A swam DESIGNED m REFENE .
ANWENFORY ammnme smss’ ' ' ~

TQBEUSED aymsvmums . j , -
PREPARms-FORGQMGETEACHING - ~

7 Dissertation for: the Degree of Ph. D,
MECHmAN' STATE UNIVERSITY
NELLIE‘ TEBO HARDY
' I 976'

lllllllllljlljlllljllljlfll\Illllllll

LI}? 313333 '1“

Miriam; State
Urzi'wrsity

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

.‘L
A SURVEY DESIGNED TO REFINE AN INVENTORY‘DF TEACHING STYLES
TO BE USED BY INDIVIDUALS PREPARING FOR COLLEGE TEACHING

presented by

Nellie Tebo Hardy

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Administration

and Higher Education

Major professor

0-7639

 

ABSTRACT
A SURVEY DESIGNED TO REFINE AN INVENTORY OF

TEACHING STYLES TO BE USED BY INDIVIDUALS
PREPARING FOR COLLEGE TEACHING

BY

Nellie Tebo Hardy

Problem

Thus far, little has been done in traditional
doctoral programs to confront graduate teaching assistants
with the matter of considering and adopting some philOSOphy
of teaching or of education on which to base their instruc-
tional practices. The primary assumption in this study was
that if an individual has the Opportunity to re-think his
approach to teaching, it is quite likely that there are many
things that he can do on his own to improve, whereas if we
set up a program which is oriented to specifics, we may pro—
vide a person with gimmicks that are a little more effective.
but we may not necessarily change his point of View.

The purpose of this work was to develop and refine
an Inventory composed of several categories of teaching,
which seemed reasonably distinctive from each other, that
would provide a way in which an individual could engage in
self-assessment, construct his own profile, and then con-

sider whether this was the way he really wanted his teaching

Nellie Tebo Hardy

practices to be characterized. The Inventory itself was
originally prepared as a part of a study of the new Doctor

of Arts degree for college teaching.

Design
An Inventory of Teaching Styles was mailed to the

total population of graduate teaching assistants (a total

of 195) in six disciplines: Education, English, Engineering,
Chemistry, Mathematics, and Psychology, to determine to what
extent the Inventory could be used by them to self-assess
their particular style of teaching.

Twelve graduate teaching assistants from each
discipline were randomly selected (a total of 72) to be
individually interviewed and observed in their classrooms
while engaged in teaching. They were selected for the pur-
pose of obtaining additional feedback that would be helpful
to us in working out instructions in classifying statements
and clarifying the particular statements which caused

difficulty.

Findings

Based upon the data collected, there appear to be
some serious problems associated with the graduate teaching
assistantship programs included in this study. The teaching

assignments given to graduate teaching assistants included

Nellie Tebo Hardy

in this survey varied widely; some had little, if any, input
into the selection of various elements of teaching while
others were given almost total control. Too many were per-
forming some teaching function but were not given adequate
supervision and evaluation; and some of the graduate teach-
ing assistants were teaching in situations where the needs
of the department or the major professors were allowed to
supersede the needs and capabilities of the graduate
teaching assistants.

The teaching assistants who were assigned to teach
the recitation and laboratory classes had difficulty under-
standing the purpose and meaning of the Inventory of Teach-
ing Styles, and difficulty self-assessing their particular
styles of teaching. Their inability to relate to the
Inventory perhaps stemmed from the fact that the components
of teaching as described and defined across four styles of
teaching did not characterize their particular role and
function as "college teachers." The teaching assistants
assigned to controlled classes were able to understand the
Inventory and to assess their teaching styles but seemingly
rejected the notion that there is value in self-assessment
of one's attitude, philos0phy, and approach to teaching.

As a result of this position, as a group they did not
attempt to suggest ways in which the instrument could be

improved. Teaching assistants given almost total

Nellie Tebo Hardy

responsibility for a course appeared to understand the
purpose of the Inventory and were receptive to the notion
of self-assessing their styles of teaching and appeared to
be comfortable in their role as college teachers. They
indicated on their Inventories and in the interviews an
interest in obtaining a way in which to look at their
teaching practices, and assess where they should seek to
change and improve so as to bring about more meaningful

learning.

