Jessica Riviere March 29th, 2017...Lily, Douglas, Fatih, and Alice Communication Expectations for instructors, Tas, students Clear channels of communication Coordinator reviewing classroom

Jessica RiviereInstructional ConsultantMarch 29th, 2017

Use this picture to reflect on the way an ecosystem is interrelated and interdependent.

Imagine you had to select one part of the ecosystem captured in this picture to describe your role in relation to your instructional team.

Take a few minutes to write out the details explaining this visual metaphor. How does the element you chose explain how you connect (or don’t!) with parts of your team.

After today’s workshop, you will

§Be familiar with indicators of TA (instructor) development§Have met someone else who also works as part of an

instructional team§Have contributed to generating a list of best practices for

leading an instructional team.

Level Senior Learner Colleague-in-Training

Junior Colleague

Concern: Self/Survival

How will students like me?

Skills

How do I lecture/discuss?

Outcomes

Are students getting it?

Discourse Level

Presocialized

Give simplistic explanations

Socialized

Talk like “insiders,” use technical language

Postsocialized

Make complex ideas clear without use of jargon

Approach to Authority

Dependent

Rely on supervisor

Independent or Counterdependent

Stand on own ideas-defiant at times

Interdependent/Collegial

Begin to relate to faculty as partners in meeting instructional challenges

Approach to Students

Engaged/vulnerable; student as friend, victim, or enemy.

“Love” students, want to be friends, expect admiration, or are hurt, angry in response, and personalize interactions

Detached; student as experimental subject

Disengage or distance themselves from students –becoming analytical about learning relationships

Engaged/professional; student as client.

Understand student/instructor relationships & the collaborative effort required for student learning to occur.

Adapted from: Sprague, J., & Nyquist, J.D. (1991). A Developmental perspective on the TA role. 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. 295-312). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

See also Sprague, J. &Nyquist, J.D. (1998). Thinking developmentally about TAs. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, and F. Stout, (Eds.) The Professional Development of Graduate Teaching Assistants. (pp. 61-88) Bolton, MA: Anker.

4 scenarios involving an instructional team

Lily, Douglas, Fatih, and Alice

§ Communication§ Expectations for instructors, Tas, students§ Clear channels of communication § Coordinator reviewing classroom material (as appropriate) and TA/instructor sharing material

with coordinator.

§ Clarity of Expectations and Intentions§ Uniform program for curriculum design§ Description of desired professional behavior § Kick off meeting§ Weekly(?) meetings/office hours§ Check-ins scheduled during semester§ Online environment for reinforcing “message”

§ Encourage culture of question asking and feedback seeking§ Check with students, TAs, instructors, at different points regularly and deliberately

§ Listening Skills

Wright, M. (2005). Teaching effectively with GSI-faculty teams. CRLT Occasional Paper, No. 21. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan. Available: http://www.crlt.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource_files/CRLT_no21.pdf

Von Hoene, L., & Mintz, J. (2001). Research on faculty as teaching mentors: Lessons learned from a study of participants in UC Berkeley’s seminar for faculty who teach with Graduate Student Instructors. In D. Lieberman (Ed.), To Improve the Academy, 20 (pp. 77-93). Fort Collins, CO: POD Network.

UCAT!