THE ENS‘I'RUCTEQNAL ROLE Ct? THE GRADUATE TEACHMG A$$ESTANT AI MQCHEGAN STATE UNIVEEflTY Thus: for (”in Degree 4:? pk. D. MICHEGAN STATE ummsm Jaemeg Leo McNaaEEy 3966 THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE INSTRUCTIONAL ROLE OF THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY presented by JAMES LEO MCNALLY has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Eh.D. degree inEducatioL Major professor Date June 13‘ 1966 0-169 ABSTRACT THE INSTRUCTIONAL ROLE OF THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY by James Leo McNally The Problem The major null hypothesis in the study was: There is no significant difference in the expecta— tions that graduate teaching assistants and under— graduates hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. The minor null hypothesis was: There is no significant difference in the expecta- tions that graduate teaching assistants from dif- ferent areas of general academic orientation hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. Methods and Procedures A random sample was chosen of undergraduates taking courses in one of seven departments and a college of Michigan State University (180 undergraduates were selected). A sample of graduate teaching assistants who had responsi— bility for a discussion or recitation section of a multiple- section course were chosen from the same seven departments and the college of the University (180 graduate teaching James Leo McNally assistants were chosen). The departments and the college in question were grouped according to general areas of academic orientation, namely, behavioral sciences, humanities, and natural sciences (mathematics). An instrument concerning various expectations for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant was constructed. The instrument contained three sub-scales of nineteen, thirteen, and eleven items reSpectively, and the last item on the questionnaire was of a free response type. There was a total of 44 items on the questionnaire. The sub- scales were: 1. Instruction—-The items refer to classroom procedures and classroom conduct of the graduate teaching assistant. 2. Advisement --The items refer to the assistance that a graduate teaching assistant might render (outside of the classroom situ- ation) in all matters pertaining to a student's academic program and progress. 5. Counseling—Personal Relations --The items refer to interpersonal rela— tions between a graduate teaching assistant and his students in matters not strictly academic. One of five reSponses was possible for each item of the questionnaire except the last one. The responses and their assigned numerical weights were: Absolutely Must (5), Preferably Should (4), May or May Not (5), Preferably Should Not (2) and Absolutely Must Not (1). James Leo McNally The instrument was submitted to the total sample of 360 per- sons in the winter term, 1966. A total of 78% of the population answered and returned the questionnaires. Analysis of the Data The initial application of the chi square statistic to the data indicated that a collapsing of response categories was necessary. Consequently, the new response categories showed that one of three possible responses could be given. The new response categories and their assigned numerical weights were: "Preferably Should" or "Agree" (4), ”May or May Not,” (5) and "Preferably Should Not" or "Disagree" (2). The chi square statistic when applied to the major hypothesis revealed significant differences in expectations on eight of the nineteen items of sub-scale one (a weakness in frequencies for the chi square cells of two of the items was noted), on three of the thirteen items of sub-scale two (a weakness in frequencies for the chi square cells of one of the items was noted), and on four of the eleven items of sub-scale three. The .05 level of significance was used. A total of fifteen of the forty-three items indicated sig— nificant differences by the use of the chi square statistic. Frequency and percentage of observation were also reported for each item. James Leo McNally The minor hypothesis could not be tested in terms of chi square analysis. The small sample size and erratic distribution of responses distorted any chi square signifi- cance. The findings of this hypothesis were consequently reported in terms of frequency and percentage of responses to each item. Consequently, subjective observational find— ings were reported. Conclusions 1. For the major hypothesis, there were significant dif- ferences in expectations held by graduate teaching assistants and undergraduates for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. 2. For the major hypothesis, there were more significant dif- ferences expressed for expectations concerning the sub— scale "Instruction" than for the other two sub-scales. 3. The graduate teaching assistant is not viewed primarily as a student by undergraduates. 4. For the minor hypothesis, graduate teaching assistants from different areas hold differences of opinion for some aSpects of their instructional role. 5. Graduate teaching assistants preferred to be viewed both as faculty and students. THE INSTRUCTIONAL ROLE OF THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BY James Leo McNally A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1966 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study is the result of the consideration and c00peration of many individuals. To these people the writer is particularly grateful. The writer wishes to acknowledge the assistance of the members of his Guidance Committee. Hs ie especially grateful to his major advisor, Dr. Edward B. Blackman, for his wise counsel and patience throughout the course of the study. The writer extends to him deepest appreciation The writer is also grateful to Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker for his interest and assistance in the development of the dis— sertation. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Walter F. Johnson for his suggestions and commentaries on certain aSpects of the study. The writer also wishes to acknowledge Dr. John Useem of the Sociology Department. Finally, the writer is greatly indebted to his wife Shirley for her love, understanding, encouragement and assistance during the writing of this dissertation and throughout the course of the doctoral program. To her he expresses his deepest gratitude. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM: ITS NATURE AND IMPORTANCE. . Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . Graduate Teaching Assistants. . . . . Studies on graduate teaching assistants . . . . . . . . . Teaching and Instructional rank. Occurrence of the graduate teach- ing experience . . . . . . . Role. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Literature on role theory. . . . Studies on role analysis . . . . Socialization in graduate school departments. . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. SAMPLE AND PROCEDURES. . . . . . . . . . . Sample. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selection of undergraduates. . . Selection of graduate teaching assistants . . . . . . . . . Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Hypotheses. . . . . . . . Analysis of the Data. . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Page [—8 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Major Hypothesis . . . . . Sub-scale 1: Instruction Summary: Sub-scale 1 Sub—scale 2: Advisement. Summary: Sub-scale 2 Sub-scale 5: Counseling-Personal Relations . . . Summary: Sub—scale 5 . Minor Hypothesis . . . . . Sub-scale 1: Instruction Summary: Sub-scale 1 Sub-scale 2: Advisement. Summary: Sub-scale 2 Sub-scale 3: Counseling—Personal Relations . . Summary: Sub-scale 3 . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . The Problem. . . . The Design and Procedure of the Study. Analysis . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . Implications for Further Research. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 55 35 35 42 43 48 49 55 55 54 61 65 67 69 73 75 75 76 76 79 8O 91 92 95 100 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Traditional areas of study and respective de- partments O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O C O O O 2. Departments and courses from which the under- graduate population was drawn. . . . . . . . . 5. Nature of the sample and percent of sample re- turning the questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . 4. Frequency and percentage of responses and chi square values for each item on sub-scale 1, "Instruction" by undergraduates and graduate teaching assistants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Frequency and percentage of reSponses and chi square values for each item on sub-scale 2, "Advisement" by undergraduates and graduate teaching assistants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Frequency and percentage of responses and chi square values for each item on sub-scale 3, "Counseling-Personal Relations" by under- graduates and graduate teaching assistants . . 7. Frequency and percentage of reSponses for each item on sub-scale 1, ”Instruction" by graduate teaching assistants from three areas of general-academic orientation . . . . . . . . . 8. Frequency and percentage of responses for each item on sub-scale 2, ”Advisement" by graduate teaching assistants from three areas of general-academic orientation . . . . . . . . . 9. Frequency and percentage of responses for each item on sub-scale 3, "Counseling—Personal Relations" by graduate teaching assistants from three areas of general-academic orien— tation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 26 27 50 37 45 SO 55 64 7O LI ST OF APPEND ICES APPENDIX Page A Trend in the Use of Full—Time Equivalent Faculty Paid from the General Fund. . . . . . 101 B Letter to Graduate Teaching Assistants. . . . 105 C Letter to Undergraduates. . . . . . . . . . . 105 D Questionnaire to Determine the Instructional Role of the Graduate Teaching Assistant . . . 107 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM: ITS NATURE AND IMPORTANCE The American college and university finds itself in a period of unprecedented growth. In the last five years enrollments have risen dramatically, and the projections to 1970 indicate a continuation of this growth pattern.1 Michigan State University has been no exception to this pat- tern. Since 1961 the University's undergraduate enrollment has increased by 10,500 students, a 55 percent increase.2 Growth of this nature necessitates an increase in staff and teaching faculty. Herein lies a major concern. A current problem facing higher education today is the shortage of "qualified" teaching faculty in light of increased enroll- ments. The term "qualified," according to those in academic circles implies possession of the Ph.D. degree. Many edu— cational journal articles have been written about the faculty 1There were 5,474,000 students enrolled in American colleges and universities in 1961. There were 4,857,000 en- rolled in 1965 and 6,591,000 projected for 1970 (undergraduate totals). The figures were taken from, Projections of Edu- cational Statistics to 1975-74, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965 edition. 2The undergraduate on-campus enrollment for fall term 1961 listed 18,750 students in attendance. For fall term 1965 the figure was 29,050. Annual Report, Office of the Registrar, Michigan State University, 1961-62 and fall term 1965. shortage to the point that it has become common knowledge.3 Faced with such a shortage, administrators have sought better utilization of teaching resources. Attention has been given to independent study programs, teaching machines, television, films, and increased use of teaching assistants.4 The use of teaching assistants has long been employed by many larger colleges and universities. (At Michigan State graduate students are almost exclusively used as teaching assistants as opposed to undergraduates.) Teaching assistants are also used for other purposes such as relieving faculty of routine chores, providing fi- nancial assistance for graduate students, and training prOSpective teachers.S At the outset of the school year 1957-58, the full time equivalent of "B" faculty paid from the general fund at Michigan State University was 204.9.6 For the school year 1961-62 the figure was 564.2, while at the outset of fall term 1965 the figure had risen to 550.5. Since the majority 3One of the more recent is by David G. Brown and Jay Tontz, "The Present Shortage of College Teachers," Phi Delta Kappan, 8:455-56, April, 1966. Russell Cooper notes that ". . . 75 percent of those entering the teaching profession are short of the doctorate." See his article, "The College Teaching Crisis," Journal of Higher Education, 55:6-11, January, 1964. 4See Better Utilization of College TeachingiResources, The Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1959. 51bid., p. 45. 6Full time equivalent is thus defined by the Office of Institutional Research at the University: "The percentage of of "B" faculty appointments are for half time, it would be necessary to multiply by two to get an idea of the total head count. Such a figure would be in the neighborhood of 1,000 individuals. Furthermore, the magnitude of this number has even greater importance when one considers the fact that in a discussion or recitation section, a "B" faculty member may be responsible for at least twenty—five students per section. One need not elaborate on the point that such faculty members interacting with students conse— quently loom as a significant force in undergraduate edu- cation. Moreover, the number of "B" faculty alone at Michigan State University exceeds the enrollment of many small colleges. The administration at Michigan State University is not unmindful of the increased use of this type of faculty member. A recent study by the Educational Development Pro- gram at the University on departments making use of assistant instructors and graduate students as teachers found some confusion existing in this general area.7 It was noted that, full time equivalent salary paid from the general fund budget of the 'department' is recorded for each individual appointed to that 'department.‘ Total full time equivalent counts are the sums of the percentages divided by 100%." "B" faculty includes faculty members not under the tenure system. Includ— ed in this category are lecturers, assistant instructors, and graduate teaching assistants. See Appendix A for a general trend in the use of full time equivalent "B" faculty over the past several years. 7Educational Deve10pment Program, "A Study of Depart- ments Making Major Use of Assistant Instructors and Graduate Students as Teachers," October, 1964. from department to department, "extreme variations" existed in the definition of the rank assistant instructor, the amount of responsibility assigned to the teaching assistant, the coordination of multiple section—-multiple instructor courses, and the degree of supervision given to graduate teaching assistants. Several recommendations were subse~ quently enumerated among which the following were listed:8 The University should redefine the ranks below the level of Instructor (not within the tenure system) to differentiate among those with different levels of experience and qualifications. The University and College should define the amount and kind of reSponsibility to be given teaching assistants. The University should develOp a set of standards to assure balanced development between undergraduate enrollments, graduate enrollments, graduate teaching assistants, and senior faculty graduate advisors. In light of the preceding, a study of the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant would be most appropriate for the further examination of the graduate teaching assistant within the University community. Moreover, a study of the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant is prompted by other considerations. Graduate teaching assistants are becoming more and more responsible for undergraduate education, for it is in this 8The recommendations were contained in a memorandum to Provost Howard R. Neville from the Educational Policies Com- mittee concerning "The Use of Teaching Assistants at Michigan State University," November 15, 1964. area that they are primarily used. However, the shortage of "qualified" faculty is not the only consideration in using graduate teaching assistants for instruction. Some full time faculty members are reluctant to teach under— graduates, while others find research more appealing than teaching. As things turn out, the graduate teaching assist- ant may well be the undergraduate's main source of contact with the academic side of the University eSpecially in his first two years. In this connection, concern has been raised by the administration when instruction by the graduate teaching assistant is not closely supervised. Furthermore, the graduate teaching assistant himself is in a rather awk— ward position. The nature of his activities may find him viewed primarily as a faculty member under some circum- stances and as a student under others. The extent to which the undergraduate is sensitive to the graduate teaching assistant's position may well influence the undergraduate's attitude toward the classroom situation. The graduate teaching assistant, in the final analysis, is in pursuit of a degree himself. He is subject to various pressures such as his teaching obligations, his own course 9 work, and a limited income. In many cases the progress 9See James A. Davis, Stipends and Spouses: The Finances of American Arts and Science Graduate Students, University of Chicago Press, 1962. IO toward his own degree is very slow. In reality, his teaching experience could well be very meaningful, eSpecial- ly if it were viewed as an internship. However, some feel that they are being "used" by the department or the Univer- sity as a form of cheap labor. In many instances their status and role are poorly defined. A by-product of such a condition is often discontent and unrest, and there is evi- dence that these, in extreme forms, can have provocative results. Graduate teaching assistants were particularly active in the recent Berkeley disturbances: Less publicized but in many ways more important than the sit-ins was the student strike which followed it. The strike was organized by graduate teaching assist- ants, and, though no numbers are entirely trustworthy, it appears to have had the support of enough under- graduates and faculty members to bring between 60 and 85 percent of Berkeley's classes to a halt for two days. . . . A union of graduate teaching and research assistants, affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers is one of the most significant results of the fall's events. The union, which has roughly 500 members, is preparing to negotiate with faculty depart- ments on a wide range of bread and butter issues af- fecting working conditions, and may continue action on political fronts as well.11 Undergraduates are not satisfied with the present situation either. In reacting to the "multiversity" drift of higher education, they lament the fact that in many 10See Benjamin F. Wright, "The Ph.D. Stretch—Out and the Scholar-Teacher," in Arthur Traxler (ed.) Vital Issues