Do teaching assistants matter? Investigating relationships between teaching assistants and student outcomes in undergraduate science laboratory classes
Do teaching assistants matter? Investigating relationships between teaching assistants and student outcomes in undergraduate science laboratory classes
复制标题
助教重要吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Bell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Wheeler;Jennifer L. Maeng;Jennie Chiu;R. Bell
本研究探讨了本科理科实验班助教与学生学习的关系。助教通常指导实验室课程，但很少(如果有的话)研究助教的专业发展(PD)或实验室环境中教师与学生之间的关系。在以探究为基础的实验室环境中，以与研究生助教(GTA)相同的方式使用本科生助教(UTA)还有待探索。这项定量研究探讨了助教的内容知识、教学信念和教学信心是如何因PD而改变的，以及助教的先前经验、UTA/GTA状况、内容知识、信念和教学信心如何与学生在探究式普通化学实验室中的内容知识学习有关。参与者包括14名GTA，5名UTA，以及他们在一所公立大学的529名学生。PD支持助教领导以探究为基础的普通化学实验室课程，包括为期一周的工作坊和每周14次后续会议。结果表明，助教的内容知识在整个学期都有显著提高，t(18) = −为3.62，p = 为0.002，学生的内容知识为t(528) = −为36.27，p = 为0.000，dCohen = 为1.3.此外，在PD后具有较高内容知识的助教倾向于具有较高学期末内容的学生(r = 0.517，p = 0.000)。UTA和GTA之间在助教特征或学生成绩测量方面没有差异。运用分层线性回归模型，学生的人口学特征对学生后学期内容知识有显著的预测作用，而助教特征和人口学特征对学生内容知识没有显著的预测作用。那些认为助教更支持的学生也认为他们学到了更多的内容(r = 0.280，p =0.000)。因此，在我们以探究为基础的普通化学实验室中，UTA可以用来代替GTA，并可能成为其他大学助教讲师的一种可能的选择。继续研究助教PD、助教特征、助教实践以及学生在探究式实验室环境中的学习是有必要的。©2016 Wiley期刊，Inc.J RES Sci Teach 54：463-492,2017
This study explores the relationship between teaching assistants (TAs) and student learning in undergraduate science laboratory classes. TAs typically instruct laboratory courses, yet little, if any, research examines professional development (PD) for TAs or relationships between instructors and students in laboratory settings. The use of undergraduate TAs (UTAs) in the same manner as graduate TAs (GTAs) in inquiry-based lab settings has yet to be explored. This quantitative study explored how TAs’ content knowledge, beliefs about teaching, and teaching confidence change as a result of PD and how TAs’ prior experience, UTA/GTA status, content knowledge, beliefs, and teaching confidence relates to students’ content knowledge learning in an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory. Participants included 14 GTAs, 5 UTAs, and their 529 students at a public university. PD supported TAs to lead inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory classes, involving a week-long workshop and 14 weekly follow-up meetings. Results demonstrate that TAs’ content knowledge improved following PD and teaching, t(18) = −3.62, p = 0.002, and students’ content knowledge significantly improved across the semester, t(528) = −36.27, p = 0.000, dCohen = 1.3. Further, TAs with higher content knowledge post-PD tended to have students with higher end-of-semester content (r = 0.517, p = 0.000). No differences existed between UTAs or GTAs on any TA characteristic or student outcome measure. Using a hierarchical linear regression model, student post-semester content knowledge was predicted by student demographics; however, no TA characteristics or demographics were significant predictors of student content knowledge. Students who perceived their TA as more supportive also believed they learned more content (r = 0.280, p =0.000). Thus, UTAs can be used in lieu of GTAs in our inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory context and could be a possible alternative for TA instructors at other universities. Continued work examining TA PD, TA characteristics, TA practice, and student learning in inquiry-based laboratory contexts is warranted. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 54: 463–492, 2017