A Faculty Perspective on Teaching Assistant Training
Amy Mueller
Baron Penman
Lee I. McCann
Susan H. McFadden
University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh
The quality and type of instruction teaching assistants (TAs) receive provide basic preparation for a
faculty career. We sampled 249 chairs of psychology departments offering doctoral programs.
Questionnaire results show that faculty respondents (a) identify TA responsibilities in a variety of
pedagogical areas, (b) describe a diverse set of TA training components, and (c) rate TA supervisors as
experienced in both working with TAs and as undergraduate teachers. Faculty respondents describe a
pedagogical base from which new faculty with TA experience may continue to develop as teachers.
The preparation teaching assistant (TA) training provides is important. Work as a TA represents the
beginning of college teaching for many prospective faculty (Richlin, 1993). Almost half of current faculty
in all disciplines were TAs (Schuster, 1993) and among TAs nationally, 75% plan to teach in colleges or
universities (Diamond & Gray, 1987). What is the nature of TA training in psychology?
The American Psychological Association (APA) sponsored the 1991 National Conference on
Enhancing the Quality of Undergraduate Education in Psychology that recognized the importance of TA
training by recommending that “students be prepared for their role as teachers through course work or
programs on teaching principles and methods” (McGovern, 1993, p.252). To ascertain whether
departments and universities are meeting this goal and to determine what we can expect a typical new
faculty member with TA experience to have learned about teaching, this research investigated doctoral
faculty’s perceptions and beliefs regarding the importance and effectiveness of TA training with respect to
responsibilities, content and structure of teacher training, and socialization into the academic profession.
Method
Participants and Definitions
The focus of this study is TA training in American and Canadian doctoral programs in psychology,
broadly defined to include any situation providing the opportunity to learn about teaching (e.g., informal
meetings with faculty, one-on-one mentoring, structured and required TA training, and courses for credit).
We sampled doctoral programs because their graduates are our future faculty and asked faculty respondents to consider the training of all pre- and postmaster’s TAs. We did not study the contribution of
terminal master’s programs to TA development and differences between TA training pre- and
postmaster’s in doctoral programs. To clarify that data were provided by faculty, and not TAs, we use the
term faculty respondent.
Instrument
We developed a questionnaire with a completion time of approximately 1 hr based on four bodies of
literature: (a) TA research and writings across disciplines (e.g., Diamond & Gray, 1987; Lambert & Tice;
1993; Nyquist, Abbott, Wulff, &Sprague, 1991; Slevin, 1992; Van Note Chism, 1957); (b) writings on
faculty preparation, especially the experience of new faculty (e.g., Boice’s 1991,1992 four-part model
describing new faculty success; Fink, 1954); (c) literature on teaching and higher education in general
(e.g., Fowen & Schuster, 1956; Clark, 1957; Lowman, 1995; McKeichie, 1994; Schuster, Wheeler, &
Associates, 1990) with a broad view of faculty career development, including teaching; and (d) writings
in psychology on college teacher preparation, TA programs, and ethics (e.g., Benassi & Fernald, 1993;
Finger, 1969; Grasha, 1975; Lowman & Mathie, 1993; Lumsden, Grosslight, Loveland, & Williams,
1955; McFadden & Perlman, 1959; Rickard, Prentice-Dunn, Rogers, Scogin, & Lyman, 1991;
Tabachnick, Keith-Spiegel, & Pope, 1991; Williams & Richman, 1971). Hence, the domains of TA
training assessed by the questionnaire reflect the skills and knowledge that the literature defines as
particularly important. All questions were close ended with categories to be checked or scales completed.
Procedure
The Office of Demographic, Employment, and Educational Research of the APA provided a list of
departments in the United States and Canada (n = 249) with doctoral programs training full-time graduate
students at institutions with undergraduate students available for TAs to teach. Department chairs received
a cover letter, questionnaire, and stamped return envelope and had the option of forwarding the questionnaire to a colleague mote knowledgeable about TA training. Three weeks later, a researcher
telephoned non-respondents, briefly described the research, and asked that they complete the
questionnaire. If the questionnaire had been (or needed to be) forwarded to someone more knowledgeable,
the researcher called this person. The survey measured actual TA training within the institution, not
institution policy, and the viewpoint of faculty respondents, not their colleagues or TAs.
