). Finally, many ITAs are lacking in oral English proficiency(Davis, 1991).

Research has begun to document how student learning is affected byITA instruction. While some studies showed a negative effect for inex-perienced nonnative English-speaking TAs (Horvath & Norris, 1990;Watts & Lynch, 1989), a study by Norris (1991) indicated consistentlybetter student performance in sections conducted by nonnative English-speaking TAs. The author suggested that more commitment and mo-tivation on the part of nonnative English-speaking TAs might accountfor this finding.

In light of the studies showing that cultural differences affect ITAinstruction (Althen, 1991; Bailey, 1984; Bernhardt, 1987; Davis, 1991;Sarkodie-Mensah, 1991), we assumed that TA nationality might alsoaffect TA perceptions of their instructional roles, teaching style, andcommunication strategies.

P1: FQS



Gender

Research indicates that gender had a significant influence on pat-terns of classroom interaction (Boggs & Wiemann, 1994). Female in-structors tended to encourage more student participation than maleinstructors, and male instructors were likely to be more direct in offer-ing criticism to students (Statham, Richardson, & Cook, 1991; Treichler& Kramarae, 1983). The results of a study by McDowell (1993) indicatedgender differences in instructional methods and teaching style. Malesmore often used the lecture method and a dominant and precise style,whereas females were more dedicated to teaching and were more infor-mal, friendly, and open toward students.

In their study of student evaluations of TA performance, Boggs andWiemann (1994) found that females were significantly less likely thanmales to be chosen as best TA. Based on these findings, we expectedthat gender might play a role in TAs’ instructional experiences.

Academic Discipline

Faculty teach and conduct research in a cultural context of disciplineand institution (Austin, 1996). Disciplinary cultures impose particularpatterns in teaching as in other activities (Becher, 1994). Instructors indifferent disciplines were found to differ in attitudes, values, and per-sonal characteristics (Kuh & Whitt, 1988). Research using the Biglan(1973) model for the classification of subject matter shows that fac-ulty in different disciplines differed in their professional goals, tasks,and satisfaction (Creswell & Bean, 1981). Faculty in different aca-demic disciplines also differed on the amount of time spent on teach-ing and the degree of importance associated with teaching (Roskens& Creswell, 1981). In addition, TAs in different academic disciplinesreported different classroom problems and concerns (Luo, Bellows, &Grady, 2000). In light of these findings, we assumed that academic dis-cipline might influence how TAs perceive and respond to instructionalissues.

Method

Mailed survey questionnaires, developed by the researchers, wereused for data collection for this study. The survey instrument included12 self-assessment items such as knowledge of teaching duties and

P1: FQS



responsibilities, TA perceptions of instructional roles, teaching style,preferred instructional methods, communication strategies, and poten-tial problems related to classroom instruction. The items were identifiedthrough a review of scholarly and professional literature. Other ques-tions in the survey questionnaire asked for factual information, suchas gender, nationality, and academic discipline.

The population we selected for this study was graduate studentsworking as teaching assistants at a land-grant, Research 1 university.In mid-February 1997, questionnaires were sent to 579 U.S. TAs and170 ITAs who had been identified by the Graduate School as teachingassistants for the current semester. Two mailings yielded 304 usable re-sponses, generating a response rate of 41%. Respondents represented45 academic disciplines. Of the 304 respondents, 248 were USTAs and56 were ITAs. Of 248 USTAs, 117 (47%) were female, and 131 (53%)were male; of 56 ITAs, 22 (39%) were female, and 34 (61%) were male.

Mailing wave analyses were conducted to determine whether thesample obtained was representative of the population of graduateteaching assistants. Nothing appeared to distinguish respondents fromnonrespondents.

The statistical computer software SPSS was used in data analysis. Asdata were measured on nominal scales, chi-square tests were conductedto determine TA differences. In addition, as the dependent variables ex-amined in this study were categorical, the resulting data were inappro-priate for parametric regression analysis. Thus data were transformedto logistic distribution, and logistic regression analysis was then con-ducted in an effort to identify important predictors of TA differences ininstructional issues.

Results

What follows is a report of the results of selected self-assessmentitems provided in the survey instrument. The results are reported inthe order of (a) comparisons between USTAs and ITAs, (b) gender dif-ferences, and (c) disciplinary differences.

Comparisons Between USTAs and ITAs

Instructional Roles. As shown by Table I, significantly more USTAsviewed their instructional roles as facilitators, whereas more ITAsviewed their instructional roles as participant-evaluators.

P1: FQS



Tab

leI

Com

par

ison

ofT

AP

erce

pti

ons

ofT

hei

rIn

stru

ctio

nal

Rol

es

TA

grou

psA

cade

mic

disc

ipli

ne

US

TA

sIT

As

M.T

As

F.T

As

Sof

tH

ard

Inst

ruct

ion

alro

les

(N=

248)

(N=

56)

x2(N

=16

5)(N

=13

9)x2

(N=

112)

(N=

102)

x2

Faci

lita

tor

67.7

%46

.4%

60.6

%67

.6%

73.2

%54

.9%

Oth

erro

les

32.3

%53

.6%

8.99∗

39.4

%32

.4%

1.61

26.8

%45

.1%

7.82∗

Not

es:O

ther

role

sin

clu

deco

mm

ande

r,pa

rtic

ipan

t,ev

alu

ator

,an

dpa

rtic

ipan

t-ev

alu

ator

.In

the

init

iala

nal

ysis

,5.2

%of

US

TA

san

d1.