Recommendations

 

The findings of the present study suggest that
there is a need for some type of continuous program directed
and systematically planned to prepare graduate teaching
assistants for college and university teaching, such that
they could conveniently participate in the planned teaching-
learning activities with adequate guidance and supervision
from individuals who have demonstrated concern for, interest
and expertise in the preparation of college and university
teachers. Whereas most of these programs have emphasized
either content or techniques, materials, and methodology,
this study reinforces the initial conviction that some
consideration of a philosophy of education and of the
responsibilities and obligation of teachers may be even

more important.

A SURVEY DESIGNED TO REFINE AN INVENTORY OF
TEACHING STYLES TO BE USED BY INDIVIDUALS

PREPARING FOR COLLEGE TEACHING

BY

Nellie Tebo Hardy

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1976

ii

© Copyright by
NELLIE TEBO HARDY

1976

DEDICATION

To my husband Leon,
my son Allan,

and my family.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A number of people offered and gave their help

during the course of the present study, but I am especially

grateful to the following individuals:

To Dr. P. Dressel, my major professor, for having
confidence in me, and for nurturing, motivating, and
challenging me to my best efforts.

To my Committee for being there when I needed them
and especially to Dr. G. Norrell for pointing the
way.

To Dr. Margaret Lorimer for providing me with her
insightful comments and observations.

To Mrs. M. Jennette for providing exactly the right
amount of support, encouragement, and assistance
whenever it was needed and/or requested.

To Dr. J. B. Jones, Mrs. F. Hayes, Dr. M. Lott, and
Mrs. R. Holman, who each gave me encouragement to
continue and guidance to pursue.

To Mrs. M. Webb-Sperber, Dr. R. Lezotte, Dr. L.
Simon, and other friends and colleagues who
patiently cajoled, listened, and encouraged

me until the work was done.

iv

Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . .
III. INSTRUMENTS AND METHODOLOGY . . . . .
POpulation and Sample Selection . .
The Inventory of Teaching Styles Survey
Interview Technique . . . . . . . . .
Observation Technique . . . . . .
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . .
Inventory Findings . . . . . . . .
Interview Findings . . . . .
Observation Findings . . . . . . .
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . .
Implications of Survey Findings . .
Recommendations for the Application
of the Present Findings . . . . .
Appendix
A. INVENTORY OF TEACHING STYLES . . .
B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS . . . . . . . .
CO DEFINITIONS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O
D. MATRIX OF TEACHING STYLES . . . .
E. OBSERVATION INVENTORY . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

16
23
23
25
26
27
27
31
41
41
53

54

56
6O
62
63
64

71

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Following World War II, undergraduate enrollments in
American higher educational institutions expanded rapidly
and graduate teaching assistants were hired by colleges and
universities to fill the need for more instructional staff.1
Twenty years later, during the decade of the sixties, stu—
dent enrollments are reported to have more than doubled2
and, once more, individuals with less than the traditional
doctoral degree were employed by American highereducational
institutions to fill the need for instructional staff.

While the graduate teaching assistants have to some degree
become an integral part of, and perhaps a quite necessary
element in, the academic community, they have been given
minimal preparation in most institutions for their

instructional responsibilities.

 

1"Memo to the Faculty," No. 51, The Center for
Research on Learning and Teaching, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973.

2According to the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Office of Education, data reported 1972
Standard Education Almanac, enrollment in higher educational
IHStitutions was 3,582,726 in 1960 and 7,920,149 in 1969,
Table 80, p. 104. The Standard Education Almanac is pub-
lished by Academic Media, Inc., 32 Lincoln Avenue, Orange,
New Jersey 07050.

 

 

The enrollment increase during the decade of the
sixties, brought with it demands for more quality and mean—
ingful education. Institutions found themselves forcefully
faced with, among many other things, the evaluation of
instructional quality. Evaluation of instruction remains
a concern in the decade of the seventies, and has been
given more impetus by such occurrences as (l) a continuing
increase in college and university enrollments; (2) a cut
in educational budgets by state and federal governments, who
are seeking more acceptable ways to make use of taxpayers'
dollars; and (3) an inflationary spiraling of costs, which
continue to reduce the purchasing power of college and
university budgets.

Instruction is only one aspect of the institutional
budget to be reviewed, but it has surfaced as a major one
due to its labor implications in the educative process.