The questionnaire was anonymous if faculty respondents did not list their names (optional);
institutional affiliation was known. All data were confidential and we report them in aggregate form only.
Results and Discussion
Faculty respondents returned 135 questionnaires (55%). No TAs exist in 25 of these psychology
departments, and 2 questionnaires were not usable due to substantial missing data. Thus, we analyzed data
from 108 completed questionnaires (43%) for institutions in which TA training exists. Because some
faculty respondents left items blank, all totals may not equal 105. All faculty respondents were from
psychology departments. Of the 82 identifying their position, 42% (n = 34) were chairs, 26% (n = 21)
held the rank of professor, and 33% (n = 27) were other psychology faculty.
TA Training Information
The faculty respondents perceive many opportunities for graduate students to gain TA training.
Departments have an average of 97 graduate students (SD = 61, Mdn = 86) with an average of 33 TAs
(SD = 25, Mdn = 25) who teach in some capacity for an average of 4.7 semesters (SD = 2.6, Mdn = 4,
corrected for quarter systems and trimesters). At 90 institutions (83%), TA training is required. In the
sample of 105 institutions, 70 departments offer TA training (required at 52), 14 college-level training
programs exist (required at 6), and 58 training programs are offered at the university level (required at
32). In 17 (l6%) cases, both university and department TA training is required. Of the faculty respondents
78% (n = 81) believe that TAs learn the most from department-level training.
TA Responsibilities
The 10 most frequently cited areas (number of programs and percentage, respectively) of TA
responsibility are as follows:
1. Hold office hours (105, 97%),
2. Grade exams (103, 95%).
3. Conduct discussion groups or review sessions—faculty member absent (92, 85%).
4. Supervise labs—faculty member absent (91, 84%).
5. Prepare exams (86, 80%).
6. Lead class discussion—faculty member absent (82, 76%).
7. Periodically present lectures (81, 75%).
8. Prepare lectures (76, 70%).
9. Take sole responsibility for class discussion section (72, 67%)
10. Advise or counsel students—faculty member absent (66, 61%). In 56% of the programs, TAs
write their own course syllabi, and in 52% TAs teach a course under faculty supervision.
New full-time faculty are expected to meet all of the teaching responsibilities inherent in faculty
membership. When we compare the complexities of full-time teaching with TA responsibilities, we
conclude that TA training is best viewed as a beginning. Faculty respondents are aware or this fact; 65%
agree or strongly agree that new college professors often experience adjustment problems because
graduate training has not oriented them properly toward their many job responsibilities and 57% disagree
or strongly disagree that the typical graduate of a conventional doctoral program is well prepared to teach.
Departments hiring or employing new faculty also need to understand that becoming a good teacher takes
time, and the mentoring they offer should be seen as an extension of TA training, supporting new faculty
members in their teacher development.
Training Components of TA Programs
The 10 most frequently cited training methods (number of programs and percentage, respectively) by
faculty respondents are as follows:
1. TAs observe faculty teaching (88, 81%).
2. Student evaluations of TAs (85, 79%).
3. Orientation preceding academic year or semester (83, 77%).
4. TA observed in classroom by supervisors (78, 72%).
5. Workshop, seminar, conference, and group meeting or informal interchange about teaching (72,
67%).
6. Faculty as mentors (69, 64%).
7. Faculty supervision (68, 63%).
8. Required teaching seminar (49, 45%).
9. Systematic small-group training (44, 41%).
10. TAs observe (e.g., videotapes, discussion groups) their classroom teaching (40, 37%). Co-teaching
is done in-frequently (23, 21%).