in Education, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 1957. llSee Elinor Langer, "Crisis at Berkeley (1) The Civil War," Science, 148:199-200. instances they do not have regular faculty as instructors, but rather are subject to graduate teaching assistants whose major concern, the undergraduates believe, is their own progress toward their own degrees. One particular under- graduate was apparently affected by a graduate teaching assistant when she wrote: I doubt that the records have been changed but I am not in any longer. It also might in— terest you to know that the reason I am not is partly because of an extremely inadequate graduate student I had for my recitation section of .12 It would seem, therefore, to be in the best interests of the University to define carefully the role of graduate teaching assistant. A study of the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant could be utilized by the University in the formulation of a campus-wide definition of the role of the graduate teaching assistant. Undergraduate instruction, the graduate teaching assistant, and the University stand to gain from such an action. Statement of the Problem The general problem of this study is to examine the nature of the expectations that graduate teaching assistants and undergraduates hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant at Michigan State University. l‘gThese unsolicited comments were written on the back of a questionnaire that was used in collecting data for this dissertation. The general assumption involved is that the two groups have different expectations for some dimensions of the role and, consequently, some confusion and misunderstanding exist. The main hypothesis is: Graduate teaching assistants and undergraduates hold different expectations for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. A minor hypothesis is: Graduate teaching assistants, depending upon their general area of academic orientation, hold expecta- tions for their instructional role which are dif- ferent from those of graduate teaching assistants in other areas.13 Importance of the Study Because of the differences in expectations as to the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant and lack of definition of it by the University, it is suggested that undergraduates may not be receiving the kind of instruc- tion that they might be given if the role of the graduate teaching assistant were explicitly defined. Inadequate definition of the role and the divergence of expectations between the groups engender an environment which does not enhance the instructional process. In addition, it is sug- gested that the graduate‘s teaching experience is not as meaningful as it could be to the graduate assistant because of inadequate definition of the role. Consequently, what 13The hypotheses will be stated in terms for statisti- cal analysis in Chapter III. could be a profitable internship experience turns out to be something much less in most instances. There is no attempt to solve problems in this study. Rather, an attempt is made to provide more information and insight into areas of agreement and difference regarding the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant as perceived by undergraduates and graduate teaching assistants themselves. Definition of Terms 1. Undergraduate—-A freshman, sophomore junior, or senior student enrolled full time on campus in a degree program at Michigan State University during the fall term, 1965. 2. Graduate Teaching Assistant-- A student who is pursuing the master's degree or the doctor's degree and has or had teaching responsibility for recitation or discussion sections in a multiple sec- tion course. (This group also includes those with the titled rank of Assistant Instructor.) 5. Role-— Set of expectations applied to an occu- pant in a particular social position. 4. Expectation—- An evaluative standard applied to an incumbent of a position. 5. Consensus-- Refers to the degree of similarity or agreement of expectations. 6. Conflict-— A condition in which the incumbent of a position perceives that he is confronted with incompatible expectations within a system of social relationships. 10 Limitations of the Study There are some limitations to the study that should be noted. Of particular concern is the assumption that the reSpective departments under a general area, e.g., behavioral sciences, are truly representative of that area. The titles of Behavioral Sciences, Humanities, and Natural Sciences are rather broad and their main service is to pro— vide one with a general image of an area of academic orien- tation. This concern over these titles is more relevant to the minor hypothesis of the study where graduate teaching assistants from different areas of general academic orien— tation are being investigated. Of additional concern is the fact that there is only one department listed under the general area of Natural Sciences and that is Mathematics. There are two reasons for this, (1) the study pertained to graduate teaching assistants who have or had responsibility for discussion or recitation section of a course. The Mathematics department seemed to fit this criterion best because other departments, such as Chemistry, Zoology, Botany and Plant Pathology used assistants for laboratory sections, (2) the main focus of the study was to look at undergraduates, graduate teaching assistants and graduate teaching assistants by general academic area. No interest or particular attempt was made to identify Speci- fic departments. Consequently, caution should be taken when reviewing the term "Natural Sciences." 11 With respect to the analysis of the data, it should be noted that a few items pertaining to the major hypothe- sis indicated a weakness, in terms of observations, in the chi square cells. Therefore, of the statistically signifi- cant items three had this type of deficiency. Moreover, with respect to the minor hypothesis, the deficiency of observation in the chi square cells distorted the results to the point that the use of the chi square statistic was abandoned. As a result of this situation, frequencies and percentages of observations were reported. Overview In Chapter Two the pertinent literature is reviewed. The first half of the chapter is concerned with literature pertaining to graduate teaching assistants, while the re- maining half is concerned with the literature and studies that have been done in the area of role theory. In Chapter Three there is a detailed description of the sample and pro- cedures used in the study. Found in Chapter Four are the presentation, analysis, and summaries of the results gained from the administration of the questionnaire. The summary, conclusions, discussions, and implications of the results are found in Chapter Five. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Graduate Teaching Assistants Studies on Graduate Teaching Assistants. A search of the literature for studies and articles pertaining to gradu- ate teaching assistants leads one to conclude that not much investigation has been done in this area. However, at Michigan State University, a rather notable study was under- 14 During the taken by the Educational Development Program. fall term of 1965, fifteen departments, whose teaching assistants accounted for more than 20% of each department‘s student credit hour production, were examined. The chairman of each department was interviewed in depth. It was found that the rank of graduate assistant is defined with con- sistency by the departments, but that the rank of assistant instructor is defined in a variety of ways.15 Some depart- ments do not use the rank at all, some use it occasionally, 14Educational Development Program, 22. cit. 15An earlier study by the Office of Institutional Re— search showed that in Spite of the fact that, "the position of assistant instructor was introduced as a useful category for the hiring of temporary instructional personnel not under tenure rules. . . . it has become apparent that vacan- cies at the instructorship level are often being filled by graduate degree candidates." Rodney Hartnett, "A Study of the Use of Assistant Instructors,” Office of Institutional Research, June 28, 1965. (unpublished) 12 i5 and some use it to a great extent. In actuality, an indi- vidual with the rank of graduate teaching assistant in one department may be doing exactly the same type of work as a colleague with the rank of assistant instructor in his 16 department or another department. Moreover, there were other significant findings. Variations were found with re- Spect to supervision of the graduate teaching assistant: The variation in the amount of supervision provided in different courses by the departments surveyed is extremely broad and very difficult to codify. Very few of the departments interviewed employ a careful system of graduate teaching supervision. In most cases supervision is at present the responsibility of the senior faculty member in charge of the course. Thus the supervision is almost completely dependent upon the attitude of this senior faculty member.17 Furthermore, several reasons for using graduate teaching assistants were also listed: - training of graduate students in teaching - provision of relief for full time faculty - need to support graduate students — need to support growing graduate programs - lack of financial resources - growing shortage of qualified senior faculty - sharp expansion of undergraduate enrollments. In conclusion, the investigators noted that they became especially concerned as to how graduate teaching assistants are used and about their capabilities. A consequence of the study was a listing of eleven recommendations. Three of 16A consequence of this situation was that graduate teaching assistants and assistant instructors were, for this study, considered collectively under the title graduate teaching assistant. 17Educational Development Program, 9p, cit., p. 5. 14 these recommendations have been previously cited on page 4 of Chapter I. In a more recent study at Michigan State University Nuermberger examined over 500 graduate assistants regarding their assistantship experience with the University.18 He noted: Most assistants considered themselves either as re- Spected interns or full-fledged peers in their departments. However, 16% saw themselves as "hired help," 6% as "clerks," and 11% as "just another graduate student." Considerable bitterness was ex- pressed by some who placed themselves in these last categories.19 It was further noted that some graduate assistants never be- came involved in the duties listed as primary for their classification.2O Teaching and Instructional Rank. There is reason to believe that college teaching is not independent of a given faculty member‘s academic rank. Guthrie, surveying students and faculty, noted in a study on the evaluation of college teaching that, ”In the opinion of students, full professors are not better teachers than assistant professors.."2l 18Robert M. Nuermberger, "Reactions of MSU Graduate Students to Their Experience as Graduate Assistants," Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State University, May, 1966. 19Ibid., p. 5. 2°It should be made explicit that the study pertained to graduate students in general and not exclusively to gradu- ate teaching assistants. 21E. R. Guthrie, "The Evaluation of Teaching," Educational Record, 50:109-115, April, 1949, p. 115. 15 It was pointed out that a full professor may lack enthusi- asm, and that increasing distractions and non-teaching reSponsibilities may further impede his effectiveness. In a study at the State University of Iowa, Stuit and Ebel found that students perceived differences in emphasis within the various ranks of the teaching faculty.22 The authors related: It is interesting to note that in this sample of stu- dents and instructors, the students credit full professors with more knowledge of their subjects, and with more interest in it, but less tolerance and less helpfulness than instructors of other ranks. Similar comparisons may be made in various categories for other academic ranks, and for instructors of courses at various levels.23 Some proponents of the use of graduate teaching assistants claim that their enthusiasm and the recency of their own undergraduate experiences help them to relate better to stu— dents in their classes. A study by DeLisle, which did not pertain to instruction but rather to advising, gave a glimpse of such thinking:24 The graduate academic advisors are aware that some undergraduates might feel disadvantaged by having a graduate student for an academic advisor because of his inexperience, lack of authoritative knowledge of the field, and lack of continuity in his period of service. Other students, however, welcome the associ- ation with the graduate student in this capacity. They feel a closer identification with him in age 22Dewey Stuit and Robert Ebel, "Instructor Rating at a Large State University," College and University, 27:247-254. 23Ibid., p. 253. 24Frances H DeLisle, "A Study of Undergraduate Aca- demic Advising: A Preliminary Report," Office of Institution- al Research, Michigan State University, May, 1965. 16 usually, and in the recency of his undergraduate experiences.25 Several experimental studies on the use of teaching assistants are reported in a volume Sponsored by the Fund 6 The descriptions are for the Advancement of Education.2 somewhat brief but they do lend support to the value to be gained in the utilization of teaching assistants. Occurrence of the Graduate Teaching Experience. The graduate teaching experience is not an uncommon one for graduate students. Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease noted in their study that 60% of the Ph.D. recipients had teaching assistantships during their course of study, while 48% of the drop outs had the same experience. When both groups were considered together, a total of 54% of the graduate 7 Davis and his col- students held teaching assistantships.2 leagues found in their study that, ”Four out of ten (41%) students had a duty stipend. Teaching assistantships were twice as common as research assistantships, a little more than one out of four students holding a teaching assistant— "28 ship. Although the teaching assistantship is rather 251bid., p. 77. 26Better Utilization of College Teaching Resources, 9p, cit., pp. 44-49. 27Allan Tucker, David Gottlieb, and John Pease, ”Attrition of Graduate Students at the Ph.D. Level in the Traditional Arts and Sciences," Final Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 1146, Publication #8, 1964, Office of Research Development and the Graduate School, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan. 28James A. Davis, op. cit., p. 59. 17 common, a question which presents itself is, What is the quality of this experience? Role Literature on Role Theory. A search of the literature on role theory reveals several definitions for the term role. It has been discussed in terms of "normative culture pat- terns," i.e., with reference not to actual behavior of an occupant of a position but to a behavioral standard. Linton describes role as consisting of ". . . attitudes, values and behavior ascribed by the society to any and all persons "29 Newcomb agrees with this notion occupying this status. and refers to role as the ways of behaving which are expected of any individual who occupies a certain position.30 The main thought to be considered in both definitions is what a person should do. Another interpretation views role as an individual's definition of his situation with reference to his and others' social position. Essentially, this conception, as presented by Parsons, interprets role as a mode of organization of actor's orientation to a situation. "A role . . . is a sector of the total orientation system of an individual actor 29Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality, New York: Appleton-Century Co., 1945, p. 77. 30Theodore M. Newcomb, Social Psychology. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951, p. 280. 18 which is organized about expectations in relation to a particular interaction context. . ."31 A third major interpretation is advanced by Davis. "How an individual actually performs in a given position, as distinct from how he is supposed to perform, we call n32 his role. Gross, Mason, and McEachern note that: A role defined in this way does not refer to norma- tive patterns for what actors should do, nor to an actor's orientation to his situation, but to what actors actually do as position occupants.33 Another line of thinking focuses on the reciprocal nature of behavior and views role in a context of inter- action. In this sense Sarbin defines role as "a patterned sequence of learned actions or deeds performed by a person in an interaction situation.”34 There is a tendency to conclude, in light of the pre« ceding discussion, that confusion is the order of the day when discussing the concept of role. This is not so, for Gross and his colleagues make the point that, for the most part, three basic ideas appear in the majority of the con- ceptualization, namely that individuals: (1) in social 31Talcott Parsons, The Social System, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951, pp. 58-59. 32Kingsley Davis, Human Society, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1948, p. 90. 33Neal Gross, Ward Mason, Alexander McEachern, Explorations in Role Analysis, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958, p. 14. 34Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory,” in Gardner Lindzey (ed.) Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I, Cambridge: Addison-Wesly Publishing Co., 1954, p. 225. 19 locations (2) behave (5) with reference to expectations.35 The basic idea of expectations with respect to role is further elaborated upon by Gross, Mason and McEachern: People do not behave in a random manner. Their be- havior is influenced to some extent by their own expectations and those of others in the group or society in which they are participants. . . . Regard- less of their deviation, expectations are presumed by most role theorists to be an essential ingredient in any formula for predicting social behavior. Human conduct is in part a function of expectations.36 Moreover, Bates and Videbeck concur when they write that ". . . the behavior of a number of people in interaction is at least in part a function of their own expectations of what behavior should be."37 Imperative in any discussion of the term role is the concept of status. To some sociologists they are inseparable. Linton regards status as a collection of rights and duties and role as the dynamic aspect of status. "When the individu- al puts the rights and duties which constitute the status "38 into effect, he is performing a role. Brookover discussed the status-role relationship in his recent book: 35Gross t 1., QB: cit., p. 17. 361bid., pp. 17-18. 37Alan Bates and Richard Videbeck, "An Experimental Study of Conformity to Role Expectations," Sociometgy, Vol. 22, 1:1-11, March, 1959. 38Ralph Linton, The Study of Man, New York: D. Apple- ton-Century Co., 1956, pp. 115-114. 