The question of who should be hired has become very vital
in American higher education. Inherent in the question of
who should be hired is the notion of quality instruction.
Unlike practitioners in other professions, most college
teachers enter their first job with little preparation in
the area in which they are expected to practice and with
minimal appreciation or awareness of the complexity of the
tasks they are to perform. Ann M. Heiss asserts that "the

American college teacher is the only high-level professional

who enters his career with no practice and with no
experience in using the tools of his profession" (Heiss,
1970, p. 229).

The underlying attitude or assumption supporting
this practice appears to strongly suggest that if one has
mastery of the subject matter of his or her discipline, the
ability to communicate it effectively to students, provide
competent educational counsel and effectively become in-
volved in curriculum evaluation, reform will follow auto-
matically (Heiss, 1970; Finger, 1970). The student unrest
during the sixties called attention to this prevailing
Opinion and to some degree caused some educators to seri-
ously question its validity and motivated a few institutions
to begin providing their graduate teaching assistants with
some instructional experiences under the guidance of a
master teacher. According to Koen and Ericksen (1967),
the number of institutions which claimed to provide graduate
teaching assistants with education and/or experience for
college and university teaching increased. Since that
period, at least 23 institutions have begun offering the
Doctor of Arts degree for individuals who have demonstrated
interest in undergraduate teaching (Koenker, 1975). How—
ever, it has been reported that upon close examination of
the institutions which purport to provide their graduate

students with appropriate experiences to teach at the

undergraduate level, the primary activity, which served as
the essence of the teaching-learning experience, was and
still is the teaching assistantship (Heiss, 1970, p. 231).
One report indicated that at least 50 percent of the
graduate students who are hired as teaching assistants

are given neither adequate nor consistent supervision by

a senior faculty member (Heiss, 1970, p. 231; see also,
"Memo to the Faculty," September 1965, p. 2).

In many institutions, the responsibilities of
graduate teaching assistants vary widely among departments,
i.e., within some departments graduate teaching assistants
are given total responsibility for planning and teaching a
course, while others may assume duties such as grading
papers, developing tests, or completing routine nonacademic
tasks (Heiss, 1970).

There is evidence that there are a significant
number of graduate teaching assistants who are assuming
full responsibility for planning and teaching a course at
the undergraduate level, many of whom are not receiving
adequate education and experiences designed to prepare them
to be college teachers. None of the research available
calls attention to the self-formulated teaching styles of
graduate teaching assistants, and yet there are indications
that a large number of graduate teaching assistants, once

they have satisfied requirements for the traditional

doctoral degree, do go on to teach at the undergraduate and
graduate level, with or without adequate preparation to do
so, carrying with them the style of teaching developed while
in practice as a graduate teaching assistant. The Center
for Research on Learning and Teaching at the University of
Michigan reported that of their 1970 and 1971 University of
Michigan graduates, 53 percent were employed as teachers
("Memo to the Faculty," March 1973, p. 51).

While enrollment projections for the 19805 suggest
that there will be a need for more college teachers in the
future, criticism of undergraduate teaching is seemingly on
the rise. Considering the number of graduate teaching
assistants who have received awards for their performance
in teaching it is reasonable to believe that not all college
teaching by graduate teaching assistants deserves to be
criticized. Many have developed styles of teaching that
are effective and that could possibly provide some insight
into the types of learning activities that would be appro-
priate in programs directed toward training graduate
students to teach at the college level. Many educators
are beginning to consider seriously if there is indeed a
need for a doctoral program specifically designed for
college teachers. Dunham (1969) has presented supportive
data in his report that there is a need for such a degree

program.

In the Office of Institutional Research at Michigan
State University, some long-term studies designed to take
an intensive look at Doctor of Arts programs which have been
instituted to specifically prepare individuals for college
teaching, and to identify some of the distinctive components
and patterns of good college teaching, are being carried on.
Growing out of this broader project is the need for D.A.
candidates to have some way of engaging in self-assessment
as to the nature of college teaching, the kind of program
and experience that they need in their courses, internship,
and teaching related studies, in order to enhance and change
their instructional practices. In our assessment of these
programs we moved from thinking only about students engaged
in full-time D.A. program to thinking about individuals in
doctoral programs who, as part of their work, engaged in
college teaching--the graduate teaching assistant.

Thus far, little has been done in traditional
doctoral programs to confront the graduate teaching
assistant with the matter of considering and adopting
some philosophy of teaching or of education. Too often
these programs have employed either content or techniques,
materials and methodology, and do not consider confronting
graduate teaching assistants with the matter of developing
a philosophy of teaching or of education on which to base

their instructional practices.