Some TA training is more extensive and offers more depth than others. For example, 49 programs
require a teaching seminar; 6 (12%) are for 0 credit. 19 (39%) are for 1 credit, 20 (41%) are 2 to 3 credits,
and 4 (8%) are for 4 or more credits. Most teaching seminars are 1 semester in length (n = 31, 63%) but
18% (n = 9) are for 2 semesters and one program requires a 4-semester seminar. Faculty respondents
(81%) describe TAs’ use of training components and supports as average or good (M = 2.4, SD = 0.8,
Mdn = 2), on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (excellent) to 5 (poor).
Almost all TA programs (n = 104, 96%) offer supervision, most often individually with a supervising
faculty (n = 47 programs, 45%) or in groups of 2 to 3 supervisors (n = 41, 39%). Half of the TAs receive
1 hr per week in supervision; the rest receive 2 to 3 hr per week. Faculty respondents report that TAs
work with very experienced supervisors, 67% of whom have worked with TAs for 7 or more years. Of the
100 respondent faculty describing the undergraduate teaching experience of TA supervisors, 92 describe
them as very experienced. We do not know the nature of this supervision, but 57 faculty respondents
report their belief that it provides the most helpful feedback for TAs (40 faculty respondents rate student
evaluations and 3 faculty respondents rate other forms of feedback as most useful) and 79 of 102 faculty
respondents (77%) report its quality as adequate or very adequate (M = 2.1, SD = 1.0, Mdn = 2.0) an a 5point scale ranging from 1 (very adequate) to 5 (very inadequate).
Faculty respondents observe that TAs receive a varied approach to learning about teaching because of
the different responsibilities they undertake and because of the differences among programs in
supervision and requirements in training structure. Psychology TA training includes a number of structured and non-structured experiences, seminars, and discussions. Some of the TA training programs meet
the criteria for the “full apprenticeship” or “apprenticeship/seminar” approach (Lumsden et al., 1955),
whereas others reflect “hybrid” models (Benassi, 1993).
Content of TA Instruction
Table 1 presents data from the 105 faculty respondents on what they report TAs are taught about teaching.
No cutoff for inclusion of items was used. Although no one program educates TAs in all pedagogical
areas, faculty respondents observe that many teaching areas are typically covered, One can expect new
psychology faculty with TA experience to be at least familiar with a wide variety of teaching issues and
processes, although some facets of teaching are absent from the list (e.g., cooperative and collaborative
learning, teaching psychology from a cross-cultural perspective, and teaching honors or capstone
courses).
The fact that 72% of the faculty respondents report instruction about the ethical standards of teaching
shows attention to this critical area. The availability of the casebook, The Ethics of Teaching (KeithSpiegel, Wittig, Perkins, Balogh, & Whitley, 1993), published just prior to our data collection, should
make an important contribution to TA ethical training.
Faculty respondents rate the importance of TAs learning about 15 different areas in higher education
(e.g., a faculty career in academia, academic freedom) less than important on a 5-point scale ranging from
1 (very important) to 5 (very unimportant). The literature (e.g., Slevin, 1992) supports these findings of a
limited introduction for TAs to many general characteristics of higher education and to the “ethos of the
academic workplace” (Schuster, 1990, p.30). Nonetheless, 70% of the faculty respondents report TAs are
adequately or very adequately prepared (M = 2.3, SD = 1.0) on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very
adequately prepared) to 5 (very inadequately prepared), for a faculty career (teaching, scholarship, and
other responsibilities).