8%of

ITA

spe

rcei

ved

them

selv

esto

beco

mm

ande

rs;2

.8%

ofU

ST

As

and

8.9%

ofIT

As

perc

eive

dth

emse

lves

tobe

part

ic-

ipan

ts;3

.6%

ofU

ST

As

and

5.4%

ofIT

As

perc

eive

dth

emse

lves

tobe

eval

uat

ors;

20.6

%of

US

TA

san

d37

.5%

ofIT

As

perc

eive

dth

emse

lves

tobe

part

icip

ant-

eval

uat

ors.

As

ach

i-sq

uar

ete

stsh

ould

not

bepe

rfor

med

wh

enth

eex

pect

edfr

equ

ency

ofan

yce

llis

less

than

5,so

for

ach

i-sq

uar

ete

stin

stru

ctio

nal

role

sw

ere

coll

apse

din

totw

oca

tego

ries

:1)

Faci

lita

tor,

and

2)O

ther

Rol

es.

∗p<.0

1.

P1: FQS



Teaching Style. As shown by Table II, significantly more USTAsadopted an informal teaching style, whereas more ITAs adopted a for-mal teaching style when undertaking classroom instruction.

The significant differences found between USTAs and ITAs on in-structional roles and teaching style may be related to TA educationalbackgrounds, previous experiences, personalities, or perspectives onstudents. They could also partly be explained by the differences be-tween the U.S. and international cultures. In general, American cul-ture views teachers not as authorities who dispense knowledge but ascollaborators who facilitate students’ acquisition of new understand-ing (Smith, Meyers, & Burkhalter, 1992). In this study, a large per-centage of USTAs perceived their instructional roles as facilitators. Incontrast, some international cultures, and Asian culture in particular,value standard-based performance and formal relationships betweenteachers and students (Liberman, 1994; Pratt, 1991). Therefore, manyITAs, especially those who came from Asia, preferred the authority thatcame with the TA position and employed a formal teaching style.

Instructional Methods. Of five classroom instructional methodslisted, both USTAs and ITAs chose to use methods such as discussion,small group, and lecture/question & answer, that could engage students(Table III). However, neither of the two groups favored student presen-tation in spite of the fact that student presentation had, according toSherer (1991), a high degree of student involvement in the classroom.The results of a chi-square test showed no significant difference betweenUSTAs and ITAs on each of the instructional methods.

It is encouraging to find that both USTAs and ITAs preferred to useinteractive instructional methods when undertaking classroom instruc-tion. However, one should note that ITAs, prior to beginning a teachingassignment, had received training from the Institute for InternationalTeaching Assistants which had been established in the summer of 1988.The Institute is an intensive program offered during a three-week pe-riod in July and August and again in the fall as a semester-long course.This program prepares international graduate students for classroomresponsibilities. ITAs might have benefited from this training programin acquainting themselves with interactive instructional methods.

Potential Problems. Significantly more USTAs reported that studentexpectations were the major obstacle to their classroom instruction,whereas more ITAs reported that both language difficulties and cul-tural differences were the major obstacles they faced (see Table IV).No significant difference was found between the two groups on studentdiversity.

P1: FQS



Tab

leII

Com

par

ison

ofT

AD

iffe

ren

ces

inT

each

ing

Sty

le

TA

grou

psA

cade

mic

disc

ipli

ne

US

TA

sIT

As

M.U

ST

As

M.I

TA

sF.

US

TA

sF.

ITA

sS

oft

Har

dT

each

ing

styl

e(N

=24

8)(N

=56

)(N

=12

9)(N

=33

)(N

=11

5)(N

=21

)(N

=11

1)(N

=10

1)

For

mal

25%

51.9

%28

%55

%22

%50

%18

.9%

36.6

%In

form

al75

%48

.1%

72%

45%

78%

50%

81.1

%63

.4%

X2

15.2

2∗∗∗

8.40∗∗

6.22∗

8.35∗∗

∗p<.0

5.∗∗

p<.0

1.∗∗∗

p<.0

01.

P1: FQS



Tab

leII

IC

omp

aris

onof

TA

Dif

fere

nce

sin

Cla

ssro

omIn

stru

ctio

nal

Met

hod

s

TA

grou

psA

cade

mic

disc

ipli

ne

US

TA

sIT

As

M.T

As

F.T

As

Sof

tH

ard

Met

hod

s(N

=24

8)(N

=56

)x2

(N=

165)

(N=

139)

x2(N

=11

2)(N

=10

2)x2

Lec

ture

46.8

%46

.4%

0.00

49.1

%43

.9%

0.82

46.4

%44

.1%

0.12

Dis

cuss

ion

56.9

%42

.9%

3.61

42.4

%68

.3%

20.4

3∗73

.2%

32.4

%35

.85∗

Sm

allg

rou

p48

.0%

39.3

%1.

3933

.9%

61.2

%13

.78∗

61.6

%30

.4%

20.9

0∗

Stu

den

tpr

esen

tati

on51

.6%

53.6

%0.

0113

.9%

31.7

%22

.46∗

33.9

%11

.8%

14.6

5∗

Lec

ture

/qu

esti

on&

answ

er22

.2%

21.4

%0.

0751

.5%

52.5

%0.

3047

.3%

52.9

%0.

67

∗p<.0

01.