One primary assumption in this study was that if
an individual takes the opportunity to come to grips with
his or her philosophy of teaching or of education before
considering content or techniques, materials and method—
ology, then there are many things that he/she can do on
his/her own to improve; whereas, if we set up a program
which is oriented to specifics, we may give a person some
"gimmicks" which are generally a little more effective but--
without changes in his/her point of view—-may be misused or
ineffectively used.

In developing the particular instruments used in
this study an attempt was not made, as have so many other
approaches, to do something on the basis of a factor ana—
lytic approach. Rather an attempt was made from analysis
of previous attempts, and from our own thinking and dis-
cussions with others, to develop several categories of
teaching which seem to be reasonably distinct from each
other. We do not purport to say that these categories
really represent significantly different groups of teachers.
Given these categories of teaching styles we were interested
in knowing whether:

1. The graduate teaching assistants' reactions to the
inventory and to the statements in it would assist

us in its refinement.

2. By observing some of the graduate teaching
assistants in the classroom situation, the kinds
of discussions which we had with them about the
statements in the Inventory had any obvious
relationship to the kinds of things actually

going on in their classes.

This survey starts with a review of past research
on graduate teaching assistants, then presents the infor-
mation derived from the Inventory of Teaching Styles, the
personal interview, and the classroom observations. Finally
some conclusions and recommendations are presented, along

with ways in which the present findings could be utilized.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

There appears to be a limited amount of research
literature available on teaching assistants, and that
which has been recorded primarily focuses on (1) problems
associated with preparing teaching assistants for collegefi/fl”
and university teaching; (2) the duties and responsibilities
assumed by teaching assistants in higher educational insti-
tutions; and (3) some of the features of graduate teaching 6
training programs, none of which call attention to the
teaching styles of teaching assistants that have grown out
of their own philosophies of teaching and/or of education.
Nevertheless, a review of the current literature related
to graduate teaching assistants warrants discussion.

Ann Heiss, in her discussion of the survey con- /
ducted by the University of Michigan Center for Research
on Learning and Teaching, points out that 75 percent of
the 450 institutions surveyed by the CRLT indicated that
the teaching assistantship was the primary method utilized
for preparing future college teachers (Heiss, 1970, p. 231).

Other researchers reported that in some instances many

institutions provide opportunities in the form of special

10

courses, seminars, workshops and interdisciplinary programs
(Clark, 1963; Koen and Ericksen, 1967; Heiss, 1968; Eble,h»
1971; and Mayhew, 1972).

Part of the problem associated with assessing the
value of existing programs developed to prepare college and
university teachers appears to be the lack of information
and knowledge regarding what is covered and what should be

covered. Koen and Ericksen (1967, p. 6) stated that:
Since the profession of college teaching is a.\
multifaceted one, and since there are certain
skills associated with each aspect of it, infor-
mation on the means adapted to develop these skills
could prove quite useful in establishing programs
for preparing new instructors. There is little
published on the matter. The question of what
professional knowledge and skills are developed

by the current programs appears unanswerable on

the basis of readily available reports. The amount
and kind of instruction that is given on many of
the topics which would seem to be highly relevant
is indeterminate.

One of the major criticisms of graduate teaching
assistant programs, as reported by 25 of the largest
graduate institutions in the United States, is the fact
that these programs for the most part have remained un—
changed during the past decade or more (Heiss, 1970, p. 231).

John Chase (1970, p. 2) asserts in his report
"Graduate Assistantships in American Universities," that

there is a growing awareness . . . that there are
many serious problems associated with the utiliza-
tion of graduate teaching assistants in contemporary
American higher education. And these problems are

of sufficient importance to growing numbers of
people to merit careful and thorough analysis.

ll

Barnard Berelson (1960, p. 66) pointed out in his
1960 study of graduate education, that the teaching assis—
tantship had three major drawbacks: "(1) Not all potential
teachers have experience; (2) Many have it far too long, and
(3) The experience is insufficiently directed and planned."
There appears to be a minimal number of studies
completed that have examined graduate teaching assistantship
programs in such a way so as to improve their methods for
preparing college and university teachers.
Mildred Clark (1963, Preface) conducted a disser—
C
tation research of the functions engaged in by graduate
teaching assistants. The conclusion she came to was not
at all reassuring:
The data indicate that, although almost 88 percent
of the respondents performed some teaching function,
with few exceptions supervision and evaluatiOn of
the assistants' work was at best casual and inter-
mittent, and often altogether lacking. Assistants
appeared to consider their programs deficient in the
provision of guided experiences in the major roles
of the college teacher which they expect to assume
after graduation. The data further suggests that
many of the experiences were incidental rather than
deliberately planned.
Clark identified seven broad categories of teaching func-
tions and ten broad categories of nonteaching functions
engaged in by the graduate assistants (Chapter IV). She
arrived at six basic conclusions related to the weaknesses