20 Status may be defined as the expectations which various persons or groups interacting with a particu- lar position hold for any occupant of that position. . . . The expectation held for a specific person occupying a position may be different in some respects from those held for another occupant of the same position. . . . These specific expectations we term role. We distinguish role from status . . . by identi- fying it as the expectations which persons or groups hold for a particular occupant or actor in a status.39 One could conclude the discussion of status and role by say- ing that there are no roles without statuses and no statuses without roles. An important consideration pertaining to role-expecta— tions is the fact that although some participants in a social system do have some agreement among themselves on expectations, others do not. The problem then becomes one of to what extent or degree. Gross and others write: In contrast to the holistic approach so frequently found in social science literature, that is, that a role is an indivisible unit of rights and duties ascribed by a group or society, theoretically grounded empirical inquiries are needed to determine how much agreement there is on the expectations for the behavior of position incumbents.4O The holistic approach and the concept of agreement-disagree- ment is further debated by Levinson: The prevailing image of the organization has been that of a mechanical apparatus operating impersonally once it is set in motion by administrative edict. . . . The individual member is regarded as a cog in the apparatus, what he thinks and does being determined by 39Wilbur Brookover and David Gottlieb, A Sociology of Education, New York: American Book Company, 1964, p. 525. 4OGross t al., pp, cit., p. 45. 21 requirements in the organizational structure. . . . To assume that what the organization requires, and what its members actually think and do, comprise a single, unified whole is severly to restrict our comprehension of organizational dynamics and change. It is my thesis, then, that the unitary conception of social role is unrealistic and theoretically con- stricting.41 Studies on Role Analysis. Several studies on role analysis have been completed in which the basic approach was not holistic or unitary in orientation, but rather emphasized segmentation. Role segmentation, according to Gross and others, is concerned with "the classification of a group or set of expectations that individuals may hold for an incum- bent of a Specified position."42 A study of the role of the enrollment officer at Michigan State University was conducted by Nonnamaker.43 BY using a sixty item questionnaire, he compared the responses of staff members representing Education, Social Science, Mathematics and Science, and Professional Counselors with those of Students in Education, Social Science, and Mathe- matics and Science. He concluded that there is no one set of expectations for the enrollment officer at Michigan 41Daniel Levinson, "Role, Personality, and Social Structure in the Organization Setting,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 58:170-180, 1959, PP. 172-75. 4‘gGross §t_§l,, 9p. cit., p. 61. 43Eldon R. Nonnamaker, ”The Role of the Enrollment Officer at Michigan State University," Unpublished doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, 1959. 22 State University. No Significant differences were found among the student groups, an indication that students tended to have similar expectations for the role. Generally speaking, all groups had relatively high expectations for the enrollment officer's need to be familiar with a majority of the dimensions as described in the questionnaire. Lacognata examined faculty and student academic role expectations.44 His general assumption was that residential and off-campus faculty and students would view their academic roles differently and would hold differing role expectations for faculty and students. He found that faculty members diSplayed greater agreement on the dimensions of role con- sensus than did students and that role convergence was greater between faculty perception of their roles and student role expectations of faculty. Another study was done by Marquardt concerning resi- 5 He compared the dent assistants in men's residence halls.4 responses of resident assistants, resident advisors, and students as to their expectations of the role of the resident assistant. It was concluded that the three groups differed in their expectations for the role. Consensus on expectations 44Angelo Anthony Lacognata, "Role Expectations of Uni- versity Faculty and Students: A Social Psychological Analysis," Unpublished doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, 1962. 45Harold Roy Marquardt, I'The Role of the Resident Assist— ant in Men's Residence Halls at Michigan State University," Unpublished doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, 1961. 25 for each separate group of reSpondentS was nearly the same and consequently the resident assistants themselves were not considered to be in a conflict situation. Other studies not pertaining to higher education yet employing the concept of role in terms of expectations and segmentation were conducted by Didier,46 Doyle,47 and Gross.48 Socialization in Graduate School Departments. As noted in Chapter I, very few studies have been done regarding graduate teaching assistants. Yet the environment in which they operate, their own graduate departments, have been Shown to be social systems. Gottlieb, in writing of the changes in career preferences of graduate students, concluded: We have shown that graduate students do alter their career preferences and that these changes do not ap- pear to be so much a result of a selecting process as they are a function of the graduate school system itself.49 The entire area of graduate education, according to one administrator at Michigan State, offers much to be studied; in fact it is relatively virgin territory. 46James W. Didier, "The Role of the Baptist Parish Minister in the State of Michigan," Unpublished doctor's the— sis, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, 1965. 47L. A. Doyle, "A Study of the Expectations Which Ele- mentary Teachers, Administrators, School Board Members and Parents Have of the Elementary Teacher‘s Role," Unpublished doctor's thesis, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan, 1956. 48Gross §£_al., op. cit., 49David Gottlieb, "Process of Socialization in American Graduate Schools," Social Forces, Vol. 40, No. 124-151, p. 151. 24 Consequently, with the perspectives in mind as out- lined in this chapter, the study of the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant was undertaken. A moti- vating force was the notion that lack of consensus may be interpreted as conflict and that the ”consequence of role conflict may be frustration for the individual teacher and ineffectivensss for the educational institution."50 Summary Attention in this chapter has been given to a review of the literature pertaining to graduate teaching assistants and role theory. Under the general topic of graduate teach- ing assistants, two studies at Michigan State were described. In addition, there was a discussion of the idea that students are sensitive to a faculty member's teaching effectiveness with implications being made for a faculty member's instruc— tional rank. Consideration was also given to the frequency of the graduate teaching experience and to the conclusion that it is a rather common occurrence in graduate education. The main feature of the second part of the chapter was role theory. Several interpretations of the concept of role were presented with the observation being made that indi- viduals in social locations behave with reference to expecta— tions. (The operational definition of role for this study is: 50J. W. Getzels and E G Guba, "The Structure of Role and Role Conflict in the Teaching Situation," The Journal of Educational Sociology, 29:51-40, Sept., 1959, p. 40. 25 a set of expectations applied to an occupant in a particular social position.) The relationship between status and role was then presented. An important consideration that was subsequently treated was the notion that role is not unitary or holistic in nature, but is, rather, composed of segmented elements. Several studies on role analysis were presented and then at— tention was given to the point that the process of sociali- zation exists in the departments of graduate schools. CHAPTER III SAMPLE AND PROCEDURES The Sample To test the hypotheses it was necessary to have a representative sample of undergraduate students and graduate teaching assistants. Furthermore, to be better able to generalize, it was necessary to include the major areas of study throughout the University. The traditional major areas of Study were considered to be three, the Behavioral Sciences, the Humanities, and the Natural Sciences. The departments that were subsequently used from each of these general areas are noted in Table 1. Table 1. Traditional Areas of Study and ReSpective Depart- ments General Areas Department Behavioral Sciences Education* Speech Marketing and Transporta— tion Administration Humanities English History Philosophy Music Natural Sciences Mathematics Education is considered a College, not a department. However, for the remainder of this study, it will be referred to as a "department" to conform, for discussion purposes, with the other departments. 26 27 Selection of the Undergraduates. A basic considera- tion in the selection of the undergraduate sample was whether or not the students had been exposed to a graduate teaching assistant at one time or another in their course work. It was decided to select the sample from multiple-section courses characterized by a senior faculty member conducting the main lecture and graduate teaching assistants conducting the discussion or recitation sections. The particular courses from which the undergraduate sample was selected are found in Table 2. Table 2. Departments and Courses from Which the Undergradu- ate Population was Drawn Departments Course Number Behavioral Sciences Education 200 and 501 Speech 100 and 108 MTA 500 and 501 Humanities English 201, 206, 207, 215, 580 History 220 and 221 Music 180 Philosophy 157 Natural Sciences Mathematics 108 Fall term, 1965, class lists for these reSpective courses were obtained from the Registrar's Office. Sixty students were randomly selected from the courses comprising 28 each of the general areas. The selection per department from a given general area was on a percentage basis. Consequently, 180 undergraduates were selected for the study. Because of random selection, various majors and all four class levels were represented.51 Selection of the Graduate Teaching Assistants. A basic consideration in the selection of the graduate teaching assistant sample was whether or not the assistants were en- 2 The chairman gaged in the same general type of activity.5 of each department was contacted and briefed about the nature of the study.53 At the same time each chairman was asked to provide a list of names of the graduate teaching assistants who had responsibility for discussion or recitation sections in their departments. The departmental chairmen were most cooperative. Sixty individuals were selected from each of the three general areas which provided a total of 180 gradu- ate teaching assistants.54 51It should be noted that just because a students was enrolled in a particular course did not necessarily mean that the student was a major in that department or general area. 52Some graduate teaching assistants have full responsi- bility for a course, others Simply read themes or grade papers, while still others have responsibility for discussion or recitation sections of a class. 53With respect to Education, the senior faculty members in charge of Ed. 200 and 501 reSpectively were contacted. 54It was learned after the study had commenced that five subjects from the general area of the Humanities and one from the general area of the Natural Sciences were not eligible. 29 During the middle of the winter term, 1966, the questionnaires accompanied by letters of explanation of the study were mailed to the sample populations. Two weeks later a follow-up mailing went to those who had yet to respond. There was a 75.5% return from the undergraduate population and an 81.6% return from the graduate teaching assistant population. The total percent of return was 78.6%. See Table 5. Instrumentation During the summer term, 1965, several graduate teach- ing assistants and undergraduates were interviewed regarding their feelings about the use of graduate teaching assistants in instruction. In addition, several journal articles and books were read which further described some perSpectives about the use of graduate teaching assistants. AS a result of the preceding activities, three dimen- sions of the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant were developed. It was noted that any teacher en- gages in instructional activities, offers advice of an academic nature to his students, and may reSpond to students' non-academic problems. Consequently, the preceding dimensions of a teacher's role were ascribed to the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. Hence, three sub-Scales of the questionnaire were developed: 1. "Instruction"--refers to classroom procedures and classroom conduct of the graduate teaching assistant. 50 Table 5. Nature of the Sample and Percent of Sample Return- ing the Questionnaire __A Sample Number Returns Percent Undergraduates Behavioral Sciences Education 25 18 78 Speech 19 15 79 MTA 18 12 67 Humanities History 18 11 61 Music 7 5 45 Philosophy 9 7 78 English 26 20 77 Natural Sciences Mathematics 60 49 82 Graduate Teaching Assistants Behavioral Sciences Education 25 25 92 Speech 17 17 100 MTA 18 17 94 Humanities History 18 15 85 Music 7 7 100 Philosophy 9 7 78 English 21 14 67 Natural Sciences Mathematics 59 45 75 Totals 554 278 78 51 2. "Advisement"--refers to the assistance that a gradu— ate teaching assistant might render in all matters pertaining to a student's academic program and progress. 5. "Counseling-Personal RelationS"-- refers to interpersonal relations be- tween a graduate teaching assistant and his students in matters not strict— ly academic. Questionnaire items were then constructed. Each item was characterized by five forced-choice responses. They were Absolutely Must (AM), Preferably Should (PS), May or May Not (MMN), Preferably Should Not (PSN), and Absolutely Must Not (AMN). Numerical values were also assigned to each response choice: Am - 5, PS - 4, MMN - 5, PSN — 2, and AMN-l. The questionnaire, at this point, contained 50 items. It was then pretested on 18 undergraduates and 18 graduate teaching assistants. There was a return of 94% on the pre— test questionnaire. The results of this effort were subject to critical review by the writer, two members of the guidance committee, and the Director of Institutional Research.55 The final form of the questionnaire contained 44 items, 19 items under the topic of "Instruction,” 15 items under "Advisement," and 11 items under "Counseling-Personal 55The Director, Dr. Paul Dressel, offered several com- ments that were most helpful in the formulation of the final draft of the questionnaire. He also wrote a letter of intro- duction and recommendation on behalf of the writer to the chairmen of the departments that were to be used in the study. (A recent policy statement from the Central Administration of the University requires that the Director of Institutional Research review proposals involving campus-wide questionnaires addressed to students or faculty members.) 52 Relations." The last item was an open ended item which solicited any additional comments that the reSpondent might care to make. See Appendix D for the final form of the questionnaire. Statistical Hypotheses The main purpose of the study was to investigate the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant in terms of expectations held for the role by undergraduates and by graduate teaching assistants themselves. Of particu- lar concern were points of agreement and disagreement. Consequently, two hypotheses were advanced. To be tested statistically, they must be presented in operational terms, i.e., in the null form. Major Hypothesis There is no Significant difference in the expecta- tionS that graduate teaching assistants and under- graduates hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. Minor Hypothesis There is no Significant difference in the expecta- tions that graduate teaching assistants from dif- ferent areas of general academic orientation hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. Analysis of the Data Responses were transcribed onto code sheets from which punched cards were typed for use with the CDC 5600 computer 55 at the University. The chi square statistic was used for determining the degree of Similarity or difference of expectations. It was necessary to "collapse categories" so that there would be sufficient numbers of responses in the cells of the contingency table. Therefore, in the final analysis, there were only three responses per item, "Prefer- ably Should" (Agree), "May or May Not," and "Preferably Should Not" (Disagree). The computer program "ACT" was used in determining the chi square statistic, and the .05 level was chosen for the level of significance. This level was chosen because the total number in each group was small and to make generalizations concerning Significant differences in items for probabilities above this level would not be justified. Summary The undergraduate sample was chosen by randomly select— ing students from multiple—section courses offered by eight different departments of the University. The graduate teach- ing assistant sample was determined by soliciting from depart— mental chairmen of these eight departments the names of graduate teaching assistants who have had responsibility for discussion or recitation sections of multiple—section courses. A questionnaire was designed for the study which was subdivided into three sub-scales with a total of 44 items. Response categories of Absolutely Must, Preferably Should, 54 May or May Not, Preferably Should Not, and Absolutely Must Not were used for each item (except for the last which was open ended). A major hypothesis was advanced regarding role expecta— tions of undergraduates and graduate teaching assistants for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. A minor hypothesis was advanced regarding expectations for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant by teaching assistants from different areas of academic orien- tation. A chi square analysis with Significance at the .05 level was used to determine consensus by the groups in question. A collapsing of the reSponse categories from five reSponseS to three reSponses (Agree, May or May Not, Disagree) was necessary in determining chi square values. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA In this chapter, the responses of the graduate teach- ing assistants and of the undergraduates are presented and analyzed. For the undergraduate sample, fifty—five freshmen responded, thirty sophomores, forty-seven juniors, and three seniors. For the graduate teaching assistant sample, fifty- one master's candidates and ninety-two doctoral candidates reSponded. Major Hypothesis The first hypothesis to be tested and stated in the null form is: There is no significant difference in the expectations that graduate teaching assistants and undergraduates hold for the instructional role of the graduate teach— ing assistant. Application of the chi square statistic revealed significant differences in expectations on fifteen of the forty-three items of the questionnaire. Three of the fifteen items ex- hibited a weakness in the chi square cells. Sub-scale 1: Instruction With respect to the nineteen items comprising the sub— scale entitled "Instruction,” the chi square statistic 55 56 indicated that there were significant differences in expecta— tions among eight of the nineteen items. Significance at the five percent level was indicated for three of the items, and Significance at the one percent level was indicated for five of the items. The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for eight of the items on this sub—scale (see Table 4). Two of the eight items exhibited a weakness in the chi square cells. A review of the items in which there was consensus (no Significant difference in expectations) revealed that both undergraduates (69%) and teaching assistants (74%) indicated a strong preference for a graduate teaching assistant's having the liberty to conduct his section in a manner that he feels appropriate (Item 5); 82% of the undergraduates and 75% of the teaching assistants indicated that the graduate teaching assistant preferably should help in the construction of exami— nations for the course (Item 7); 71% of the undergraduates and 58% of the teaching assistants preferred that the gradu- ate teaching assistant construct his own examinations for the discussion section (Item 8); 66% of the undergraduates and 74% of the teaching assistants indicated that the graduate teaching assistant preferably Should identify obstacles to learning for his section (Item 10); 79% of the undergraduates and 85% of the teaching assistants strongly preferred that the graduate teaching assistant suggest study techniques for coping with the subject matter of the course (Item 11); and .Hm>mH ucouumm a man we unmoflwflcmam** .Hm>ma ucmunmm m exp um DSMUHMHSmHm* poscflucoo om so mm mm oouormao ow.m mm mm mm mm ZZZ .omusou mo ucoucoo Hm Mm ow em mmnmd mafiapcmn usonm wmm Hecam m>mm .m a me me om monotone oa.m ma mm oa mm 222 .obsAHooueom mason mm moa mm mm omumd on HmccmE CH GOHuomm DUSUCOO .m as me as me moummmflo mm.fi we mm as mm ZZZ .mmmusou no mo Hm om omumé mucuospouucfl SH maco somoe .e m b m. a moummman 7 *Hm.oa 0a ma m w 222 5 mm ama mm omfi mmumd .COHumucmHHo ow pmmomxm mm .m e m N m moummmfln mm.m mm mm we mm 222 as mm mm oh mmumd .ucwam>flsqm no .<.2 cm mummmom .N n. a I I moummmfla mocmflummxm *roo.oa so so on mm 222 statuses msoe>ouo or: o>mm .a mm Hm mm mm omumd ucmumflmmfi mcflnomme mumspmuo one s z s 2 mx mucmumflmmm mmumspmumumpcb EouH measommu mumspmno meanz mucmumflmmd meanomme .mDSMDmHmmm mcflsomou mumspmum pcm mmumspmumuopcs >9 :COHuosuumcHe mmanz moundpmumnmpco .H mamom IQSm co Eoufl Sumo How mosHm> mumsqm H50 paw noncommmu mo monucmoumm paw hucosqmum .e manta 58 podcflucoo ma mm e @ mmHmmmHQ *rem.me am on me em 22: .quan measure egauuflasu an mm mp m» moa ooumd 3wfl>mu ou pomeSm xuoB m>mm .ma ma mm m m ooSmMmao **oa.mm em am mm Om ZZZ .mcoflmmmm mad: am on we we emum< msonm mmmHUImHuxm uospcou .Nfi H m n. a moummmflo Ho.m «a ON ON Hm ZZZ mm ama mm boa moum< .modgflcnoou mpsum ummmmsm .Hfi w w a m mmummmflo am.m mm am mm as 222 .msssumma on on moa mm mm mmum¢ mmaomumno Hmuwcmm mwflucopH .oa Ha mm SN mm mmummmfln *wm.m ma ma mm Hm ZZZ .mmpmum mcflcmflmmm on ooa mm ms mouse hoe Seaflanamooomos Haze o>mm .m as om m as moummmeo mw.m mm ow Hm mm ZZZ .GOHuoom was now mm mm «m mm mmnmd mSOADmcHmeo £30 uosuumcoo .m m m w m moummmfln m©.m am am ad ma ZZZ .mmusoo may now ms woa mm add moum¢ mSOAuMCAmem posuumcoo maom .n s z s 2 mx mucmumflmmm .moumppmumumpcb EouH mcflnommu mpmspmno Umscaucou I .w magma 59 we so am med monmmmflo .mmeSum S30 *rmo.mm ma Am m as 222 we: on mosmuuomsa ca osoomm mm mm ad ma mmumfi mm mofludp meanommu pummmm .mfi OS ea ma om omummmao *mm.© mm ow am we ZZZ .ucmpdum paw mo mm om so mouse Seasomu or stop omsma> om .ma me am we aoa moummmeo m¢.w pm mm om Hm ZZZ .ucmpsum 0d ed m m mmum< 6 mm ZHHMMEAHQ Um3mfl> mm .wa om mm oa ma moummmao *mm.n Hm om Ha mm ZZZ . .mmflEoE Zuasowm mm mm mm mm moumd m mm ZHHHMEHHQ Um3mfl> mm .mfi ms soa Ha om oouommao .soflsomu me.o be mm ON Am 222 egauuaasm ems» umsumou m afi m Nfi oomm¢ mumsqmpm wmma 6 mm UoBmH> mm .mfi m m 5 OH moummmfla mo.m ea mm oa me as: .moasome egauuaasu ms bosom mu mad mm mad mmum< Ion Hmsuuwaamucfl mEmm pommxm .wa s z s 2 mx mucmumflmmm moumspmumwopcs EouH mcflnomou mHMSGMHO UwSCHucoo I .6 magma 4O 85% of the undergraduates and 79% of the teaching assistants indicated a preference that the graduate teaching assistant expect the same intellectual reSpect from his students as a full-time faculty member (Item 14). Consensus in a negative vein was noted when both groups indicated a "preferably should not" reSponse to the graduate teaching assistant be- ing viewed as a less adequate teacher than a full—time faculty member, undergraduates 71% and teaching assistants 75% (Item 15); and to the graduate teaching assistant being viewed primarily as a student, undergraduates 75% and teaching assistants 64% (Item 17). On Items 2 (Possess an M.A, or its equivalent in the discipline which he teaches), 4 (Be allowed to teach only introductory courses), and 6 (Have the final say about the way he handles the content of the discussion or recitation section that he is teaching), the general re- sponse pattern favored the "May or May Not" category. (However, on Item 6 about half of the teaching assistants agreed that this privilege should be theirs.) As for the significant difference in reSponse items, it was observed that undergraduates preferred, more than the teaching assistants, that the graduate teaching assistant should have previous teaching experience (Item 1). Sixty- two percent of the undergraduates indicated a preference for such experience, while only 56% of the teaching assistants indicated such. In addition, the undergraduates noted a stronger preference for graduate teaching assistants‘ being 41 exposed to a general orientation program (Item 5). Ninety- six percent of the undergraduates so indicated, while 85% of the teaching assistants responded likewise. (Significant difference was noted on this item in Spite of the high per— centage of agreement because even after collapsing cells for the chi square statistic there was still a shortage of frequencies in a couple of cells.) On the other hand, teach- ing assistants indicated a stronger preference for the gradu— ate teaching assistant having full responsibility for assign— ing final grades to students in his section (Item 9). Only 55% of the undergraduates felt that this Should be done, while 70% of the teaching assistants so indicated. More under— graduates than teaching assistants preferred that the gradu- ate teaching assistant conduct extra-class group help sessions for his own section (Item 12). Forty—six percent of the undergraduates indicated this expectation as compared to 21% of the teaching assistants. Undergraduates also strongly preferred that a teaching assistant have his work as a gradu- ate teaching assistant subject to review by a full-time faculty member (Item 15). Only 55% of the teaching assistants felt this way as opposed to 78% of the undergraduates. Interestingly enough, undergraduates exhibited a stronger preference for viewing the graduate teaching assistant as a faculty member than did the teaching assistants themselves (Item 16). Seventy-three percent of the undergraduates so indicated, while 60% of the teaching assistants did. On the 42 other hand, a greater percentage of teaching assistants (62%) preferred that the graduate teaching assistant be viewed both as a faculty member and as a student (Item 18). Fifty percent of the undergraduates felt this way. On the final item of the sub-scale (Item 19), the teaching assistants (59%) indicated a preference for viewing the graduate teach- ing assistant's teaching obligations as second in importance to his own studies. Eighty—one percent of the undergraduates preferred that the teaching assistant not feel this way. Summary: Sub—scale 1 In terms of positive consensus, both groups indicated that the graduate teaching assistant should feel at liberty to conduct his section in a manner that he feels appropriate. In addition, both groups tended to prefer that the graduate teaching assistant construct examinations not only for his section, but assist in constructing them for the course at large. It was also generally agreed that the graduate teach- ing assistant identify general obstacles to learning and sug— gest study techniques for coping with the subject matter of the course. Both groups preferred that the graduate teaching assistant expect the same intellectual respect from his stu- dents as a full-time faculty member and consequently, not be viewed as a less adequate teacher nor primarily as a student. Significant difference in expectations indicated that the undergraduates are more concerned than the teaching 45 assistants themselves that the graduate teaching assistant have previous teaching experience and be subject to an orientation program. (On the latter item the significant difference can be partially attributed to a lack of frequen— cies in the chi square cell even after collapsing.) On the other hand, teaching assistants tended to prefer to have full responsibility for assigning final grades to the stu— dents in their sections. Undergraduates showed a greater preference than the teaching assistants for the graduate teaching assistant's conducting extra-class group help sessions for his own section, and for the graduate teaching assistant's having his work subject to review by a full— time faculty member. Furthermore, undergraduates preferred to view the graduate teaching assistant as a faculty member more than did the teaching assistants themselves. On the other hand, teaching assistants showed a greater preference for being viewed as both faculty members and students. AS expected, more undergraduates preferred than did teaching assistants that the graduate teaching assistant not regard his teaching obligations as second in importance to his own studies. Sub-scale 2: Advisement An examination of the items in this sub-scale revealed that consensus was held by both groups on ten of the thirteen items. Of the three items in which Significant differences 44 in expectations were expressed, two were Significant at the five percent level and the remaining item was Significant at the one percent level. The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for three of the items on this sub-scale (see Table 5). One of the three items exhibited a weakness in chi square cells. A negative consensus was expressed by both groups with respect to the graduate teaching assistant having office hours only by appointment (Item 21). Fifty-three percent of the undergraduates felt that this Should not be the practice, while 41% of the teaching assistants felt much the same way. Seventy-two percent of the undergraduates and 61% of the teaching assistants preferred that the graduate teaching assistant have office hours by appointment in addition to regular office hours (Item 22). Consensus was also expressed that the graduate teaching assistant be knowledgeable about related courses in his discipline (Item 25--undergraduates 88% and teaching assistants 95%); be familiar with the basic requirements for a major within his department (Item 24—- undergraduates 75% and teaching assistants 69%); be familiar with the university's rules and regulations concerning academic policies (Item 25——undergraduates 79% and teaching assistants 70%); and help students see the rationale for the course in terms of curriculum requirements (Item 26-—under— graduates 79% and teaching assistants 86%). The mean re— Sponse for both groups on each of the preceding items was 45 .Hm>oa ucmuumm a onu um DSMUHwflcmHm** .Hm>ma ucmouom m may um unmoflwflcmflm* UoSCHucoo a N a N moummmfln .mucoEmHqumH Edasofluuso mm.N ma ma ON SN ZZZ mo mEuou CH mmusoo ecu Mom or owe me ooa mouse Hmsoaumu mom mesoosbm oaom .om w m N m omummmfla mm.m om pm me mm 222 .moamuo>ass one mo mmeoaaom os ooe ms soa mouse uaeoomom boas smAHHEmu mm .mm N m I I mmummmflo mm.m mN Ne mN on ZZZ.u:mEuHmmmU was CH SOnmE m Mom mm mm mm fiOH mmumm mucmEmHHSqmu ZDHB HMHHHEmm om .wN I I I I moummmao m¢.¢ m N Na ma ZZZ .mcHHQHUmHU mfln CH mm mma mm maa moum< momusoo UmpmHmu usonm BOCZ .mN ca «a e m omummmfla .muson m©.m mN Ne «N mm ZZZ moflwmo Swasmou Ucm Dame am mm Nu mm wmumd Iucflommm Zn undo: moflmwo m>mm .NN as om no me omsommao ae.e we we mm mm 222 .ucoEucaommm ma ma m ad mmumd >9 ZHCO muzon mOflmmo m>mm .HN N w n. H mmummmfla NN an NH ma ZZZ *am.m mm moa mm maa omumé .muson moflwmo Smasmwu m>mm .ON ucmumflmmfi meanomme mumspmuo one s z s 2 NZ mucmumflmmm mmumspmumuopcb EmuH mcflnommu mumspmuo IumpcD .mucmumflmmm mCHLommu Isz so Emufl Sumo MOM moSHm> mwfinZ mucmumflmm< mcflcummB mumspmum paw mmumspmuonmpcs an zucwEmmH>pde mumsqm HLU pcm noncommmu wo moducmuuom Ugo hosedqmum mmauZ mmumspmum .N mamum .m manta 46 am ma mm ma moumomao .nofl om.m mm oa mm so 222 has no sure uoroauacoam m or em we Ne mm mmnm¢ mucmpdum mo mcama>pm oSD Boa> .Nm .mcaccmHm N Na m oa omnmmman Hmcoaumozpm Mamnu How ZDHHHQ ON.O mm mm ad mm ZZZ Iamcommmu Cam mucmpcmmmpca mm mm Nm ob mmnm¢ Hmummum m>ma£om mucopsum mamm..am me am mN mm mmummmao .ucmEunmmmp m.pCMumawmm *om.m Ne om em m5 ZZZ mo umnu mpamuso mmmusoo ma ma Ha MN omnmd pomaom Op mucwpsum mamm .om m m ma aN mwummmao **Nm.mm as on an m» ZZZ .ocaamaomao was ca mohme mm om om as wonm< ou mucmpsum mane ommusoucm .mN oa ma w m mommMmaa .mcaamaomap m.ucmumammm mo.e we or no ms 22: saruas moaeaaanammoo Ne Ow me mm mmumfi Hmoumu mucmpsum £ua3 mmsomaa .NN am an ea ma oommmman .maaamaomap oa.m we mm mm mm ZZZ m.ucmumammm ca momusoo Mo am as on as mouse coabooamm we» ca mucoosum was .sm NI -. z s, 2 NZ mucmumammm mmumspmumumUCD EouH measure» mDmSUMHOI, Umscaucou I m OHQMB 47 close to 4.0. A little more than half of the undergraduates and teaching assistants respectively indicated that the graduate teaching assistant Should help students achieve greater independence and responsibility for their own edu- cational planning (Item 51). On Items 27 (Assist students in the selection of courses within the teaching assistant's discipline), 28 (Discuss with students the different career possibilities within the teaching assistant's discipline), and 52 (View the advising of students as a Significant part of his job) the general pattern of reSponse was "May or May Not." There was Significant difference in expectations regard— ing the graduate teaching assistant's holding regular office hours (Item 20). Eighty-seven percent of the undergraduates felt that this Should be the case, while 76% of the teaching assistants so indicated. It Should be noted, however, that the mean responses for each group was near 4.0. (Again chi square Significance was partially due to lack of frequencies in some cells even after collapsing.) Teaching assistants also held a different expectation for the graduate teaching assistant's encouraging able and interested Students to major in the discipline that he is teaching (Item 29). Fifty-Six percent of the teaching assistants subscribed to this notion, while only 50% of the undergraduates did. Teaching assist- ants also differed from undergraduates in their expectation that the graduate teaching assistant help students in their 48 requests for advice in the selection of courses outside that of the teaching assistant's department (Item 50). Forty-five percent of the teaching assistants preferred that this type of assistance should not be given, while only 29% of the undergraduates felt this way. Summary: Sub—scale 2 Both teaching assistants and undergraduates tended to prefer that the graduate teaching assistant not have his office hours only by appointment. Furthermore, both groups strongly preferred to have the graduate teaching assistant hold office hours by appointment in addition to regularly scheduled times. High consensus was also expressed with respect to a graduate teaching assistant's being knowledgeable about re- lated courses in his discipline as well as being familiar with academic requirements of the university and the depart- ment. Significant differences in expectations were noted over the graduate teaching assistant's having regular office hours. The undergraduates indicated a stronger preference for regular office hours than did the teaching assistants. (However, Significance was partially attributed to lack of frequencies in some chi Square cells even after collapsing.) More teaching assistants than undergraduates preferred that the graduate teaching assistant encourage able and interested students to major in the discipline which he teaches. 