P1: FQS



Table IVComparison of TA Differences in Potential

Instruction Problems

TA groups Expectations Diversity Language Culture

USTAs (N = 248) 60.1% 16.9% 12.5% 3.6%ITAs (N = 56) 23.2% 26.8% 42.9% 17.9%X 2 24.94∗ 2.91 28.41∗ 15.78∗

Male USTAs (N = 131) 57.0% 18.0% 10.0% 3.0%Male ITAs (N = 34) 21.0% 36.0% 39.0% 18.0%X 2 13.92∗∗∗ 5.08∗ 16.30∗∗∗ 10.10∗∗

Female USTAs (N = 117) 64.0% 16.0% 15.0% 4.0%Female ITAs (N = 22) 27.0% 14.0% 50.0% 18.0%X 2 10.33∗∗ 0.09 13.44∗∗∗ 5.92∗

∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

It should be noted, however, that for USTAs, language difficulties mayhave been identified by students because of an increasing diverse stu-dent population (Banks, 1991; Border & Chism, 1992; Solomon, 1991);for ITAs, language difficulties may have been perceived as a problemby students or by ITAs themselves.

Communication Strategies. As shown by Table V, both USTAs andITAs reported using such strategies as writing on the board, stoppingfrequently to ask questions, forming friendly relationships with stu-dents, making classroom sessions interesting, and developing an inter-est in students. The results of a chi-square test indicated a significantdifference between USTAs and ITAs on only one strategy—presentingthe same idea in more than one way. More USTAs employed this strat-egy to enhance classroom communication. The fact that fewer ITAs usedthis strategy may reflect a problem with language that ITAs confrontin their instructional activities. Using different words to illuminate thesame idea or explain the same terminology can be a challenge for manyITAs (Sarkisian, 1997).

Gender Differences

To explore the initial zero-order associations between USTAs andITAs, gender was used as the control variable in the process of com-paring male USTAs with male ITAs and female USTAs and femaleITAs. The results of a chi-square test indicated no significant gender

P1: FQS



Tab

leV

Com

par

ison

ofT

AD

iffe

ren

ces

inC

lass

room

Com

mu

nic

atio

nS

trat

egie

s

TA

grou

psA

cade

mic

disc

ipli

ne

US

TA

sIT

As

M.T

As

F.T

As

Sof

tH

ard

Str

ateg

ies

(N=

248)

(N=

56)

x2(N

=16

5)(N

=13

9)x2

(N=

112)

(N=

102)

x2

Wri

tin

gon

the

boar

dm

ajor

69.8

%66

.1%

0.29

70.9

%66

.9%

0.57

67.9

%66

.7%

0.03

poin

ts,t

ech

nic

alte

rms,

theo

reti

calc

once

pts

Pre

sen

tin

gth

esa

me

idea

in65

.3%

46.4

%6.

91∗∗

58.2

%66

.2%

2.05

65.2

%57

.8%

1.22

mor

eth

anon

ew

ayS

topp

ing

freq

uen

tly

toas

kif

66.5

%55

.4%

2.49

61.2

%68

.3%

1.68

67.9

%62

.7%

0.62

stu

den

tsh

ave

any

ques

tion

sF

orm

ing

afr

ien

dly

rela

tion

ship

64.1

%57

.1%

0.95

58.2

%68

.3%

3.34

69.6

%60

.8%

1.85

wit

hst

ude

nts

Mak

ing

clas

sroo

mse

ssio

ns

58.9

%48

.2%

2.12

53.3

%61

.2%

1.88

72.3

%37

.3%

26.5

9∗∗∗

inte

rest

ing

Dev

elop

ing

are

alin

tere

stin

54.4

%42

.9%

2.45

46.7

%59

.0%

4.60∗

66.1

%41

.2%

13.3

3∗∗∗

stu

den

ts

Not

es:

Asi

gnifi

can

tdi

ffer

ence

betw

een

fem

ale

US

TA

san

dfe

mal

eIT

As

was

also

fou

nd

onth

est

rate

gy—

deve

lopi

ng

are

alin

tere

stin

stu

den

ts,x

2(1,n

=13

9)=

7.46,

p<.0

1.S

ign

ifica

ntl

ym

ore

fem

ale

US

TA

s(7

1%)

than

fem

ale

ITA

s(4

1%)

pref

erre

dth

isst

rate

gyto

enh

ance

clas

sroo

mco

mm

un

icat

ion

.∗

p<.0

5.∗∗

p<.0

1.∗∗∗

p<.0

01.

P1: FQS



differences in instructional roles but revealed significant gender differ-ences in teaching style, instructional methods, potential problems, andcommunication strategies.

Teaching Style. A significant difference was found between maleUSTA respondents and male ITA respondents on teaching style. Simi-larly, a significant difference in teaching style was also found betweenfemale USTA respondents and female ITA respondents. Significantlymore male ITAs and female ITAs reported adopting a formal teachingstyle, whereas more male USTAs and female USTAs reported adopt-ing an informal teaching style when undertaking classroom instruction(see Table II).

Instructional Methods. Significantly more female TAs than male TAsreported using three classroom instructional methods: (a) discussion,(b) small group, and (c) student presentation (see Table III). No signifi-cant difference was found among gender groups on other instructionalmethods.