in the graduate teaching assistantship programs reported by

the 1,110 respondents. The first had to do with the lack of

12

adequate and consistent effort to provide graduate teaching
assistants with worthwhile experiences to prepare them for
college and university teaching. The second one called
attention to the frequency to which the needs of the insti-
tution are allowed to supersede the needs and capabilities
of graduate assistants. The third focused on the lack of
unity that exists between the student's assistantship
responsibilities and the content of his total degree program.
The fourth stressed the tendency of most institutions toward
involving graduate teaching assistants almost immediatly in
the teaching role, rather than a gradual increase in respon-
sibilities. The fifth area of weakness which she identified
had to do with the functions engaged in by graduate teaching
assistants neither being clearly directed nor appropriate
for the major role of a college and university teacher. And,
sixth, she concluded that the supervision of many graduate
teaching assistants' work was in most cases too irregular
and inadequate (Chapter VII).

In 1967, the results of a survey completed by Koen
and Ericksen were published, in which academic departments
representing 42 major graduate institutions were reviewed.
Administrative officers of these units were asked to iden-
tify the substantive features of their most active graduate
assistantship training programs. Koen's and Ericksen's

general findings were that more than 60 percent of the

13

programs reviewed contained activities related to concrete
instructional procedures; close to 50 percent claimed
activities related to the planning of class sessions,
course sections or entire course content; about 33 percent
of the respondents identified activities related to the
design and analysis of test items and grading procedures;
and one-fourth of those included in the study claimed
activities related to the study of the philOSOphy, history,
and problems of higher education, or the objectives and
philosophy of a particular course.

Based upon the data they received and on their own
attitudes towards teaching, Koen and Ericksen made the
following recommendations for a program design for graduate
teaching assistants:

A viable model for a training program should meet
the following criteria: (a) Each teaching assistant
will receive only such instruction and guidance as
is necessary and sufficient to enable him to plan
and conduct an undergraduate class in his area of
subject-matter,competence; (b) a model should be
sufficiently flexible to serve the basic needs of
the various disciplines; (c) all aspects of a
training program should be directly applicable

to real instructional problems and the training
should be kept to a minimum; (d) the most useful
form for a training program is an evolutionary one,
in which systematic and continuing self—evaluation
is a design feature; and (e) an efficient program
will minimize increases in faculty time allotted to
supervisory activities [Koen and Erickson, 1967,

p. 40].

14

To successfully implement the above recommendations,
Koen and Erickson suggested that the training program for
graduate teaching assistants be divided into three phases:

0 Phase I: The Apprenticeship

0 Phase II: The Assistantship

. Phase III: The Instructorship.
Both the apprenticeship and assistantship phases would be
open to and recommended for teaching assistants, but the
instructorship phase would only include those students who
had demonstrated interest in a college teaching career. The
graduate student would begin as an apprentice under a well—
structured and appropriately supervised preservice program.
Under close supervision, he would be gradually moved to the
more independent role of an instructor. During the instruc-
torship phase, the graduate teaching assistant would be
encouraged to become involved in departmental affairs, in
order to gain more insight into the "extra classroom and
administrative aspects of the college teacher role" (Koen
and Ericksen, 1967, pp. 41-43).

Ann Heiss (1970, p. 236) in her study of 10 major
graduate institutions, identified eight basic educational
features of teaching assistantships:

l. Orientation-to—teaching meetings.
2. Intensive preservice training.