Table 1. TA Training Program Content
TA Instruction
The process of teaching
Grading exams and assigning grades
Lecturing techniques
Course preparation (design, policies, goals. Objectives)
Ethical standards in teaching
Test construction
Syllabus preparation
Discussion methods
Dealing with problem situations
Developing course content
Teaching of introductory psychology
Building rapport and classroom climate
Holding office hours
Audiovisual techniques
Interpersonal relations with students
Developing a philosophy of teaching
Motivating students to learn
Teaching strategies (e.g., games, simulations. case methods)
Handling difficult questions
Teaching writing skills
Fostering critical thinking
Laboratory teaching
Principles of human learning
Evaluating self as a teacher
Setting course difficulty
Techniques of course evaluation
Conducting review sessions
Knowledge of student services
Use of computers for teaching
Text selection
Teaching large classes
Library and computer research services
Advising and counseling students
Teaching of science
Role of psychology in liberal arts education
Time and task management
Stress management
Note. TA = teaching assistant.
N
89
85
84
80
78
75
75
74
74
73
72
71
71
70
69
68
68
68
68
65
65
64
62
61
61
61
60
60
59
59
58
58
54
52
50
47
46
%
82
79
78
74
72
69
69
69
69
68
67
66
66
65
64
63
63
63
63
60
60
59
57
57
57
57
56
56
55
55
54
54
50
48
46
44
43
Succeeding As New Teaching Faculty
In an extensive study of new faculty, Boice (1991,1992) described the skills and attitudes congruent
with new faculty teaching success and satisfaction (compared to those new faculty who struggled or
failed). His IRSS model includes Involvement (immersion in campus life and faculty activities), Regimen
(apportioning one’s time and a regimen of moderation and efficiency), Self-management (learning to
solve the right problem and attend to the right task at the right time), and Social networks (socializing on
and off campus). We asked faculty respondents to rate the extent to which TA training encouraged TAs to
develop these skills and attitudes on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very great extent) to 5 (very little
extent). It is the faculty respondents’ observation that none are strongly encouraged (involvement: M =
3.6, SD = 1.1, Mdn = 4.0; regimen: M = 2.6, SD = 1.0, Mdn = 2.0; self-management: M = 2.7, SD = 1.0,
Mdn = 3.0; social networks: M = 3.7, SD = 1.0. Mdn = 4.0). Based on Boice’s findings (1992) we
recommend integrating his model into TA training and the mentoring of new faculty to assist them in
achieving success as teachers and faculty members early in their careers.
Future Research
Our faculty respondents report that TAs in many graduate programs seem to get a great deal of teacher
training. A weakness of this study is that the data reflect the viewpoints of only one faculty respondent per
department, and not viewpoints of the respondents’ colleagues, psychology TAs, and especially TA
supervisors, although many respondents may serve in this capacity. If we were to sample psychology
TAs, new faculty, or experienced faculty mentoring new colleagues, the data may indicate a need for
more or different teacher preparation. Also, the data do not provide an objective or independent on-site
evaluation of TA training. Future research may include on-site observations and comparison of these data
with the perceptions of both supervisory faculty and TAs. It would be especially interesting to determine
how new teachers learn to care about their students and teaching, and how much and in what ways being a
TA contributes to this. Finally, the APA or American Psychological Society may want to consider
sponsoring forums with discussion of models and examples of effective TA training in psychology and
faculty career preparation in general. Further development, implementation, and evaluation of models of
effective teaching preparation for new faculty are needed.
Conclusions
According to the faculty respondents, many TA training programs expose graduate students to a broad
range of topics and teaching experiences. The use in many programs of some type of apprentice or
seminar model, the amount of individual or small-group supervision, and the experience level of supervisors all point to a commitment to teaching and to preparing good teachers in psychology. Given the
rigors and complexities of becoming a good teacher, it is important that TA training provide this strong
pedagogical foundation for the difficult teacher development process that follows. In hiring prospective
faculty, it would be helpful to obtain information on candidates’ TA training, thus identifying applicants
with experiences most appropriate to the needs of the position to be filled (Perlman &McCann, 1996).
Similarly, a determination of the elements of teaching studied and practiced during TA training will help
in the mentoring of new colleagues.
References
Benassi, V. A. (1993). Programs of note in psychology. In L. M.
Lambert & S. L. Tice (Eds.), Preparing graduate students to teach (pp. 104—105). Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Benassi, V. A., & Fernald, P. S. (1993). Preparing tomorrow’s psychologists for careers in academe.