Potential Problems. As shown by Table IV, significantly more maleITAs reported language difficulties, cultural differences, and studentdiversity as the major obstacles to their classroom instruction. In con-trast, more male USTAs reported that student expectations were themajor obstacle to effective classroom instruction. Similarly, significantlymore female ITAs reported that language difficulties and cultural differ-ences were major obstacles to classroom instruction, while more femaleUSTAs reported that student expectations were the major obstacle toclassroom instruction. However, no significant difference was found bet-ween female USTAs and female ITAs on student diversity.

Communication Strategies. Interestingly, significantly more femaleTAs than male TAs employed the strategy “developing a real interestin students” to enhance classroom communication (see Table V). Simi-larly, significantly more female USTAs than female ITAs preferred thisstrategy to enhance classroom communication. These findings seem tosupport previous research which suggests that female instructors en-courage classroom participation (Statham, Richardson, & Cook, 1991;Treichler & Kramarae, 1983).

Disciplinary Differences

To examine TA disciplinary differences concerning instructionalissues, the 45 academic disciplines represented by the sample were di-vided broadly into soft and hard disciplinary areas according tothe Biglan (1973) model. The soft area includes such disciplines as

P1: FQS



English, philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, economics,management, and education; the hard area includes such disciplinesas chemistry, physics, math, biological science, computer science, andengineering.

Instructional Roles. Significantly more TAs in soft disciplines viewedtheir instructional roles as facilitators whereas more TAs in hard dis-ciplines chose other roles (see Table I).

Teaching Style. When undertaking classroom instruction, signifi-cantly more TAs in soft disciplines reported adopting an informal teach-ing style while more TAs in hard disciplines adopted a formal teachingstyle (see Table II).

Instructional Methods. Significantly more TAs in soft disciplinesthan TAs in hard applied disciplines often used discussion, small group,and student presentation in their classroom instructional activities (seeTable III). However, no significant difference was found between softand hard disciplinary areas on other instructional methods.

Communication Strategies. Significantly more TAs in soft disciplinesthan TAs in hard disciplines preferred to make classroom sessions in-teresting to enhance classroom communication (see Table V). Also, moreTAs in soft disciplines preferred to develop a real interest in studentsin their effort to enhance classroom communication.

The above results support our hypotheses that there are disciplinarydifferences in TAs’ perceptions of instructional issues. Disciplinary cul-tures may explain the findings concerning differences between the disci-plines. Research shows that hard disciplines tend to emphasize learningof facts, principles, and concepts whereas soft disciplines tend to favordevelopment of critical thinking skills (Lattuca & Stark, 1995). Instruc-tors in soft disciplines are inclined to adopt a more discursive approachwhen undertaking classroom instruction than do their counterparts inhard disciplines (Braxton, 1995; Gaff & Wilson, 1971). In addition, theyare more likely to encourage students to debate divergent perspectivesand discuss issues related to course topics. Instructors in soft disci-plines stress knowledge application and knowledge integration (Smart& Ethington, 1995); they seek to enhance students’ capability to cri-tique other perspectives. In contrast, instructors in hard disciplinesemphasize knowledge acquisition (Smart & Ethington, 1995); they tryto cultivate students’ intellectual growth by developing their capabilityto use an accepted scientific perspective (Lattuca & Stark, 1995). Thesedifferences in disciplinary cultures may explain why more TAs in softdisciplines adopted an informal teaching style; viewed themselves asfacilitators; and more often used discussion, small group, and studentpresentation in their instruction than did those in hard disciplines.

P1: FQS



Discussion

To account for the proportion of variance in the selected items ofthe study, logistic regression with dummy coding was conducted acrossnationality, gender, and academic discipline. The results of logistic re-gression analysis (see Table VI) indicated the following:

First, nationality and academic discipline, but not gender, were sig-nificant predictors of TA instructional roles and teaching style. For in-structional roles, the odds of USTAs serving as facilitators were about2.42 times greater than the odds of corresponding ITAs; the odds of TAsin soft disciplines serving as facilitators were 2.25 times greater thanthe odds of corresponding TAs in hard disciplines. For teaching style,the odds of USTAs adopting an informal teaching style were 4.61 timesgreater than the odds of corresponding ITAs; the odds of TAs in softdisciplines adopting an informal teaching style were 2.47 greater thanthe odds of corresponding TAs in hard disciplines.

Second, gender and academic discipline, but not nationality, weresignificant predictors of instructional methods such as discussion, smallgroup, and student presentation. For gender, the odds of female TAsusing these instructional methods were much greater than the oddsof corresponding male TAs. For academic discipline, the odds of TAs insoft disciplines using discussion, small group, and student presentationwere respectively 5.72, 3.68, and 3.85 times greater than the odds ofcorresponding TAs in hard disciplines.

Third, nationality, but not gender or academic discipline, was a signif-icant predictor of potential problems such as language difficulties, cul-tural differences, and student expectations. The odds of USTAs havingproblems concerning language difficulties or cultural differences weremuch less than the odds of corresponding ITAs. However, the odds ofUSTAs finding student expectations hard to handle were 4.96 greaterthan the odds of corresponding ITAs.