3. Special seminar for teaching assistants.

4. Regularly scheduled meetings with faculty
supervisor.

15

5. Regular but informally scheduled meetings
with supervisors.

6. Recommended meetings with sponsor.

7. Evaluation of T.A.‘s work by their students.

8. Provided the T.A. with a written statement
of his duties and responsibilities.

A most descriptive account of various training
programs for graduate teaching assistants was written
by Nowlis, Clark, and Rock, 1968, entitled "The Graduate
Teaching Assistant as Teacher." This report analyzes the
teaching assistantship at the University of Rochester and
identifies problems of the teaching assistantship, as
viewed by graduate students. They assert that:
1. Departments, with rare exception, are not
sufficiently concerned with helping them
be good teachers.
2. The recurring conflict among his teaching
duties as a student and his duties as a
professional apprentice in a discipline.
3. The teaching assistant's uncertainty about
his status or the certainty that his status
is ambiguous [Nowlis et a1., 1968,
pp. 28-30].
Nowlis also obtained the departmental View toward the
graduate teaching assistantship and found that there
was a significant degree of discrepancy between what the
department chairman thought happened in the classroom of
the graduate teaching assistant and what both the graduate
teaching assistant and his students indicated actually
occurred. He attributed the discrepancy more to "the

chairman's ignorance of actual practice" than to 1n-

accurate reporting on the part of the student" (p. 30).

CHAPTER III

INSTRUMENTS AND METHODOLOGY

A considerable amount of literature has been
generated in the areas of teaching, learning, and evaluation,
but three sources in particular that have had the greatest
impact on the development of the instruments used in this
survey are the writings of Joseph Adelson, Richard Mann, and
Joseph Axelrod. Each of these individuals calls attention
to various styles of teaching and how each style or type
relates to the teaching-learning process.

Joseph Adelson (1962) focuses on three types of
teachers: (1) the teacher as Shaman, (2) the teacher as
Priest, and (3) the teacher as Mystic Healer. The teacher
as Shaman is described by him as an individual who has a
narcissistic orientation and who primarily concerns himself
with attracting and holding his audiences' attention. He
is generally the type of individual who is admired as one
admires a professional entertainer. The teacher as Priest,
Adelson asserts, is one who assumes the role of preparing
students for the trials they will encounter in the educa—
tional process and administering the tests that will

initiate them into the powerful collectivity of scholars;

l6

17

and the teacher as Mystic Healer, he claims, directs his
energy toward helping students find their best qualities
and what is most important within themselves, moving toward
an intrinsically abstract ideal.

Richard Mann (1970) calls attention to six different
styles of teaching: (1) the teacher as Expert, (2) the
teacher as Formal Authority, (3) the teacher as Socializing
Agent, (4) the teacher as Facilitator, (5) the teacher as
Ego Ideal, and (6) the teacher as Person. He describes the
teacher as Expert as an individual who believes he is an
expert on certain areas of knowledge; the teacher as Formal
Authority, Mann asserts, views himself as an agent of
instruction, control, and of evaluation. He believes he
is responsible for maintaining uniformity of standards in
his field and maintaining a justifiable evaluation system;
the teacher as Socializing Agent, he claims, functions as
a representative othis field and as a protector of the
professional community; the teacher as Facilitator is
described by him as being an individual who is interested
in the aspirations of students. He participates more in
active listening rather than lecturing and more in question-
ning rather than assigning; the teacher as Ego Ideal, Mann
suggests, allows his student to use him as an ideal model;
and the teacher as Person encourages his students to become

involved in a mutual validating relationship with him--one

18

that allows both teacher and students to openly discuss
their concerns about the course and about matters outside
of the course content.

Joseph Axelrod (1973) focuses on two major modes
of teaching: the didactic mode and the evocative mode. He
asserts that the didactic mode includes styles of teaching
that are based on objectives that are clear and easy to
formulate. The emphasis is on cognitive knowledge via
memorization, repetition, and practice. The evocative
modes differ from the didactic modes in that they stress
inquiry and discovery. The difference between these two
modes is also dependent on the emphasis given to the teacher,
the learner, the subject matter, and the skill to be taught.
Under these two modes of teaching, he discusses four basic
styles of prototypes of teaching: The first style of
teaching has to do with emphasis being placed on the subject
matter, the second style focuses on the instructor as the
main source of knowledge, the third style stresses the
importance of both the cognitive and affective development
of the student, and the fourth calls attention to the total
development of the student.

Embracing the thinking of each of these sources from
a humanistic point of View, this study was undertaken to
develOp an instrument that could be used as a self-

assessment by individuals preparing for college teaching.