Teaching of Psychology, 20, 149—155.
Boice, P. (1991 ).New faculty as teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 62, 150—173.
Boice, IL (1992). The new faculty member. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bowen, H., & Schuster, J. (1986). American professors: A natural resource imperiled. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Clark, B. R. (1987). The academic life: Small worlds, different worlds. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Diamond, IL M., & Gray, P. (1987). National study of teaching assistants. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Center for Instructional Development.
Finger, F. W. (1969). “Professional problems”: Preparation for a career in college teaching. American
Psychologist, 24, 1044—1049.
Fink, D. (1984). The first year of college teaching. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Grasha, A. F. 1978).The teaching of teaching: A seminar on college teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 5,
21—23.
Keith-Spiegel, P., Wittig, A. F., Perkins, D. V., Balogh, D. W., & Whitley, B. F., Jr. (1993). The ethics of
teaching: A casebook. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.
Lanbsent, L M., & Tice, S. L. (Eds.). (1993). Preparing graduate students to teach. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Lowman, J. (1995). Mastering the techniques of teaching (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lawman,]., & Mathie, V. A. (1993). What should graduate teaching assistants know about teaching?
Teaching ofPsychology, 20, 84-88.
Lumsden, E. A., Grosslight, J. H., Loveland, F. H., & Williams, J. F. (1988). Preparation of graduate
students as classroom teachers and supervisors in applied and research settings. Teaching of
Psychology, 15, 5—9.
McFadden, S. H., & Perlman, B. (1989). Faculty recruitment and excellent undergraduate teaching.
Teaching of Psychology, 16, 195-198.
McGovern, T. V. (Ed.). (1993). Handbook for enhancing undergraduate education in psychology.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips (9th ed.). Lexington. MA: Heath.
Nyquist, ]. D., Abbott, R. D., Wulff, D. H., & Sprague, J. (Eds.). (1991). Preparing the professoriate of
tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Perlman, B., &McCann, L. 1(1996). Recruiting good college faculty: Practical advice for a successful
search. Bolton, MA: Ankor.
Richlin, L. (1993). Preparing faculty for the new conceptions of scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rickard, H. C., Prentice-Dunn, S., Rogers, R. W., Scogin, F. R., & Lyman, R. D. (1991). Teaching of
psychology: A required course for all doctoral students. Teaching of Psychology, 18, 235-237.
Schuster,J. (1990). Strengthening career preparation for prospective professors. In J. Schuster, D. W.
Wheeler, & .Associates (Eds.), Enhancing faculty careers (pp. 65-83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuster, J. (1993). Preparing the next generation of faculty: The graduate school’s
opportunity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schuster,J., Wheeler, D.W., & Associates. (1990). Enhancing faculty careers. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Slevin, J. (1992). The next generation: Preparing graduate students for the professional responsibilities
of
college teachers. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.
Tabachnick, B. G., Keith-Spiegel, P., & Pope, K. S. (1991). Ethics of teaching: Beliefs and behaviors of
psychologists as educators. American Psychologist, 46, 506-515.
Van Note Chism, N. (Ed.). (1987). Institutional responsibilities and responses in the employment and
education of teaching assistants: Readings from a national conference. Columbus: Ohio State University Center for Teaching Excellence.
Williams,J. E., & Richman, C. L (1971). The graduate preparation of the college professor of psychology.
American Psychologist, 26, 1000—1009.
Notes
1. All authors were in the Department of Psychology at the time of the study. Amy Mueller is now at
Westville, OH.
2. We acknowledge financial support for this study from the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh’s Faculty
Development Board. This article is based on a poster presented at the 18th Annual Institute on the
Teaching of Psychology, St. Petersburg Beach, FL.
3. Correspondence concerning this article, including requests for the questionnaire, should be sent to
Baron Perlman, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh, WI 54901; e-mail:
perlrnan@uwosh.edu.