Fourth, nationality, gender, and academic discipline were significantpredictors of some communication strategies. Specifically, nationalitywas a significant predictor of the strategy to present the same idea inmore than one way; the odds of USTAs using this strategy to enhanceclassroom communication were 2.17 times greater than the odds of cor-responding ITAs. Academic discipline was a significant predictor of thestrategy to make classroom sessions interesting; the odds of TAs in softdisciplines using this strategy were 4.4 times greater than the odds ofcorresponding TAs in hard disciplines. Finally, both gender and aca-demic discipline were significant predictors of the strategy to develop

P1: FQS


Instructional Issues for Teaching Assistants 223T

able

VI

Log

isti

cR

egre

ssio

nA

nal

ysis

for

Item

sR

elat

edto

TA

Inst

ruct

ion

alIs

sues

Pre

dict

ors

Nat

ion

alit

yG

ende

rA

cade

mic

disc

ipli

ne

Item

sB

S.E

.O

dd

sC

onst

ant

BS

.E.

Od

ds

Con

stan

tB

S.E

.O

dd

sC

onst

ant

Inst

ruct

ion

al.8

9∗∗

.30

2.42

−.1

4−

.31

.24

.74

.74

.81∗∗

.29

2.25

.20

role

Tea

chin

gst

yle

1.53∗∗∗

.38

4.61

−.2

2−

.27

.31

.77

1.14

.90∗∗

.32

2.47

.56

Lec

ture

.01

.30

1.01

−.1

4.2

1.2

31.

23−

.25

.09

.28

1.10

−.2

4D

iscu

ssio

n.5

6.3

01.

76−

.29

−1.

07∗∗∗

.24

.34

.77

1.74∗∗∗

.30

5.72

−.7

4S

mal

lgro

up

.35

.30

1.42

−.4

4−

1.12∗∗∗

.24

.33

.45

1.30∗∗∗

.29

3.68

−.8

3S

tude

nt

.04

.36

1.04

−1.

30−

1.05∗∗∗

.29

.35

−.7

71.

35∗∗∗

.37

3.85

−2.

01pr

esen

tati

onL

ectu

re/q

ues

tion

−.0

8.3

0.9

2.1

4−

.04

.23

.96

.10

−.2

3.2

7.8

0.1

2&

answ

erL

angu

age

−1.

66∗∗∗

.33

.19

−.2

9−

.34

.30

.71

−1.

33−

.25

.37

.78

−1.

54C

ult

ure

−1.

75∗∗∗

.49

.17

−1.

53−

.07

.47

.93

−2.

67.6

0.2

61.

29−

2.97

Exp

ecta

tion

1.61∗∗∗

.34

4.98

−1.

20−

.37

.23

.69

.33

.14

.27

1.15

.08

Div

ersi

ty−

.58

.35

.56

−1.

01.3

6.3

01.

43−

1.67

−.8

7.3

7.4

2−

1.07

Wri

tin

gon

.17

.31

1.18

.67

.19

.25

1.21

.70

.05

.29

1.06

.69

the

boar

dP

rese

nti

ng

the

.78∗∗

.30

2.17

−.1

4−

.34

.24

.71

.67

.31

.28

1.36

.32

sam

eid

eaS

topp

ing

toas

k.4

7.3

01.

60.2

2−

.31

.24

.73

.77

.23

.29

1.25

.52

ques

tion

sF

orm

ing

a.2

9.3

01.

34.2

9−

.44

.24

.64

.77

.39

.29

1.48

.44

rela

tion

ship

Mak

ing

sess

ion

s.4

3.3

01.

54−

.07

−.3

2.2

3.7

2.4

51.

48∗∗∗

.29

4.40

−.5

2in

tere

stin

gD

evel

opin

g.4

7.3

01.

59−

.29

−.5

0∗.2

3.6

1.3

61.

02∗∗∗

.28

2.78

−.3

6in

tere

st

Not

es:T

he

logi

stic

regr

essi

onan

alys

isu

sed

the

foll

owin

gdu

mm

yco

din

gsc

hem

e:N

atio

nal

ity:

US

TA

s=

1,IT

As

=0;

Gen

der:

mal

e=

1,fe

mal

e=

0;A

cade

mic

disc

ipli

ne:

soft

disc

ipli

ne

=1,

har

ddi

scip

lin

e=

0.In

stru

ctio

nal

role

:fac

ilit

ator

=1,

oth

erro

les

=0;

Tea

chin

gst

yle:

info

rmal

=1,

form

al=

0.F

orot

her

item

s,ye

s=

1,n

o=

0.∗

p<.0

5.∗∗

p<.0

1.∗∗∗

p<.0

01.

P1: FQS



a real interest in students. The odds of female TAs using this strat-egy were 0.61 times greater than the odds of corresponding male TAs;the odds of TAs in soft disciplines using this strategy were 2.78 timesgreater than the odds of corresponding TAs in hard disciplines.

Because the results of this study revealed significant TA differencesin terms of nationality, gender, and academic discipline, we make thefollowing recommendations:

First, we should help TAs develop effective cross-cultural communi-cation skills. As the undergraduate population becomes increasingly di-verse, both ITAs and USTAs must respond to student diversity (Banks,1991; Border & Chism, 1992; Cano, Jones, & Chism, 1991; Solomon,1991). TAs need to develop a variety of skills to meet the challengeof student diversity. They need to develop an awareness of differencesbetween the mainstream culture, the subculture, and international cul-tures. To survive and flourish in today’s classroom, TAs have to developnot only adequate language skills and teaching skills but also cross-cultural communication skills (Smith, Meyers, & Burkhalter, 1992).