49 Teaching assistants also preferred not to help students in their requests for advice in the selection of courses in departments outside that of their own. Sub‘scale 5: Counseling and Personal Relations Of the eleven items in the third sub—scale, four indi— cated significant differences in expectations. Of these four, two were significant at the five percent level, and two were significant at the one percent level. The null hypothesis can thus be rejected for four items in this sub— scale (see Table 6). Both undergraduates and teaching assistants preferred that the graduate teaching assistant be familiar with the student personnel services of the university (Item 55). Sixty—one percent of the undergraduates indicated such and 49% of the teaching assistants felt the same way. ESpecially strong consensus was indicated with respect to the graduate teaching assistant‘s being sensitive to the psychological differences of his students (Item 56). Eighty-four percent of the teaching assistants felt that this Should be the case, and 74% of the undergraduates felt likewise. The remainder of the consensus items, 54 (Have an understanding of the nature of the student personnel records and tests that are utilized by the university), 57 (Be willing to listen to students who want to confide in him about problems not re— lated to the course), 58 (Help students cope with the stresses 50 .Zo>mH useoumm a mnu um Damoamacmam** .Hm>oH unwound m wnu um unmoamacmam* poscaucoo aa ea aa aa mouosmao .ouaH momHHoo mm.a on me me Hm ZZZ mo mmusmmmum Ucm mommmuum mm me we ao mouse seas moou musmosum maom .mm ma sa ma om omummmao .sac mm.a mm om Ne mm ZZZ ca opawcoo ou DCNB 0:3 mucmp mm an me am mouse Isom ob soumaa or msaaaaz om .am e m m m mmummmaa .mucopsum ma.w Na Na aN mN ZZZ was mo mmocmummmap Hmo em waa em mm mmumd IamoHOZUme ou o>auamcmm mm .mm «m we on «H moummman .coauuom was ca mDCNUSum **Nm.oa am we mm Hm ZZZ usonm coaumEu0mca Hmaucoo mm we ma aN omumd Iamcou ou mmmoom Um3oHHm mm .mm ma ma ma ea moummmao .mumou out mm.d «m em Nd mm ZZZ mpnouou Hmccomumm DGOUSDm mm me we mm oommZ ogu mo mcapcmumumpc: cm m>mm .em m n m m wwummmaa .Zuamum>ac9 mm.m we so mN we ZZZ NZu wo mmua>umm Henson me so am om mouse Isms utmosum seas soaHaEmu mm .mm ucmumammd mcazomme opmspmuo NW 2 ,R 2 NZ mucmumammm moumspmumuoUCD EmuH mcazomou mumspmuo AmadomInsm max» :0 mEmua mnu Op pcommwu uoc pap mamspa>a© Isa unmamv mmauZ mucmumawm< mcanomoe mumspmuo NmanZ mmumspmnmumpca .mucmumammm mcanummp mumspmum paw mmumspmumumpcs Zn emcoaumaom HchmummImcaHmmcsoO: .m mamom Ifldm co Emua some now mosam> mumsqm ano paw mmmcommmu mo mmmucooumm Ucm Zucmdqmum .0 dance 51 am mm m ma moummmao *om.m 5N mm Hm ms ZZZ .muchSum How COHD Nm NH sm an omumfi ImocwEEoomu mo mumuuma muauz .ms om mo mm ms mosmmmao .ooaeuo m.usoosum mo *roa.ma mm es so as ZZZ some one Zn usoEummuu names: Ha mN sa ma moumd wo mEamHo m.ucopsum Op cmumaq .Ns am On mm ss omummman .MmQEmE ZDHSOMM *sm.m mm ss es mo ZZZ Hwbuo Zn assaummuu Hammad ma sN ON mN moumm mo mEamHo m.ucopsum ou Seaman .as m m w m moummmaa .muamou Hmaoom new amoauaaom om.a mm mm sw sm ZZZ ucmundo usonm mmmHU Gnu mm Nm om 0s oman mo mpamuso muchSum Zufl3 MHMB .os om em ea mm oososmao ma.a mm sm ms om ZZZ .ucmEumSnpm Hmaoom as Hm mm om moumZ paw accomumm ca mucoUSDm maom .mm R Z Z, Z NZ mucmuwammm mNDMSZMHmHopCD EmuH meanummu mumspmuo Umsaaucoo I m mHQmB 52 and pressures of college life), 59 (Be willing to help stu— dents in personal and social adjustment if so asked), and 40 (Talk with students, outside of class, about current political and social topics not related to the course) indicated responses which were "May or May Not" in nature. Undergraduates indicated significant differences in their responses from the teaching assistants with respect to allowing the graduate teaching assistant access to confi- dential information about the students in his section (Item 55). Fifty—six percent of the undergraduates preferred that the graduate teaching assistant not be allowed to do this, while only 56% of the teaching assistants objected to this practice. As for a graduate teaching assistant's will- ingness to listen to an individual student's claims of unfair treatment by other faculty members (Item 41), 51% of the teaching assistants preferred that this should not be done, while only 55% of the undergraduates felt this way. The same pattern of response held for the graduate teaching assistant being willing to listen to an individual student's claim of unfair treatment by the Dean of Student's Office (Item 42—-teaching assistants 50% and undergraduates 52%). With respect to a graduate teaching assistant writing letters of recommendation for students if they so request (Item 45), 21% of the teaching assistants indicated that this should not be done, while only 9% of the undergraduates indicated this preference. 55 Summary: Sub-scale 5 Both undergraduates and teaching assistants preferred that the graduate teaching assistant have some feeling for students on an individual basis when they agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should be sensitive to the psychological differences of his students, and to be familiar, for referral purposes with the student personnel services of the university. The remainder of the consensus items were characterized by ”May or May Not" reSponses. However, there were some Significant differences in expeCtationS for this sub-scale. Undergraduates felt more strongly than teaching assistants that the graduate teaching assistant should not be allowed access to confidential in— formation about students in his section. Teaching assist- ants preferred more than undergraduates that the graduate teaching assistant not be willing to listen to students' complaints about other faculty members and unfair treatment by the Dean of Student's Office. More teaching assistants also preferred not to write letters of recommendation for students than did the undergraduates. Minor Hypothesis The second hypothesis to be tested pertained only to graduate teaching assistants who were grouped according to their general area of academic orientation, namely, Behavioral Sciences, Humanities, and Natural Sciences. The second 54 hypothesis to be tested and stated in the null form is: There is no significant difference in the expecta- tions that graduate teaching assistants from differ— ent areas of general academic orientation hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. The application of the chi square statistic revealed signifi- cant difference in expectations on 18 of the 45 items. However, the widespread lack of frequencies in the chi Square cells distorted the statistical chi square findings. Consequently, the data is presented in terms of percentages and subjective observational relationships. Sub-scale 1: Instruction (see Table 7) High consensus in terms of percentages was expressed by the three groups with respect to the graduate teaching assistant's feeling at liberty to conduct his section in a manner that he feels appropriate (Item 5). Seventy percent of the teaching assistants in the behavioral sciences agreed, as did 77% in the humanities and 75% in the natural sciences. About 50% of the respondents in the three groups agreed that the graduate teaching assistant Should have the final say about the way he handles the content of the section he is teaching (Item 6). High consensus was also indicated with respect to the graduate teaching assistant identifying general obstacles to learning for his section (Item 10), and for suggesting study techniques for coping with the subject matter of the course (Item 11). The average percentage 55 pmscaucou ma M I I N a moummman NM Ma MN 0a Na w ZZZ .omusoo map How OM NN up MM MM ms mmumd mcoaumcameo uosnumcoo mamm .5 MM Ma MN aa ma as moummman MN oa aN m MN sa ZZZ as ea so mm or mm mouse seasons: bsons Arm Hesse o>mm .o ma m m s m m moummmao sa o sa o am ma ZZZ .mbmauooumam mamas or Ms NM mm MM 05 0s mwum< umccmE m CH coauomm uospcou .M m s s m sa o omsmsmao sM sa MN Na NM NM ZZZ .mmmnsoo HM MN MM MN ma 0a mmum< Zuouospouucfl CH ZHGO Somme .s N a m s M N ooummmam M N aN m n s ZZZ mm os Os om om am mouse .soaumusoauo ob oomomxo mm .m n M s N N a mmummman sm MM ms aN HM aN ZZZ m s ms ON aM MM moumZ .Dcoam>asqo no .<.Z cm mmmmmom .N I I M a I I moummmaa Hm MM PM mN aM MN ZZZ MN 0a OM Ma ms MN moumfi .oocoaummxm mcanummu Um: m>mm .a ucmumamm< mcanomme GUNSUMHO one s, z s. z s, z AmoaumEonumZu mmauacmesm moocoaum EmuH mmucmaum Hondumz Hmuoa>mnmm MsuZ AmoaumaonumZg mmocmaom HMHSDMZ .coaumucmauo anmmeMIsmuwamm mo mmoum monnu Eouw mucmumammm mcaZommu mumspmum Zn : COHUUSHHMCH: MsHZ moauacmesm >MHZ mmocmaom Hmuoa>mnom .a mamumIflsm so Emua Zoom How noncommmu m0 mmmucmoumm paw Zocmsqmum .5 OHQNB 56 Modcaucou as so me mm ss ms mouommao .uonsos museums Ma M Ma w Ma aa ZZZ oEaUIaadm m Zena Honommu b M M s m s mouMZ mumsoopm mmoa 6 mm Mozma> om .Ma 5 M M N s N mmZMMmaQ .HmQEmE ea M ma m sa m ZZZ measure oEauIaZsm mm boommou as sm as MM mm ss moses stuumZZousa osmm pommxm .sa Ma S mm ma sa M mmsmmmao om m on ma om sa ZZZ .quEos Zquomm oEauIZZsm Zn sM MN Ns Ma MM NM omumé 3oa>ma ou pooflnsm ZZOB o>mm .Ma o s mm aa ma s oossmmao MM MN MM 5N HM MM ZZZ .mcoammmm mam: NM sa Na M aN Na moumd QSOZM mmMaUImuuZm uospcou .Na N a I I N a mmammman M M Na M Ma aa ZZZ mm mm mm mm as ms moses .moseasbuou Zosum umommsm .aa M N N a M M wonmmmaa ON M MN Na Ma Oa ZZZ .mcacumoa we no on om as ss mouse or mososembo stereos Zuausmoa .oa on ea s a ma s motormao M M Na M aa M ZZZ .mmpmum mcaamammm mm mm as so as ss mouse Hoe Zbasanamsoomou assm m>mm .o sm ma s a m M omummmao am aa sa m MM om ZZZ .soauomm was now MM ma Mm sM MM NM mmZMZ mcoaumcafimxo Z30 posuumcoo .M Z Z Z Z M, Z AmoaumEmZumZv mmauaZmEZZ moocmaom EmuH mmucoaom amusumZ amuoa>mnom pmdcaucoo I b maQMB 57 as Ma AM Ma MM om oouommao .moaosum sso Ma 5 MN aa sa M ZZZ man on mocmuuomfia ca pcooom as Ma HM Ma MM Ma mmumm mm mmausp mcanummu was Mummom .Ma oa s aa M oa M moummmao ON M MM sa OM Ha ZZZ .uchSDM m mm On aM MM sN OM sM mmnm< Mam Zuasomm mm ZDOQ poBoa> mm .Ma sM Mm MM MN we on oouommao OM Ma MN aa MN sa ZZZ .uZNUSDM Ma m M s w s mmumd m mm Zaaumfiaum Mm3ma> mm .na so Ma sm oa s s ooumrmao Mm oa Mm aa sa M ZZZ .uwnaoe Zuasomu as Ma aM NN Mm Ms OOHMZ m mm Zaaumfiaum Um3ma> mm .Ma a Z a Z Z Z AmoaumEosumZv moauaZmEdm moocoaom EwuH mmocoaum aMZSuMZ amuoa>mnom Moscaucoo I u wanna 58 agreeing with Item 10 was 74%, while the average percentage agreeing with Item 11 was 85%. A lesser degree of consensus was noted by the three groups regarding the graduate teach- ing assistant's having his work as a graduate teaching assistant subject to review by a full-time faculty member (Item 15). Fifty—Six percent of the teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences agreed, 42% from the humanities and 64% from the natural sciences. High consensus again appeared concerning the graduate teaching assistant's expecting the same intellectual respect from his students as a full—time faculty member (Item 14). The average percent agreeing from the three areas was 79%. High negative consensus appeared with respect to the graduate teaching assistant's being viewed as a less adequate teacher than a full—time faculty member (Item 15), and being viewed primarily as a student (Item 17). The average percentage of the three groups agreeing nega- tively, i.e. should not, with Item 15 was 75%, while the average percentage agreeing negatively with Item 17 was 62%. Positive consensus again emerged with respect to a graduate teaching assistant's being viewed both as a faculty member and as a student (Item 18). Sixty percent of the teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences agreed, as did 56% from the humanities and 71% from the natural sciences. AS for the graduate teaching assistant's regarding his teach— ing obligations as second in importance to his own studies (Item 19), about 50% of the teaching assistants in the 59 humanities and in the natural sciences agreed and about 50% disagreed. The teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences indicated a slight tendency not to regard the graduate teaching assistant's teaching obligations as second in importance to his own studies. Fifty—three percent of the teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences indi- cated that the graduate teaching assistant should not regard his teaching obligation as second in importance to his own studies. The responses of the three groups to Item 6 (Have the final say about the way he handles the content of the discussion or recitation section that he teaches) and Item 12 (Conduct extra-class group help sessions for his own section) were in the "May or May Not" category. A percentage "difference" in expectations was noted with respect to the graduate teaching assistant's having had previous teaching experience (Item 1). Fifty percent of the teaching assistants representing the behavioral sciences felt that this should be the case, while only 50% from the humanities and 25% from the natural sciences agreed. More of the teaching assistants from the behavioral Sciences and the humanities, 61% and 47% reSpectively, agreed that the graduate teaching assistant Should possess an M.A. or its equivalent (Item 2) than did the teaching assistants from the natural Sciences (9%). 0n the other hand, more representa+ tives from the behavioral sciences (90%) and from the natural sciences (95%) agreed that graduate teaching assistants 60 should be exposed to a general orientation program (Item 5) than did those from the humanities (70%). The teaching assistants from the humanities (65%) and from the natural sciences (57%) agreed much more than those from the behavioral sciences (18%) that the graduate teaching assistant be allow— ed to teach only introductory courses (Item 4). More reSpondents from the behavioral sciences (86%) and from the humanities (77%) agreed that the graduate teaching assistant Should help in the construction of examinations for the course (Item 7). Only 50% of the respondents from the natural sciences agreed. With respect to the graduate teaching assistant's constructing his own examinations for his dis- cussion section (Item 8), again teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences 56% and from the humanities 79% agreed that this Should be the case, while only 59% responding from the natural sciences agreed. Much of the same alliance in response pattern was indicated for the graduate teaching assistant's having full responsibility for assigning final grades to students in his section (Item 9). Behavioral science assistants (77%) and humanities assistants (79%) agreed, while 52% of the assistants from the natural sciences indicated this preference. AS for the graduate teaching assistant being viewed primarily as a faculty member (Item 16), the teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences agreed rather strongly (79%), while those from the humanities (51%) and from the natural sciences (41%) agreed less so. 61 Summary: Sub-scale 1 Teaching assistants from the general areas of the behavioral sciences, humanities, and natural sciences tended to agree on a percentage basis that the graduate teaching assistant Should feel at liberty to conduct his discussion or recitation section in a manner that he feels appropriate. The three groups also supported the idea that the graduate teaching assistant should assist his students by identifying obstacles to learning, and suggesting study techniques for coping with the subject matter of the course. They also pre- ferred, for the most part, to have the work of the graduate teaching assistant subject to review by a full-time faculty member, yet felt that the graduate teaching assistant Should expect the same intellectual respect from his students. They also preferred not being viewed as a less adequate teacher than a full—time faculty member, nor being viewed primarily as a student. With respect to the last item, they preferred that the graduate teaching assistant be viewed both as a faculty member and as a student. Expectations for the graduate teaching assistant regarding his teaching obli— gation as second in importance to his own studies were, for the most part, divided between agreement and disagreement with the exception of the teaching assistants from the be- havioral sciences. They tended not to regard his teaching obligation as second in importance. 62 With respect to the percentage "difference" in ex- pectations, more teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences indicated a preference that the graduate teaching assistant have previous teaching experience than did re— spondents from the humanities and natural sciences. On the other hand, more assistants from the behavioral sciences and humanities preferred that the graduate teaching assistant possess an M.A. or its equivalent than did those from the natural sciences. Fewer respondents from the humanities preferred that the graduate teaching assistant be exposed to a general orientation program than did those from the be- havioral sciences and the natural sciences. Concerning the graduate teaching assistant's teaching only introductory courses, over half of the assistants from the humanities and natural sciences felt this way, while considerably fewer assistants from the behavioral sciences agreed. The two groups representing the behavioral sciences and the humanities concurred that the graduate teaching assistant should help in the construction of examinations for the course and for his particular section, as well as having full responsibility for assigning final grades to students in his section. On the preceding three items fewer reSpondentS from the natural sciences indicated this preference. Finally, teaching assist- ants from the behavioral sciences preferred that the graduate teaching assistant be viewed primarily as a faculty member. Their counterparts in the humanities and natural sciences 65 were less inclined to feel this way. None of the groups indicated a preference that a graduate teaching assistant Should or Should not conduct extra—class group help sessions for his own section. Sub-scale 2: Advisement (see Table 8) Consensus was expressed on a percentage basis by the three groups with respect to the graduate teaching assistant's having office hours by appointment in addition to regular office hours (Item 22). The average percentage of response from those in the behavioral sciences and humanities was 55%, while 75% 6f the teaching assistants from the natural sciences agreed. A rather high consensus was given concerning the graduate teaching assistant's being knowledgeable about re- lated courses in his discipline (Item 25). The average per- centage of responses agreeing was 95%. Consensus was also registered with the graduate teaching assistant's being familiar with university rules and regulations concerning academic policies (Item 25). Seventy-five percent from the behavioral sciences so indicated, 61% from the humanities, and 75% from the natural sciences. A little more than half of the reSpondentS from each group agreed that the graduate teaching assistant Should encourage able and interested stu- dents to major in the discipline that he is teaching (Item 29). For the most part, the responses to the graduate teaching assistant's helping students achieve greater 64 Moscaucoo N a N a I I ooumomac .mucoEoHasqu EZHZUHHHSO mo Ma m aN M N a ZZZ mEHou ca omusoo oZu Mom oao OM MM ms MM MM MM ooum< Icoauon oZu oom mpcoUSum maom .MN M m M m s m oosmmmao mm M MM Ma am ma ZZZ .Zuamuo>acs one Mo moaanom Ms MM oM Mm Ms Ms moses oaeoomom mtu boas ZmaZasmM mm .MN s N N a I I ooamomaa .ucoE MM Ma ms ma ma oa ZZZ qumooo was ca soars m Zoe sM MN MM sN NM ms ooumd mucoEonasvou Zuaz umaaaamm om .sN I I I I I I ooumomao s M m s I I ZZZ .osasoaomao was MM as am MM ooa AM mouse ea mmmusoo Mobmsos usonm 30cm .MN m M sa M M M ooummman .muzon ma s MM sa MM om ZZZ ooaMMo umssoos oer some Ms MM MM Mm MM NM mouse nusaooes Zn ussor ooaouo m>mZ .MN MM MN MM oa es em mouotmao MM Ma MM MM MM mm ZZZ .ososbsaoaos ma M ma M sa M mouse Zn ZZso mason ooaMMo m>mm .am M a M m m a oosommao aa s aM Ma ea oa ZZZ mm mm mm mm Hm mw OOH?