19

The study was based on the beliefs that (1) individuals

who engage in college teaching should face up to a charac—
terization of their present teaching and their ideal of what
college teaching ought to be, (2) that if a person has the
opportunity to re-think his approach to teaching, there are
many things he can do on his own to improve; whereas, by
setting up programs oriented to specifics, we may provide a
person with gimmicks that are a little more effective but we
may not change his point of View, and (3) that individuals
who engage in college teaching ought to develop a philosophy
of teaching and, as a basis for planning their instructional
practices, they should look closely at how their philosophy
of teaching is related to meaningful learning.

In the early stages of this study, our attention was
called to what we believe to be four basic styles of teach—
ing which seemingly reflected distinctive philosophies of
teaching or of education: Discipline—Centered Teaching;
Instructor—Centered Teaching; Student-Centered Teaching,
Cognitive Approach; and Student-Centered Teaching, Affective
Approach. The following definitions were generated for each
of these styles of teaching:

Discipline-Centered Teaching: The content and

 

structure of the discipline are rigidly emphasized and
cannot (should not) be re-arranged to meet the requirements,

needs, or special conditions of the teacher or learner.

20

Instructor-Centered Teaching: The teacher is the

 

expert and the main source of knowledge in the subject
matter or discipline for the student. Both subject matter
and student are expected to be adjusted to the instructor,
who is the focal point of wisdom in the teaching—learning
process.

Student-Centered Teaching, Coqnitive Approach: The

 

intellectual development of the student is held to be the
most important element in the teaching-learning process.
Both content and teacher should be adjusted to accommodate
the cognitive growth of the student.

Student-Centered Teaching, Affective Approach: The

 

personality and intellectual development of the student is
considered to be the important element in the teaching—
learning process. Both subject matter and teacher should
be adjusted to accommodate the total development of the
student. The student should not be expected to adapt to
the other two elements in the teaching-learning process.
For each of the styles of teaching identified and
defined, we focused our attention on six components of the
teaching: (1) Selection of Course Content, (2) Instruc—
tional Methodology, (3) Classroom Setting, (4) Student
Interaction, (5) Purposes for Assignments, and (6) Criteria
for Evaluation. Descriptive statements were written for

each of these components in an attempt to further

21

characterize the four styles of teaching defined. From this
was developed the Matrix of Teaching Styles (Appendix D)
which included the four styles of teaching across the six
components. After several editings, the first draft of an
Inventory of Teaching Styles was developed and presented to
graduate students in Administration and Higher Education at
Michigan State University Winter Term 1976, and to three
experts in the field of learning and evaluation (Lawrence
Alexander, Stephen L. Yelon, and Walter Hapkiewicz). Based
on their reactions, several revisions of the instruments
were required and completed, hence the Inventory of Teaching
Styles used in this survey evolved (Appendix A).

The questionnaire (Appendix B) utilized in the
personal interviews was designed to obtain additional feed-
back from an individual who had been presented with the
Inventory, that would be helpful in working out instructions,
clarifying any particular statements which caused difficulty,
and for the classification of statements which grew out of
our own modification of them. More specifically, the ques-
tionnaire was developed to obtain from each graduate
teaching assistant included in this survey information on:

. What type of formal or informal training they had
received to teach at the college level.

0 How long they had been teaching at the college level.

22

. What criteria they used in selecting their course
content.

0 What method(s) of instruction they used in their
class(es).

o How their students interacted with them and with
each other.

0 What their purposes were for giving assignments.

o What criteria they used to evaluate their students.

The Observation Inventory (Appendix E) was developed
based on the items included in the Inventory of Teaching
Styles, and was constructed such that the observer was able
to indicate if an individual teacher's behavior in the
classroom was consistent with the feedback obtained from
the Inventory and the personal interview, and to further
clarify any particular statements which seemed to be incon-
sistent. In the structure of the Observation Inventory,
attention was called to the six components of teaching and
to written statements developed to characterize each of the
four teaching styles. Under each component were listed the
four statements, along with sufficient space for the
observer to include comments that would more closely
explain or describe the behavior exhibited by the teacher
while in action. The observer, while viewing the teacher

(in this case the teaching assistant) in action in the

23

classroom, was asked to check the statement under each
component that best characterized the behavior being
exhibited, and include any additional comments that would

further explain the behavior exhibited.

Population and Sample Selection

 

The population for this study included 195 graduate
students identified as teaching assistants in six disci-
plines: Education, English, Engineering, Chemistry,
Mathematics, and Psychology. From the 195 graduate teaching
assistants identified in the Faculty Course Listing for Fall
Term, 1975, twelve graduate teaching assistants from each
discipline were randomly selected (a total of 72) to be

included in the survey.