As a starting point, TA developers should examine TAs’ assumptionsabout good teaching, their attitudes toward the value of communicat-ing with students and using a more interactive teaching style, and theirexpectations of students’ learning. TA discussion groups can help TAsexplore these issues (Sarkisian, 1984, 1997). Doing so will help TAs fromvarious cultural backgrounds as well as academic disciplines not onlyget to know each other better but also benefit from the differing per-spectives. In addition, TA developers can encourage students to sharewith TAs their expectations of learning and their expectations of ef-fective teaching. Undergraduate student panels can help TAs identifythe major differences between TAs’ assumptions about teaching andlearning and those of the students.

Second, we should help ITAs become effective classroom communi-cators. The results of the study indicated that language difficulties arethe major obstacle to ITAs’ classroom instruction. To help ITAs improvetheir English proficiency, TA developers may use telephone tapes tohelp ITAs acquire listening and imitation practice (Kozuh, 1993) orlanguage tutorials (Freisem & Lawrence, 1993). Providing ITAs withongoing language training for at least the first semester of teachingwill help them improve their communication with students. Academicdepartments should support such training to make it effective.

The results of the study also indicated that many ITAs confront ad-ditional problems such as student expectations, student diversity, andcultural differences. Hence ITA training should by no means be limited

P1: FQS



to language proficiency. Because of their particular cultural and edu-cational backgrounds, ITAs must understand the U.S. higher educa-tion systems and the U.S. classroom culture as well as U.S. undergrad-uate students (Bernhardt, 1987; Sarkisian, 1997; Smith, Meyers, &Burkhalter, 1992).

As little attention has been paid to ITA communication and teachingability (Thomas & Monoson, 1991), TA developers should provide ITAswith effective communicative skills that help them to be successful. Ad-equate language structure and pronunciation alone does not make aneffective teacher. In fact, research shows that students based their rat-ings of ITAs more on communication skills than on language proficiency(Ard, 1989; Rounds, 1987; Tapper, 1994). Thus TA training programsmust emphasize pedagogical practice (Bomotti, 1994; Magnan, 1993;Moore & Bresslau, 1996). Providing TAs with interactive, hands-onworkshops, and microteaching will likely address such needs (Goodlad,1997; Shannon, Twale, & Moore, 1998).

Third, we should help TAs develop a better understanding of stu-dents. Effective learning requires instructors to have a good under-standing of students. Only when instructors understand students canthey be effective in helping students learn (McKeachie, 1980). Tryingto understand students will help TAs identify the expectations, needs,and learning styles of students. Based on the needs of students, TAscan decide what strategies to use to enhance classroom communica-tion. The more TAs know their students, the more effectively they willlikely communicate with their students and the better instruction theywill provide.

Fourth, we should provide TAs with better supervision. TAs haveidentified good supervision as the most powerful influence on their ca-reer decision of being college faculty (Bomotti, 1994). In fact, TAs look upto supervisors as role models. Supervisors who value teaching will likelyhave a strong, lasting impact on TAs who plan to work in academia af-ter graduation. As the TA experience is still often “the only and bestpreparation for becoming a professor” (Staton & Darling, 1989, p. 17),institutions should use this opportunity to nurture future faculty. Theyshould encourage faculty members who are adequately prepared andwilling to devote time to be TAs’ supervisors. TA supervisors shouldregularly provide TAs with feedback about their teaching so that TAscan find ways to improve their instruction in a timely manner. Onlyby doing so can TAs be adequately socialized about the importance ofteaching and likely place greater emphasis on teaching in their futurecareer as college and university instructors.

P1: FQS



Finally, we should help TAs create an interactive classroom. The in-structional roles that teachers assume differ across time, space, andcultures (Smith, Meyers, & Burkhalter, 1992). Traditionally, teachersare viewed as information givers and sole possessors of knowledge andstudents are regarded as passive receptacles for information (Unger-Gallagher, 1991). The traditional model of teaching and learning, how-ever, will not work for the twenty-first century that expects individualsto think for themselves, solve complex problems, and produce knowl-edge (King, 1993).

The results of this study showed that some TAs, especially in harddisciplines, adopted a formal teaching style and used fewer interac-tive instructional methods when undertaking classroom instruction. Aschange is the game of the day due to the rapid development of technology(Bridges, 1991), we think that those TAs should cross their disciplinaryboundaries to embrace change. To meet the needs of the twenty-firstcentury, those TAs should rethink their roles as teachers and step outof their comfort zone to adopt new approaches. Teaching is an active,not a passive process. One secret for great leaders to get extraordi-nary things done in organizations is that they challenge the process(Bryman, 1992; Kouzes & Posner, 1991). Like great leaders, TAs whowish to conduct extraordinary instruction also should challenge the pro-cess of teaching and learning. They should be adopters of innovation toenhance student learning and shift their focus from transmission of in-formation to construction of meaning. Instead of being the “sage on thestage,” TAs should become a “guide on the side” to facilitate studentsin the learning process (Johnson, 1995; King, 1993). As interaction be-tween teachers and students can foster knowledge construction andmetacognition growth (Bruning, Schraw, & Ronning, 1995), TAs shouldbe encouraged to be more interactive and use a variety of instructionalmethods that promote student participation. By doing so they can helpstudents learn how to think and apply what they learn.

Conclusion

This study investigated TA perceptions of instructional issues interms of nationality, gender, and academic discipline. The results of thestudy suggest ongoing future directions for TA training programs. Withknowledge about their perceptions of instructional issues and their po-tential problems, TA developers can help TAs identify ways to improvetheir teaching as well as what instructional strategies to use in spe-cific learning situations. In response to rapid technological change, TAdevelopers should develop ongoing, innovative TA training programs

P1: FQS



that address issues of how to engage, motivate, and involve students inthe learning process.