“ .MHSOS OUHMMO HMHSOOH m>mm .ON ucoumamm< Mdaaoooe opospouo one Ms Z Ms Z Z Z AmoauoEonquv moauacoESm moocoaom EouH moocoaom amusuoz aouoa>o£om MsuZ AmoauoEoZquv moocoaom amusqu MsuZ moauacofism .coauoucoauo anoMMUMIaoHocom mo mmoao oounu Eoum mucoumammo mcanooou ouoSUoum Zn .N oHMUMIQZM co Eoua Zooo MOM noncommou mo omoucoouom Uco Zocosqoum =uoosmma>o<= mMuZ moocoaom aouoa>o£om .M oaQoE 65 MM sa MM Ma oM Ma moZMmmao .noa sM sa MM sa oM Ma ZZZ mar Mo some bosoaoasoam m at Mm ma 0M Ma os Mm omZMe musoosum Mo Mcama>om one 3oa> .MM .mcaccoam aocoauoo M s Na M M s ooumomao Ispo Z30 Haonu MOM Zuaaafl ss Ma ss Ma oM Ma ZZZ Iamooomou Mom outmosoeoosa Ms aN ss Ma MM MM ooHMZ Houooum o>oanoo muZoUSum anm .aM .mmuao MM sm MM sm oM Ma mouMmmao -ouammm osasosmu ore M0 More MM sa Ns Ma Ms MN ZZZ opamuso mucoEuuomop ca momusoo aa M N a MN Ma ooHMZ pooaom Ou muZoU5um maom .OM M M I I s N ooummmaa MM Ma Ms am ms sm ZZZ .osafioaomao was ea soars aM MN aM NN sM aM ooumm ou mucopsum oanm ommusoocm .MN sa M sa M s s mouMsmao .osasoaomao aM Mm MM MM MM Ma ZZZ m.uomomammm ca moaeaZanammoe MN aa MM sa aM MM ooumm Zoouoo mucopsum ZuaB monomaa .MN Mm oa Mm ma Ma oa mouMsmao .osafieaomao m.uomumammm MM Mm aM MM MM om ZZZ obs ea momusoo Mo soap ma M am M Ms MN ooume Iumsou one ca musoosom omamms .MN s z s z M z AmoauoEoZumZv moauacoEZZ moOZoaOM EouH moocoaom HMZSDMZ amuoa>onom Moscaucou I M oaQoB 66 independence and responsibility for their own educational planning (Item 51) followed a "May or May Not" pattern except for teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences. Sixty- three percent from this group agreed with the item. The responses to Item 52 (Viewing the advising of students as a significant part of his job) did follow the "May or May Not" pattern for all three groups. "Differences" in expectations on a percentage basis were expressed with respect to the graduate teaching assist- ant's having regular office hours (Item 20). Assistants from the behavioral sciences (81%) and from the natural sciences (86%) agreed more than those from the humanities (58%). More assistants from the behavioral sciences (47%) and natural sciences (52%) than from the humanities (25%) indicated that the graduate teaching assistant Should not have office hours only by appointment. More teaching assist— ants from the behavioral sciences (85%) than from the humanities (56%) and natural sciences (64%) agreed that the graduate teaching assistant Should be familiar with the basic requirements for a major within his department (Item 24). The same response pattern followed for the graduate teaching assistant's helping students see the rationale for the course in terms of curriculum requirements (Item 26). More assistants from the behavioral sciences (98%) agreed to this item than did those from the humanities (77%) and natural sciences (80%). In addition, more assistants from the 67 behavioral sciences (47%) agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should assist students in the selection of courses within the teaching assistant's discipline (Item 27). In fact, only 21% of the respondents from the humanities and only 18% from the natural sciences agreed with this item. Much of the same response pattern followed for the graduate teaching assistant's discussing with students the different career possibilities within the teaching assistant's dis— cipline (Item 28). Sixty-one percent of the respondents from the behavioral sciences agreed, while only 55% from the humanities and 25% from the natural sciences agreed. Teaching assistants from the humanities (56%) and from the natural sciences (55%) agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should not help students in their requests for advice in the selection of courses in departments outside that of the teaching assistant's (Item 50). At the same time, only 50% from the behavioral sciences felt this way. Summary: Sub—scale 2 The three groups agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should have office hours by appointment in addi- tion to regular office hours; Should be knowledgeable about related courses in his discipline; Should be familiar with university rules and regulations concerning academic policies; and Should encourage able and interested students to major in the discipline in which he is teaching. 68 Percentage disagreement as to expectations for the graduate teaching assistant assistant's instructional role was noted on seven items. More teaching assistants in the behavioral sciences and the natural sciences than in the humanities agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should have regular office hours. Furthermore, more teach— ing assistants from the behavioral sciences and the natural sciences than from the humanities agreed that the graduate teaching assistant Should not have office hours by appoint— ment only. More reSpondentS from the behavioral sciences than from the other two groups agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should be familiar with the basic require— ments for a major within his department. The same pattern of response held for the graduate teaching assistant helping students to see the rationale for the course which is being taught. Fewer assistants from the humanities and natural sciences as compared with those from the behavioral sciences agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should assist students in the selection of courses within the teaching assistant's discipline; Should discuss with the students different career possibilities within his discipline; or should help students in their requests for advice in the se- lection of courses in departments outside that of the gradu— ate teaching assistant's. None of the groups exhibited a definitely should or Should not preference with reSpect to the graduate teaching 69 assistant's viewing the advising of students as a Significant part of his job. Much the same pattern emerged concerning the helping of students achieve greater independence and responsibility for their own educational planning, with the exception of the behavioral sciences teaching assistants who preferred that the graduate teaching assistant consider this as one of his obligations. Sub—scale 5: Counseling—Personal Relations (see Table 9) Consensus on a percentage basis was expressed by the three groups regarding the willingness of the graduate teach- ing assistant to listen to students who want to confide in him about problems not related to the course (Item 57). Sixty-two percent responding from the behavioral sciences agreed, 45% from the humanities, and 45% from the natural sciences. Consensus was also exhibited toward the graduate teaching assistant helping students cope with the stresses and pressures of college life (Item 58). About half of the teaching assistants from each group agreed. Negative con— sensus resulted when close to half of the teaching assistants from each group agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should not be willing to listen to individual student's claims of unfair treatment by other faculty members (Item 41). Somewhat the same pattern of response was expressed concern— ing the graduate teaching assistant's being willing to listen to individual student's claims of unfair treatment by the 7O poscaucoo M s Ma M Na M ooumoman .omaa omoaaoo Ms Ma MM sa OM Ma ZZZ mo mousmmoum Mao mommouum Ms am oM am MM aM ooume one seas meou musmosum MZoM .MM .omusoo onu ou poumH sa M Ma M Oa M ooammman low you manQonm usogo Ea: Ms Ma MM Ma MN Ma ZZZ ca opamcoo on uco3 0:3 mucop Ms Ma Ms Ma MM MM ooZMM loom ob soomaa or Meassas om .MM Oa M I I I I ooummmaa .mucop5um Oa s Na M Ma M ZZZ was mo woocouommap aMOHMOa 0M MM MM MM MM Ms ooums IOZUZmM one on o>auamsmm om .MM Ms Ma os Ma MN Na ooumomaa .coauoom was ca mucopsum MN aa MM Ma NM Ma ZZZ usono coaumauomca amaucop MM sa sm oa Ms sm moumM Iaosoo 0» mmmuom omzoaflm mm .MM Ma M ma M Ma M moumsmao mumou Mom sM MM MM MM Ms sm ZZZ mouooos Hossomuoo usoosum MN oa MM sa Os aN ooumfi oZu mo mcapcmuwuopcs co o>om .sM N a Oa s s N ooumomaa .Zuamuo>ac9 MM MN OM aN NM Ma ZZZ on» No mooa>nom aoccomuom MM Ma os ma sM sM omums osmosum one boas umaZaeMM mm .MM uZMZMHMMZIMZaZOMoB opospouo on& a Z M Z a z AmoauoEoZquv moauacoasm moocoaom Eoua moocoaom amusqu amuoa>onom A.oco was» ou Mcommon ou pouooamoc moaoum IQSm Zonuo on» Ou popcommou 0:3 mucoumammo o>amv MsuZ AmoauoEoZquv moocoaom Housuoz Nan moauacmasm MMHZ moocoaom amuoa>mnom .Zoauoucoauo anopooo aouocom mo mmoum ooHZu Eoum mucoumammm mcasooou opospoum ZQ :mcoauoaom amcomuom Imcaaomcdous .M oHMUMIQsm co Eoua Zooo How noncommon mo omoucoouom Uco Zocodqoum .M oaQoB 71 Ma M os Ma M M ooummmao MN Na aM Ma MN Na ZZZ .mucopsum How soap MM sM MM Ma MM MM oohms neocoEEouou Mo mumuuoa ouauz .Ms MM MN MM MN os aN ooumomam .ooammo m.pcopsum mo MM Ma aM Ma os aM ZZZ some one Zn usmEumouu ZamMss sa M sa M ON aa ooHMZ mo manao .mucopsum ou coumaa .Ns Ms ON MM sN Ms MN oonmoman mquEoE Zuasomw MM Ma MM Ma MM Ma ZZZ uosuo Zn possumouu Harman Ma M sa M Ma Oa ooum< mo mEaMHo .muco©5um Ou coumaq .as .omusoo on» M M N a M M ooumomao OD Mouoaou no: muamou aoaoom sM MN MM MN aM MN ZZZ Mao aooauaaom uSOQo nowau oM Ma Ms Ma os aM mouoe Mo ooamooo musoosum boas Zara .os aM M MM M Ma oa moummmao Ms Ma MM Ma MM Ma ZZZ .uso3umsaom Zmaoom Mom MM Ma os Ma Ms sM ooZMM stomuoM ca mecmosum mZoZ .MM M Z M Z M Z AmUHUMEOEHMEV mOHUHCMESm mOOCOHUm EOUH moocoaom aoudqu aouoa>o£om poscaucoo I M oanoe 72 Dean of Student's Office (Item 42). The general pattern of response by the three groups to Item 54 (Have an understand— ing of the nature of the student personnel records and tests that are utilized by the university), Item 59 (Be willing to help students in personal and social adjustment if they so ask), Item 40 (Talk with students, outside of class, about current political and social topics not related to the course), was that of "May or May Not." Such was the same pattern for Item 55, that the graduate teaching assistant be allowed access to confidential information about students in his class, except that the teaching assistants from the hu— manities and the natural sciences tended to prefer this not to be the case as opposed to the teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences. A percentage "difference" in expectations was held with respect to the graduate teaching assistant being familiar, for referral purposes, with the student personnel services of the university (Item 55). More assistants from the be- havioral sciences (64%) agreed to this item than did those from the humanities (41%) and natural sciences (59%). A percentage "difference” was held between the teaching assistants in the natural sciences on the one hand and those in the humanities and behavioral sciences on the other regard— ing the sensitivity of the graduate teaching assistant to the psychological differences of his students (Item 56). Eleven percent from the natural sciences agreed that the 75 graduate teaching assistant Should not exhibit this sensitiv- ity. Otherwise, a high percentage of the three groups agreed to the item. More teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences (68%) and the natural sciences (55%) than from the humanities (29%) agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should write letters of recommendation for students if they so request (Item 45). Summary: Sub-scale 5 The three groups, for the most part, agreed positively that the graduate teaching assistant should be willing to listen to students who want to confide in him about problems not related to the course, and to help students cope with the stresses and pressures of college life. Negative con— sensus was noted when the three groups agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should not be willing to listen to individual student's claims of unfair treatment by other faculty members or by the Dean of Student's Office. However, percentage "difference" in expectations were noted on three items. More assistants from the behavioral sciences than from the other two groups agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should be familiar, for referral purposes, with the student personnel services of the univer- sity. More respondents from the behavioral sciences and the natural sciences than from the humanities agreed that the graduate teaching assistant Should write letters of recom- mendation for students if they so request. All three groups, 74 with the exception of a few assistants from the natural sciences, agreed that the graduate teaching assistant should be sensitive to the psychological needs of his students. The "May or May Not" response pattern characterized the three groups with respect to the graduate teaching assistant's having an understanding of the student personnel records and tests used by the university; being allowed access to confidential information about students in his class (not quite half of the teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences agreed that this Should be permitted); being willing to help students in personal and social adjust- ment if they so ask; and talking with students, outside of class, about current political and social topics not related to the course. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Problem The general problem of the study was to determine the nature of the expectations that graduate teaching assist- ants and undergraduates hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant at Michigan State University. There was no attempt in this study to solve problems. Rather an attempt was made to provide more information and insight into areas of agreement and differences regarding the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant as perceived by undergraduates and graduate teaching assist- ants themselves. The graduate teaching assistants used for this study were selected from departments representing the general areas of: behavioral sciences (College of Education, Depart- ments of Speech, and Marketing and Transportation Adminis- tration); humanities (Departments of History, English, Music, and Philosophy); and natural sciences (Department of Mathe- matics). Their main responsibility was instruction in dis- cussion or recitation sections of multiple-section, under- graduate courses. The undergraduates used for this study 75 76 were drawn randomly from courses within the aforementioned departments. The Design and Procedure of the Study The study was conducted in the winter term, 1966. The instrument used to measure role expectations was mailed to the sample. Seventy-eight percent of those contacted completed and returned their questionnaires, the results of which constitute the data for the study. The 44 item instrument was divided into three sub- scales pertaining to the areas of ”Instruction," "Advisement," and "Counseling—Personal Relations" reSpectively. The last item on the questionnaire was open—ended. Items for the questionnaire instrument were developed as a result of interviews with graduate teaching assistants and undergradu- ates, and readings from books, studies, and journal articles. Each item could have been answered in one of five ways, two of the categories indicated a positive preference, two a negative preference, and one referred to a neutral category. Values were assigned to each response category with the high- est number indicating a high preference for a given expecta- tion. The instrument was pretested, analyzed, revised, and subsequently mailed to the sample in question. Analysis The expectations of the instructional role of the gradu- ate teaching assistant for the different groups were indicated 77 by frequencies, percentage of respondents to a given item, and chi square values. The hypotheses tested and in the null form are: Major Hypothesis There is no Significant difference in the expecta— tions that graduate teaching assistants and under- graduates hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. Minor Hypothesis There is no significant difference in the expecta- tions that graduate teaching assistants from dif- ferent areas of academic orientation hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assist— ant. In testing each hypothesis, the five percent level of sig- nificance was selected for rejection. Whenever it was appropriate, the one percent level for rejecting the null hypothesis was also noted. The application of the chi square statistic entailed a "collapsing" of the five reSponse categories to three. The new response categories indicated "Preferably Should" (Agree), "May or May Not," and "Preferably Should Not" (Disagree). The application of the chi square statistic to the data with respect to the first sub—scale, "Instruction," of the major hypothesis indicated significant differences in the responses to eight of the nineteen items. Significant differences were noted on Items 1, 5 (weakness in chi Square cells were evidenced on these two itemsl 9, 12, 15, 16, 18, 78 and 19. There were three items out of a total of thirteen in which Significant differences were indicated for sub— scale two, "Advisement." These three were items 20 (weak— ness in the chi square cells was evidenced for this item also), 29, and 50. AS for sub-Scale three, "Counseling- Personal Relations," significant differences were noted on four of the eleven items. The four items were 55, 41, 42, and 45. Thus, significant differdnces in the expectations of graduate teaching assistants and the undergraduates were noted on fifteen of the forty-three items of the instrument for the major hypothesis with three of the Significant dif- ference items having a weakness in chi Square cells. An analysis of the data with respect to the minor hypothesis revealed a predominant weakness in the chi square cells. Consequently, the chi square statistic was not used for testing this hypothesis. Frequencies and percentages were used instead tempered by subjective interpretation. On the first sub-scale "differences" in responses on a percentage basis were found for eight of the nineteen items (1, 2, 5, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 16); on sub-scale two percentage "differences” were found for seven of the thirteen items (20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 50); and on sub—scale three ”differences” on a percentage basis were found for three of the eleven items (55, 56, and 45). Thus, percentage "differences" in expectations of teaching assistants from different areas of academic orientation for the instructional 79 role of the graduate teaching assistant were noted on eighteen of the forty-three items. In each of these cases, one of the three groups exhibited a different percentage pattern of re— Sponse from the other two. Conclusions 1. For the major hypothesis, there were significant differences in expectations held by graduate teaching assistants and undergraduates for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. For the major hypothesis, there were more signifi- cant differences expressed for expectations con— cerning the sub-scale "Instruction" than for the other two sub-scales. For the major hypothesis, the largest number of highly Significant differences in expectations at the one percent level was also found in the sub—scale "Instruction." The graduate teaching assistant Should be given some idea regarding what is expected of him. The graduate teaching assistant Should have, for the most part, autonomy in the classroom. The graduate teaching assistant is not viewed primarily as a student. 80 7. The graduate teaching assistant is expected to be available to students on a regular basis. 8. The graduate teaching assistant is expected to be knowledgeable about his department and discipline. 9. Advisement is not the most important function of the graduate teaching assistant's role. 10. Counseling and personal relations are even less important than advisement. 11. For the minor hypothesis, graduate teaching assist— ants from different areas hold differences of Opinion for some aspects of their instructional role. 12. Graduate teaching assistants prefer to be viewed both as faculty and students. 15. Graduate teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences tend to be more students oriented. 14. Graduate teaching assistants from the humanities tend to be more subject oriented. 