However, the study has several limitations. First, with 579 USTAsand 170 ITAs, the study lacked an equal number of subjects for the twogroups of TAs. Second, the response rate for USTAs was higher than theresponse rate for ITAs. Third, the study did not examine TAs’ percep-tions of instructional issues with observations or interview data fromTAs or from students taught by TAs. Fourth, this study examined TA in-structional experiences in only one institution. As different institutionshave different cultures, TA instructional experiences in other institu-tions might be somewhat different. Finally, this descriptive study didnot examine the causal relationship between the variables.

To build an effective training model for TAs, future research shoulduse multiple sources of information to examine TA instructional issuesin depth. For instance, researchers might conduct interviews to examinethe underlying assumptions teaching assistants have about teachingand learning and their roles in facilitating the learning process. Identi-fying TAs’ assumptions about students, about how students learn andwhat motivates them should provide insight into the pedagogical strate-gies TAs use to design effective learning environments and enhanceclassroom communication. Future research might also examine TAs’actual classroom instructional behaviors and link instructional strate-gies with student performance to identify instructional techniques thatare most suitable and effective in educating students. Doing so will notonly help TAs become effective instructors, but it will also likely makethe learning experience more valuable to students.

References

Althen, G. (1991). Teaching “culture” to international teaching assistants. In J. D.Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the professoriateof tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 350–355). Dubuque, IA:Kendall/Hunt.

Ard, J. (1989). Grounding an ITA curriculum: Theoretical and practical concerns. Englishfor Specific Purposes, 8, 125–136.

Austin, A. E. (1996). Institutional and developmental cultures: The relationship betweenteaching and research. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Faculty teaching and research: Is therea conflict? (pp. 57–66). New Directions for Institutional Research, 90. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Bailey, K. M. (1984). The “foreign TA problem.” In K. M. Bailey, F. Pialorsi, &J. Zukowski/Faust (Eds.), Foreign teaching assistants in U.S. universities (pp. 3–15).Washington, DC: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs.

Banks, J. A. (1991). Teaching assistants and cultural diversity. In J. D. Nyquist, R.D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the professoriate of tomor-row to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 65–72). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

P1: FQS



Bauer, G. (1996). Addressing special considerations when working with internationalteaching assistants. In J. D. Nyquist & D. H. Wulff, Working effectively with graduateassistants (pp. 84–103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Educa-tion, 19, 151–161.

Bernhardt, E. (1987). Training foreign teaching assistants: Cultural differences. CollegeTeaching, 35, 67–69.

Biglan, A. (1973). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structureand output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 204–213.

Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1, Cognitive Do-main. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.

Boggs, C., & Wiemann, J. M. (1994). The role of gender and communicative competence inuniversity students’ evaluations of their teaching assistants. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 387 847)

Bomotti, S. S. (1994). Teaching assistant attitudes toward college teaching. The Reviewof Higher Education, 17, 371–393.

Border, L. L. B., & Chism, N. V. N. (1992). Teaching for diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Braxton, J. M. (1995). Disciplines with an affinity for the improvement of undergraduateeducation. In N. Hativa & M. Marincorich (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teachingand learning: Implications for practice (pp. 59–64). New Directions for Teaching andLearning, 64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and instruc-

tion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bryman, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.Cano, J., Jones, C. N., & Chism, N. V. (1991). TA teaching of an increasingly di-

verse undergraduate population. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, &J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected read-ings in TA training (pp. 87–94). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Chism, N. V. N., & Warner, S. B. (Eds.) (1987). Institutional responsibilities and responsesin the employment and education of teaching assistants. Columbus: The Ohio StateUniversity.

Creswell, J. W., & Bean, J. P. (1981). Research output, socialization, and the Biglan model.Research in Higher Education, 15, 69–91.

Davis, W. E. (1991). International teaching assistants and cultural differences: Studentevaluations of rapport, approachability, enthusiasm and fairness. In J. D. Nyquist,R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the professoriate of tomor-row to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 446–451). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Feinman, J. M. (1991). Teaching assistants. Journal of Legal Education, 41, 269–288.Freisem, K., & Lawrence, M. (1993). Approaching ITA language tutorials from a collab-

orative consultation perspective. In K. G. Lewis (Ed.), The TA experience: Preparingfor multiple roles (pp. 368–375). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Gaff, J. G., & Wilson, R. C. (1971). Faculty cultures and interdisciplinary studies. Journalof Higher Education, 42, 186–201.

Goodlad, S. (1997). Responding to the perceived training needs of graduate teachingassistants. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 83–92.

Horvath, D., & Norris, T. (1990). Nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants andstudent performance. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Johnson, G. R. (1995). First steps to excellence in college teaching. Madison, WI: Magna.King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41, 30–35.Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1991). The leadership challenge: How to get extraordinary

things done in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

P1: FQS



Kozuh, G. (1993). Making the connection between telephone tapes and customized audio-taping: Getting natural language input for monitored speech output. In K. G. Lewis(Ed.), The TA experience: Preparing for multiple roles (pp. 385–389). Stillwater, OK:New Forums Press.

Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges anduniversities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: Associa-tion for the Study of Higher Education.

Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (1995). Modifying the major: Disciplinary thoughts from tendisciplines. Review of Higher Education, 18, 315–344.

Lewis, K. G. (Ed.). (1993). The TA experience: Preparing for multiple roles. Stillwater, OK:New Forums Press.

Liberman, K. (1994). Asian student perspectives on American university instruction.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 173–192.

Luo, J., Bellows, L., & Grady, M. (2000). Classroom management issues for teachingassistants. Research in Higher Education, 41, 353–383.

Magnan, S. S. (1993). Assigning new TAs to second-year courses: Are TA developmentprograms adequate? ADFL Bulletin, 24(3), 36–43.

McDowell, E. E. (1993). An exploratory study of GTA’s attitudes toward aspects of teachingand teaching style. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Commu-nication Association, Miami Beach, FL. (ERIC Reproduction Document Service No.ED 370 147)

McKeachie, W. J. (1980). Implications of cognitive psychology for college teaching. InW. J. McKeachie (Ed.), Learning, college teaching and cognition (pp. 85–93). NewDirections for Teaching and Learning, 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Menges, R. L., & Rando, W. C. (1989). What are your assumptions? Improving instructionby examining theories. College Teaching, 37, 54–60.

Moore, Z. T., & Bresslau, B. (1996). An investigation of the effectiveness of foreign lan-guage training programs for TAs: An exploratory study. Texas Papers in ForeignLanguage Education, 2(2), 41–56.

Morrill, R. L. (1980). Teaching values in college: Facilitating development of ethical, moral,and values awareness in students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Norris, T. (1991). Nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants and student perfor-mance. Research in Higher Education, 32, 433–448.

Nyquist, J. D., Abbott, R. D., Wulff, D. H., & Sprague, J. (Eds.). (1991). Preparing theprofessoriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training. Dubuque, IA:Kendall/Hunt.

Nyquist, J. D., & Wulff, D. H. (1996). Working effectively with graduate assistants. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pica, T., Barnes, G. A., & Finger, A. G. (1990). Teaching matters: Skills and strategies forinternational teaching assistants. New York: Newbury House Publishers.

Pratt, D. D. (1991). Conceptions of self within China and the United States: Contrastingfoundations for adult education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15,285–310.

Prieto, L. R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1994). The relationship of prior training and previousteaching experience to self-efficacy among graduate teaching assistants. Research inHigher Education, 35, 481–497.

Roskens, R. W., & Creswell, J. W. (1981). Biglan model test based on institutionaldiversity. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association. Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED 203 791)

Rounds, P. L. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teachingassistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 643–671.

Sarkisian, E. (1984). Training foreign teaching assistants: Using videotape to observe andpractice communicating and interacting with students. (ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service No. ED 274 190)

P1: FQS



Sarkisian, E. (1997). Teaching American students: A guide for international faculty andteaching assistants in colleges and universities (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Derek BokCenter for Teaching and Learning.

Sarkodie-Mensah, K. (1991). The international student as TA: A beat from a foreigndrummer. College Teaching, 39, 115–116.

Shannon, D. M., Twale, D. J., & Moore, M. S. (1998). TA teaching effectiveness: The impactof training and teaching experience. The Journal of Higher Education, 69, 440–466.

Sherer, P. D. (1991). A framework for TA training: methods, behaviors, skills, and stu-dent involvement. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.),Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training(pp. 257–274). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Singer, E. R. (1996). Espoused teaching paradigms of college faculty. Research in HigherEducation, 37, 659–679.

Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1995). Disciplinary and institutional differences in un-dergraduate education goals. In N. Hativa & M. Marincorich (Eds.), Disciplinarydifferences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 49–57). New Di-rections for Teaching and Learning, 64. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, R. M., Byrd, P., Nelson, G. L., Barrett, R. P., & Constantinides, J. C. (1992).Crossing pedagogical oceans: International teaching assistants in U.S. undergrad-uate education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8, 1992. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 358 810)

Smith, J., Meyers, C. M., & Burkhalter, A. J. (1992). Communicate: Strategies for inter-national teaching assistants. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.

Solomon, B. B. (1991). Teaching an increasingly diverse undergraduate population. InJ. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the profes-soriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 55–64). Dubuque,IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Statham, A., Richardson, L., & Cook, J. A. (1991). Gender and university teaching: Anegotiated difference. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Staton, A. Q., & Darling, A. L. (1989). Socialization of teaching assistants. In J. D. Nyquist,R. D. Abbott, & D. H. Wulff (Eds.), Teaching assistant training in the 90s (pp. 15–22).New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 39. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tapper, J. (1994). Directives used in college laboratory oral discourse. English for SpecificPurposes, 13, 205–222.

Thomas, C. F., & Monoson, P. K. (1991). Issues related to state-mandated English lan-guage proficiency requirements. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, &J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected read-ings in TA training (pp. 382–392). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Treichler, P. A., & Kramarae, C. (1983). Women’s talk in the ivory tower. CommunicationQuarterly, 31, 118–132.

Twale, D. J., Shannon, D. M., & Moore, M. S. (1997). NGTA and IGTA training and expe-rience: Comparisons between self-ratings and undergraduate student evaluations.Innovative Higher Education, 22, 61–77.

Unger-Gallagher, V. J. (1991). The role of the TA in the interactive classroom. In J. D.Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.), Preparing the professoriateof tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 275–283). Dubuque, IA:Kendall/Hunt.

Watts, M., & Lynch, G. L. (1989). The principles course revisited. American EconomicsReview, 79, 236–241.

Documents

Instructional Issues for Teaching Assistants