15. No definite response pattern was established for the graduate teaching assistants from the natural sciences. Discussion The items on the sub—scale "Instruction" generally indicated a preference on the part of the teaching assistants 81 and undergraduates that the graduate teaching assistant not be viewed primarily as a student. Consequently, if a gradu- ate teaching assistant is to be considered faculty, then many expectations, especially on the part of the undergradu— ates, are related to this position. A faculty member should preferably know Specifically what his duties and responsi- bilities are within his department, have some responsibility for assigning final grades to students in his section, re- gard his teaching obligations as being of prime importance, be knowledgeable about courses in his discipline, be avail- able for consultation with students outside of class, and in general be willing to assist students in their academic progress. If these expectations and others commensurate with the status of a faculty member are not met, then instruc— tion will suffer. Frustration and apathy may well set in on the part of the students when their expectations are not being met. The basic notion that the graduate teaching assistant is viewed as part of the faculty is a "global” con- cept when discussing the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant. On the sub-scale ”Instruction,” as was previously noted, eight items indicated Significant differences in ex— pectations between the two groups. More undergraduates than teaching assistants preferred that the graduate teaching assistant have had previous teaching experience. This preference may not be as crucial to the actual duties and 82 responsibilities of the teaching assistant as other items, but it may indicate concern on the part of the students that they as undergraduates be exposed to competent instruct- ors and that previous teaching experience tends to enhance competency. A Significant difference was noted regarding the teaching assistant's being exposed to a general orien- tation program, but this difference was attributed to a weak— ness in the chi square cells even after collapsing. In actu— ality, there was high consensus on this item. More teaching assistants than undergraduates preferred that the graduate teaching assistant have full reSponsibility for assigning final grades to students in his section. An important con— sideration in this regard is that many students "work for the grade” and, consequently, a certain attitude toward instruction is involved. Instruction and learning may well suffer because some students will work hard only for the person who is going to grade them or have more say in the final grade. If teaching assistants have only a minor say in grading, they may well consider their part in the multiple— section course as being minor in nature. The relationship between a senior faculty member and a graduate teaching assistant in assigning grades for a course is important. It affects the attitudes of both undergraduates and graduate teaching assistants. More undergraduates than teaching assistants preferred that the graduate teaching assistant conduct extra-class 85 group help sessions for his own section. In fact, only 21% of the teaching assistants preferred that this be a function of their role. Granted, more assistants responded "May or May Not," but the point remains that on this item a positive attitude was lacking on the part of the graduate teaching assistant. A learning environment is less than healthy when a conflict in expectations exists as to how far a teaching assistant Should go in helping students outside of regular class hours. Undergraduates, for the most part, preferred more than teaching assistants that the graduate teaching assistant have his work as a teaching assistant subject to review by a full—time faculty member. This item is not a functional aspect of the assistant's role, but it certainly can influ— ence role functions. Observation and some supervision by an accomplished senior faculty member can have immediate and long-range benefits on the teaching competency of the assistant. A teaching assistant supported this notion when he wrote after the last item of the questionnaire used in this study, "As an apprentice he (the graduate teaching assist— ant) stands to gain by constructive criticism his mentor, major professor, or department chairman could make-—these are the formative years of teaching." There is much to be gained from a well integrated program that views the assistantship as an internship. 84 It was interesting to note that more undergraduates preferred to view the graduate teaching assistant primarily as a faculty member than did teaching assistants themselves. One interpretation of this situation could be that under- graduates expect more from teaching assistants as teachers than teaching assistants may be willing to give. Here is a conflict Situation and conflict Situations of this nature are not conducive to learning. For instance, if some under- graduates feel it is necessary to have an extra class session or two and the teaching assistant feels that this is not his function as a teaching assistant or at least conveys this impression, then the students will most likely not press the matter. It was stated at the beginning of this discussion that the items on the sub—scale "Instruction" generally tend to support the notion that a graduate teaching assistant is viewed more as a faculty member than as a student. However, when responding to the item that a graduate teaching assist— ant Should be viewed both as a faculty member and as a stu— dent, more teaching assistants felt that this should be the case. The teaching assistants' viewpoint on this item may more closely approach their daily experiences but it certainly doesn't help their status-role concept as graduate teaching assistants. Whenever a person has two important and "equal" demands placed on himself and his time, in this case one's own studies and teaching reSponsibilities, quite often one or 85 the other of the demands suffers. It is not necessary to speculate at length as to which suffers. An undergraduate wrote on the last item of the questionnaire, "Some (graduate teaching assistants) place their teaching duties far below that of their studies. This is hurting the new members of this college.” An examination of the final item of the sub-scale "Instruction" indicated that percentage wise, almost twice as many undergraduates as teaching assistants preferred that the graduate teaching assistant not regard his teaching obligations as second in importance to his own studies. This point may well be a source of irritation to undergraduates, for they undoubtedly feel that their own studies Should not be regarded as second in importance to those of the graduate teaching assistant. Such an instructional Situation is less than desirable. The teaching assistant's preference on this item can well be appreciated, but the "second in importance” factor need not be as Significant as it is. The teaching assistantship experience can be made less of a means to an end. In fact, this experience could well be an excellent opportunity for the preparation of good college teachers. AS one teaching assistant noted on the questionnaire, "Most graduate students still have a long way to go before they will be capable of handling a class well." An examination of the items on the sub-scale "Advise— ment" tends to support the position that a graduate teaching 86 assistant Should be quite knowledgeable about his depart— ment within the university. The teaching assistant is a teacher and a teacher often influences and motivates his students. A motivated student is prone to seek opinions and advice. Consequently, the potential that a graduate teach- ing assistant has for advising students should not be over- looked. A teaching assistant may well influence student attitudes not only toward the subject matter, but also toward the choice of a major. However, before any of the preceding can be done, a teaching assistant must first of all have the information to pass on and the time to do it. On the sub—scale "Advisement" there were only three items on which significant differences were noted between the expectations of undergraduates and teaching assistants. There was a difference on the item pertaining to the graduate teaching assistant's having regular office hours. However, this difference was attributed to a weakness in the fre— quencies of the chi square cells even after collapsing. Both groups agreed, with the undergraduates agreeing more strongly, that regular office hours should be held. A second significant item pertains to the graduate teaching assistant's encouraging able and interested stu- dents to major in the discipline that he is teaching. More teaching assistants than undergraduates felt that this should be done. This activity is somewhat tangential to the instructional role and borders on proselytizing. However, 87 students may well be, either directly or indirectly, influ- enced by teaching assistants. Consequently, it would seem that undergraduates will profit by a teaching assistant who is well informed about policies, procedures, and courses within his own department. A final Significant item on this sub—scale was noted on responses to the graduate teaching assistant's helping students in their requests for advice in the selection of courses outside the discipline of the teach- ing assistant. More assistants than undergraduates felt that this should not be done. Although this item is not central to the role of the graduate teaching assistant, it does give a general feeling that either graduate teaching assistants do not know or do not care about this activity, while under— graduates are a little more inclined to see this as a role function of the graduate teaching assistant. Both groups indicated that they wanted to know about related courses within a discipline, requirements for a major within a depart— ment, and other miscellaneous academic rules and regulations. Granted, one's own academic advisor may have this information, but the undergraduate may not relate very well to his advisor or may simply prefer to ask a teaching assistant for this information. An undergraduate's choice of a major or occu— pational goal may result from such interaction between a teaching assistant and himself. A general examination of the responses to sub-scale three, "Counseling-Personal Relations," gives the impression 88 that a teaching assistant Should have a positive regard for students in his sections. But such a feeling may be in sentiment only. Aside from the expectation that a teaching assistant be familiar, for referral purposes, with the stu- dent personnel services of the university, a majority of the responses evoked low mean values in terms of expectations. This was particularly so of the four Significant difference items on this sub—scale. On the first Significant item more undergraduates than teaching assistants preferred that the graduate teaching assistant not be allowed access to confi- dential information about students in his section. (In actuality, both groups indicated negative preferences on this item.) The undergraduates' response pattern may indicate some misgivings about the teaching assistants, while the assistants' reSponse pattern was distributed almost evenly among the reSponse categories. This item has little bearing on the instructional Situation. There were two other items that were very Similar in which Significant differences were noted. In both cases, that the graduate teaching assistant be willing to listen to individual student's claims of unfair treatment by other faculty members, and by the Dean of Student's Office, more teaching assistants than under- graduates felt that this Should not be done. Actually both grOUps generally felt this way, but the assistants felt it even more. These two items have little bearing on the in- structional situation but do give an idea as to how far a 89 teaching assistant is expected to go. The expectations emerging fromthis sub-scale indicate that both groups expect that the graduate teaching assistant have a positive feeling for undergraduates and that he not get involved on a personal basis but rather that he know where to refer students by being familiar with the student personnel services of the university. The implication, therefore, is that a teaching assistant Should be knowledgeable about these services in order to be a more helpful teacher. In actuality, the teach- ing assistant is less an authority when compared to a full- time faculty member or counselor, and consequently, he is not sought after, nor does he care to be, by undergraduates who have non-academic problems. Essentially, the dimensions of a graduate teaching assistant's functioning as a counselor may not be clearly perceived by either group. Of further importance in the study was the finding on the minor hypothesis that graduate teaching assistants from different areas hold expectations for some aspects of their instructional role which are different from those of their counterparts in other areas. They also hold some expectations in common. For example, an examination of the items indicates that teaching assistants tend to have a high regard for their competency in the classroom. In fact, a high percentage of them preferred that a graduate teaching assistant not be viewed as a less adequate teacher than a full-time faculty member. This is a desirable quality in terms of self concept, 90 but a more important question presents itself. For the most part, are teaching assistants as capable as teachers as full—time faculty? One undergraduate had a definite feeling on this matter when he wrote on the questionnaire, "They (graduate teaching assistants) Should try to avoid acquiring the attitude that just because they are graduates they are better than the undergraduates they are teaching." The in- structional Situation may be hindered if teaching assistants think they are particularly competent when in some cases they aren't. An old cliche may have relevance here: "A little knowledge can be dangerous.” Undergraduates may be led to think that they are being given the "last word" in a field when in reality they are not. The whole question of compe— tency may be partly helped by some definite statement by the department and university as to the status and role of the graduate teaching assistant. In terms of percentage "differences" in expectations, the teaching assistants from the behavioral sciences tend to be more student oriented, while those from the humanities tend to be more subject oriented. These are generalizations and tend to overlap, but for the most part, the preceding patterns seem to be discernible. On the other hand, the teaching assistants from the natural sciences exhibited no definite response pattern. The major point to be taken from the foregoing comments is that teaching assistants from dif- ferent areas do hold different expectations and that the 91 formulation of any policy or program dealing with the instruc- tional role of the graduate teaching assistant should be based upon these considerations. Recommendations The graduate teaching assistant serves an important function in the university community. He provides a service to the university and in turn the university provides a service to him. But more importantly, the graduate teaching assistant serves the academic enterprise as a neophyte now, and hopefully as a competent, mature scholar-teacher in the future. Another consideration at this time is the Shortage of qualified faculty and a concern for the preparation of qualified faculty. Perhaps the preceding comments provide credence for the following recommendations: a. Since there does seem to be a less than adequate definition of the graduate teaching assistant's role, a University committee Should review the ob— jectives of using teaching assistants with Special consideration to the teaching assistant's experi- ence as an internship. b. From the preceding activity a statement of philoso- phy for using graduate teaching assistants should be developed. c. The University, working with and through its various colleges and departments, should develop a policy 92 statement regarding the use of graduate teaching assistants. d. A program Should be devised whereby the teaching assistant experience may become more meaningful. Such an effort may be characterized by a well- structured orientation program and by regular seminars on the various aSpects of college teaching. e. The different departments within the University Should make it a particular point to orient their graduate teaching assistants to the various aspects of their responsibilities within the reSpective departments. Implications for Further Research The study points out the need for further research on how faculty members view the role of the teaching assistant. Their expectations for the role compared with those of under- graduates and teaching assistants themselves may provide greater perspective and insight into this area. A more comprehensive picture of the status and role of the graduate teaching assistant could be gleaned from a study of the expectations that department chairmen or senior faculty members in charge of multiple-section courses hold for the role of the teaching assistant. Former teaching assistants could be studied as to their perceptions of the teaching assistant experience. AS a result 95 some guidelines for the development of college teachers may be forthcoming. Although this dissertation study has relevance for undergraduate education, in some departments graduate teach- ing assistants are teaching graduate courses both on campus and off campus. A study could be made of the expectations and attitudes of full-time faculty, teaching assistants, and students in both these settings. Such a study presents implications for "quality” education for students and a morale factor for teaching assistants and full—time faculty reSpectively. There are some graduate teaching assistants who have full responsibility for teaching a course. A study might be made to determine the perceptions of undergraduates, teaching assistants, and full—time faculty members with respect to this role of the graduate teaching assistant. IS there much differentiation between this type of graduate teaching assistant and the full-time faculty member? The non-academic side of the graduate assistant's life might be studied. The attitudes of the assistant's Spouse regarding graduate study and the assistantship experience might be studied to determine the environmental press acting on the graduate teaching assistant. To further locate the position of the teaching assistant in the University community a study could be made of the non-academic rights and privileges of the graduate teaching 94 assistant. Included in such a study might be such topics as driving privileges, library privileges, health services, and student personnel services peculiar to graduate students in general. 10. 11. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Annual Report, Office of the Registrar. East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University, 1961-62. Bates, Alan and Richard Videbeck. "An Experimental Study of Conformity to Role Expectations." Sociometry. Vol. 22:1-11, March, 1959. Berelson, Bernard. Graduate Education in the United States. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960. Brookover, William and David Gottlieb. A Sociology of Education. New York: American Book Company, 1964. Brown, David G. and Jay Tontz. "The Present Shortage of College Teachers.” Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 8: 455-56, April. 1966. Carmichael, Oliver C. Graduate Education: A Critigge and a Program. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961. Cooper, Russel. "The College Teaching Crisis." Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 55:6-11, January, 1964. Davis, James A. Stipends and Spouses: The Finances of American Arts and Science Graduate Students. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Davis, Kingsley. Human Society, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1948. DeLisle, Frances H. "A Study of Undergraduate Academic Advising: A Preliminary Report." Office of Institu- tional Research: Michigan State University, May, 1965. Didier, James W. ”The Role of the Baptist Parish Minister in the State of Michigan." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Michigan State University, 1965. Dixon, Wilfrid J. and Frank J. Massey, Jr. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. 95 15. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 25. 24. 96 Doyle, Louis A. "A Study of the Expectations Which Elementary Teachers, Administrators, School Board Members and Parents Have of the Elementary Teacher's Role." Unphblished Doctoral Thesis. Michigan State University, 1956. Draper, Hal. Berkeley: The New Student Revolt. New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1965. Dressel, Paul L. The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965. Educational Development Program. "A Study of Departments Making Major Use of Assistant Instructors and Graduate Students as Teachers." East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, October, 1964. (mimeo— graphed) Educational Policies Committee. "The Use of Teaching Assistants at Michigan State University." East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, November 15, 1964. (mimeographed) Fund for the Advancement of Education. Better Utilization of College Teaching Resources. The Fund for the Ad- vancement of Education, 1959. Getzels, J. W. and E. G. Guba. "The Structure of Role Conflict in the Teaching Situation." The Journal of Educational Sociology. Vol. 29:51-40, Sept., 1959. Gottlieb, David. "Process of Socialization in America's Graduate Schools." Social Forces. Vol. 40:124-51. Gross, Neal, Ward Mason and Alexander McEachern. Expectations in Role Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Guthrie, E. R. "The Expectations of Teaching." Educational Record. Vol. 50:109—15, April, 1949. Hamilton, Thomas and Edward B. Blackman. The Basic College at Michigan State. MSU Press, East Lansing, Michigan, 1955. Hartnett, Rodney. ”A Study of the Use of Assistant Instructors." East Lansing, Michigan State University. Office of Institutional Research, June 28, 1965. (mimeographed) 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 50. 51. 52. 55. 54. 55. 56. 57. 97 Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Johnson, Jo Anne. "Residence Halls Goals and Objectives: Perceptions of Students and Staff." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research: Educational and Psychological Inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State: The First Hundred Years. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1955. Lacognata, Angelo Anthony. ”Role Expectations of University Faculty and Students: A Social Psycho— logical Analysis." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Michigan State University, 1962. Langer, Elinor. "Crisis at Berkeley (1) The Civil War." Science. Vol. 148:199-200, April, 1965. Levinson, Daniel. "Role, Personality, and Social Structure in the Organizational Setting." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. 58:170-80, 1959. Linton, Ralph. The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: Appleton-Century Company, 1945. . The Study of Man. D. Appleton—Century Company, 1956. Marquardt, Harold Roy. "The Role of the Resident Assistant in the Men‘s Residence Halls at Michigan State University." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Michigan State University, 1961. Miller, Michael V. and Susan Gilmore. Revolution at Berkeley. New York: Dell Publishing Company, Inc., 1965. Newcomb, Theodore M. Social Psychology. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951. Nonnamaker, Eldon R. "The Role of the Enrollment Office at Michigan State University." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Michigan State University, 1959. 58. 59. 40. 41. 42. 45. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 98 Nuermberger, Robert M. "Reactions of MSU Graduate Students to Their Experience as Graduate Assistants." East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Office of Institutional Research, May, 1966. (mimeographed) Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University: A History. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1962. Ryan, W. Carson. Studies in Early Graduate Education: The Johns ngkinSyAClark UniversityygThe University of Chicago. Bulletin Number 50. New York: The Carnegie Foundation For the Advancement of Teaching, 1959. Sarbin, Theodore R. ”Role Theory." in Gardner, Lindzey (ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. I. Cambridge: Addison-Wesly Publishing Company, 1954. Storr, Richard J. The Beginnings of Graduate Education in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Stuit, Dewey and Robert Ebel. "Instructor Rating at a Large State University." College and University. Vol. 27:247-54. Tucker, Allan. "Some Questions About the Critics of Graduate Education and Their Criticism." Reprinted from the Procedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting, Midwest Conference on Graduate Study and Research. Chicago, April 6-7, 1964. , David Gottlieb and John Pease. "Attrition of Graduate Students at the Ph.D. Level in the Traditional Arts and Sciences." Final Report of Cooperative Research Project No. 1146. Publication #8, 1964. Office of Research Development and the Graduate School. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. , and Lee Sloan. "Graduate—School Talent: Sold to the Highest Bidder." Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 55:12-18, January, 1964. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Projections of Educational Statistics to 1975-74. Washington, D.C., 1965 edition. 49. 50. 51. 52. 99 Van Dalen, Deobold B. Understanding Educational Research. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962. Walters, Everett. Graduate Education Today. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. Wright, Benjamin F. "The Ph.D. Stretch-Out and the Scholar Teacher." in Arthur Traxler (ed.). Vital Issues in Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1957. Wyeth, Irving R. "Status-Role Perceptions in the Taiwan Extension Organization." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. APPENDICES 100 APPENDIX A Trend in the Use of Full-Time Equivalent Faculty Paid from the General Fund 101 102 TREND IN THE USE OF FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT FACULTY PAID FROM THE GENERAL FUND* "B" Faculty "A" Faculty Year (not on tenure system) (on tenure system) 1956-57 195.4 1094.6 1957-58 204.9 1206.2 1958-59 188.5 1201.2 1959-60 249.4 1142.4 1960-61 506.1 1101.1 1961-62 564.2 1062.7 1962-65 590.9 1086.2 1965-64 451.0 1092.2 1964-65 498.0 1206.5 1965-66 550.5 1522.2 *Tables of Basic Data on Student Credit Hours, Faculty, Courses, Budget, Expenditures, Majors, Degrees, and Library. Office of Institutional Research. APPEND IX B Letter to Graduate Teaching Assistants 105 104 Dear Fellow Graduate Student: Some confusion seems to exist as to the status and role of the graduate teaching assistant. The various departments on campus view him and his functions differently. In this con- nection, I am attempting to focus on the graduate teaching assistant who is responsible for a discussion or recitation section. (This study does 29£_pertain to a teaching assistant who has sole reSponsibility for a course.) More specifically, I am trying to assess what his instructional role is by solicit- ing his own responses as well as those of a selected number of undergraduates. Hopefully, from your responses and those of others, some expectations and dimensions of the role of this graduate teaching assistant will become evident. The infor- mation obtained from this study will be used for my Ph.D. thesis. I would appreciate a few minutes of your time in thoughtfully responding to this 43 item questionnaire. Your responses as well as those of others will not be individually identified. The number on the questionnaire will enable me to check re— turns and tabulate the data and is not for the purpose of identifying you. Your name was given to me by the chairman of your department. He acknowledges the worth of this study but leaves the completion of the questionnaire to your discretion. I am fully aware that yours is a busy schedule and consequently appreciate the time that you might give in answering this questionnaire. Please use the enclosed stamped envelope and return the completed questionnaire by February 16, 1966 to me: James McNally 252 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, James McNally APPENDIX C Letter to Undergraduates 105 106 Dear Student: As you probably well know, graduate teaching assistants are being used more and more in required courses at MSU to teach discussion or recitation sections. The various departments on campus view him and his functions differently. In this connection, I am trying to assess what is the instructional role of this graduate teaching assistant, that is, one who is responsible for a discussion or recitation section, by solicit- ing responses from undergraduates and graduate teaching assistants themselves. (This study does £2£_pertain to those graduate teaching assistants who have sole responsibility for a course.) Hopefully, from your responses and those of others, some expectations and dimensions of the graduate teaching assistant's role will become evident. In addition, the find- ings of this study will be used to review the quality of undergraduate instruction at MSU so that further progress may be made in this area. I would appreciate a few minutes of your time in thoughtfully reSponding to this 44_item questionnaire. Your responses as well as those of others will not be individually identified. The number on the questionnaire will enable me to check re- turns and to tabulate the data and is not for the purpose of identifying you. I am fully aware that yours is a busy schedule and consequently appreciate the time that you might give in answering this questionnaire. Please use the enclosed, stamped envelope and return the completed questionnaire by February 16, 1966 to me: James McNally 252 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, James McNally APPENDIX D Questionnaire to Determine the Instructional Role of the Graduate Teaching Assistant 107 108 QUESTIONNAIRE TO DETERMINE THE INSTRUCTIONAL ROLE OF THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT This questionnaire is being used to examine the expecta- tions that graduate teaching assistants and undergraduates hold for the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant (that is, one who is responsible for a discussion or recitation section, and not one who has sole responsi— bility for a course). This information will be used as the basis for my Ph.D. dissertation. It should take but a few minutes of your time to complete the 44 items. You are asked to express your expectations regarding what you think this graduate teaching assistant at MSU Should do or be. Begin each item with "The graduate teaching assistant. . . ." Then choose one of the responses which best expresses to what extent you actually expect the function or attribute to be important to the instructional role of this graduate teaching assistant. Your responses are to be according to your actual expectations and not according to ideal expecta- tions. Circle your reSponses and make certain that you answer all items. There are no right or wrong responses. Return to: James McNally 252 Erickson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 109 RESPONSES I. "INSTRUCTION" 1AM! Absolutely Must The following items refer PS Preferably Should to classroom procedure and MMN May or May Not classroom conduct of this PSN Preferably Should Not graduate teaching assistant. AMN Absolutely Must Not THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT (circle your response) 1. AM PS MMN PSN AMN have had previous teaching experience. 2. AM PS MMN PSN AMN possess an M.A. or its equiva- ' lent in the discipline which he is teaching. 5. AM PS MMN PSN AMN be exposed to a general orien- tation regarding his duties and responsibilities as a teach- ing assistant. 4. AM PS MN PSN AMN be allowed to teach only intro- ductory courses. 5. AM PS MMN PSN AMN feel at liberty to conduct his section in a manner that he feels appropriate, e.g., lecture, discussion groups, class-committee assignments. 6. AM PS MMN PSN AMN have final say about the way he handles the content of the dis- cussion or recitation section that he is teaching. 7. AM PS MMN PSN AMN help in the construction of examinations for the course. 8. AM PS MMN PSN AMN construct his own examinations for the discussion section. 9. AM PS MMN PSN AMN have full responsibility for assigning final grades to stu- dents in his section. 10. AM PS MMN PSN AMN identify general obstacles to learning for his section, e.g., poor study habits, sources of distraction. 110 RESPONSES AM Absolutely Must PS Preferably Should MMN May or May Not PSN Preferably Should Not AMN Absolutely Must Not THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT 11. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 12. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 15. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 14. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 15. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 16. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 17. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 18. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 19. AM PS MMN PSN AMN (circle your response) suggest study techniques for coping with the subject matter of the course. conduct extra-class group help sessions for his own section. have his work as a graduate teaching assistant subject to review by a full-time faculty member. expect the same intellectual respect from his students as a full-time faculty member. be viewed as a less adequate teacher than a full-time faculty member. be viewed primarily as a faculty member. be viewed primarily as a stu- dent. be viewed both as a faculty member and as a student. regard his teaching obligation as second in importance to his own studies. 111 ASSISTANT AMN AMN RESPONSES AM Absolutely Must PS Preferably Should MMN May or May Not PSN Preferably Should Not AMN Absolutely Must Not THE GRADUATE TEACHING 20. AM PS MMN PSN 21. AM PS MMN PSN 22. AM PS MMN PSN 23. AM PS MMN PSN 24. AM PS MMN PSN 25. AM PS MMN PSN 26. AM PS MMN PSN 27. AM PS MMN PSN 28. AM PS MMN PSN II. "ADVISEMENT" The following items refer to the assistance that the gradu- ate teaching assistant might render (outside of class) in all matters pertaining to a student's academic program and progress. (circle your response) have regular office hours. have office hours only by appointment. have office hours by appoint- ment in addition to regular office hours. be knowledgeable about related courses in his discipline. be familiar with the basic re- quirements for a major (includ— ing degree requirements) within his department. be familiar with university rules and regulations concern— ing academic policies (e.g. probation, withdrawal from a course, change of major). help students see the rationale for the course which is being taught in terms of curriculum requirements. assist students in the selection of courses within the teaching assistant's discipline. discuss with students the dif- ferent career possibilities within the teaching assistant's discipline. 112 RESPONSES‘ AM Abso1utely Must PS Preferably Should MMN May or May Not PSN Preferably Should Not AMN Absolutely Must Not THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT 29. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 30. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 31. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 32. AM PS MMN PSN AMN III. 33. AM PS MMN PSN AMN (circle your reSponse) encourage able and interested students to major in the dis— cipline that he is teaching. help students in their requests for advice in the selection of courses in departments outside that of the teaching assistant's. help students achieve greater independence and responsibility for their own educational plan- ning. View the advising of students as a significant part of his job. "COUNSELING-PERSONAL RELATIONS" The following items refer to interpersonal relations between a graduate teaching assistant and his students in matters not strictly academic. be familiar, for referral pur- poses, with the student person- nel services of the university (i.e. counseling center, finan— cial aids, health center) avail— able for students. 113 RESPONSES AM Absolutely Must PS Preferably Should MMN May or May Not PSN Preferably Should Not AMN Absolutely Must Not THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT 34. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 35. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 36. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 37. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 38. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 39. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 40. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 41. AM PS MMN PSN AMN 42. AM PS MMN PSN AMN (circle your response) have an understanding of the nature of the student personnel records and tests that are utilized by the university. be allowed access to confiden- tial information about students in his section. be sensitive to the psycho- logical differences of his students. be willing to listen to students who want to confide in him about problems not related to the course. help students cope with the stresses and pressures of college life. be willing to help students in personal and social admustment if so asked. talk with students, outside of class, about current political and social topics not related to the course. be willing to listen to indi- vidual student's claims of unfair treatment by other faculty members. be willing to listen to indi— vidual student's claims of unfair treatment by the Dean of Student's Office. 114 RESPONSES AM Absolutely Must PS Preferably Should MMN May or May Not PSN Preferably Should Not AMN Absolutely Must Not THE GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANT (circle your response) 43. AM PS MMN PSN AMN write letters of recommenda- tion for students if they so request. PLEASE CHECK TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED ALL ITEMS Thank you for your COOperation. 44. If you have additional expectations or observation about the instructional role of the graduate teaching assistant, please include them in the Space that remains. M'TITI'llflfimiflllllflfitflfifllflfijfll'llflfllflllfimfl'Es