The Inventory of Teaching Styles Survey

 

An Inventory of Teaching Styles was mailed to the
total population of graduate teaching assistants (a total
of 195). They were asked to select two statements under
each of the six components of teaching which they felt best
characterized their particular style of teaching.

In reacting to the Inventory (after one follow—up
letter plus one telephoned reminder) 74 percent (145) of
the graduate teaching assistants returned their responses.

Of the Inventories returned, 3 percent (5) of the

24

respondents, four from chemistry and one from engineering,
returned their Inventories with no responses along with
notes indicating that they were not teaching assistants.
This left us with 72 percent (140) completed and returned

Inventories (see Table 1).

Table 1. Total Population of Graduate Teaching Assistants
by Disciplines

 

 

 

Total

Population Returned Percent

Discipline (N==l95) Responses Return
Education l4 13 93
English 33 20 61
Engineeringa 3o 18 53
Chemistryb 62 45 73
Mathematics 42 38 90
Psychology _14 _ll _19
Totals 195 145 73

 

a .
One Inventory was returned Wlth no responses.

b . .
Four Inventories were returned Wlth no responses.

25

Interview Technique

 

Each graduate teaching assistant interviewed was
given the definitions of the four styles of teaching iden-
tified: Discipline-Centered Teaching; Instructor-Centered
Teaching; Student-Centered Teaching, Cognitive Approach;
Student-Centered Teaching, Affective Approach, and were
asked to react to them, indicating which of the styles of
teaching, as defined, best characterized their particular
style of teaching (Appendix C); then they were given the
Matrix of Teaching Styles (Appendix D) which included the
four styles of teaching across the six components of teach—
ing, and were asked to react to the styles as presented,
indicating once more the one that best characterized their
style of teaching; and lastly, each teaching assistant
interviewed was asked to answer the questions contained
in the Interview Questionnaire (Appendix B).

All of the interviews (42) were done individually
and each interviewee gave his/her permission to have the
conversation taped. Each interview was transcribed and
then reviewed and analyzed by the writer. Because only
a few of the students were presented with questions per-
taining to professorial self—image and the professor's
image of students, no attempt was made to analyze the

few responses given.

26

Observation Technique

 

Of the 72 graduate teaching assistants randomly
selected 42 agreed to be interviewed and observed in the
classroom setting.

In the Observation Inventory (Appendix E) attention
was called to the statements written to characterize each
of the four styles of teaching across six components of
teaching: (1) Selection of Course Content, (2) Instruc-
tional Methodology, (3) Classroom Setting, (4) Student
Interaction with Professor and Student Interaction with
Each Other, (5) Assignments, and (6) Evaluation. While
the graduate assistant was engaged in teaching, the observer
checked the appropriate statements or statements under each
component of teaching which seemingly best characterized the
behavior being exhibited, and included additional comments
to further describe the graduate assistant's actions and
statements. Each teaching assistant was observed twice
and the observation usually began the moment the teaching
assistant presented himself to his students and continued
until he left the classroom. Because six of the graduate
teaching assistants who agreed to be observed were assigned
to nonteaching duties, only 36 of the 42 planned

observations were obtained.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Inventory Findings

 

Of the 195 graduate teaching assistants contacted,
148 (76%) responded; three included notes indicating that
they did not want to participate in the survey. Of the
Inventories returned, 121 (82%) included comments, providing
us with additional insight into the graduate teaching assis-
tants' reactions to the Inventory of Teaching Styles. The
remarks submitted covered three broad categories:
1. How the graduate teaching assistants perceived the
Inventory applied to their teaching responsibilities,
2. How the graduate teaching assistants believed they
were influenced by the Inventory, and
3. The graduate teaching assistants' justification for
adopting their particular styles of teaching.
How the Graduate Teaching Assistants

Perceived the Inventory Applied to
Their Teaching Responsibilities

 

Of the 148 graduate teaching assistants who
responded, 60 (41%) asserted that while they had been given

some teaching responsibilities, they did not believe the

27

28

Inventory of Teaching Styles was applicable to their
situations. The respondents in this group noted that

they were either responsible for recitation sections of

a main course, help-sessions, or were responsible for meet-
ing with students in a laboratory situation. In each case,
they did not have input into the selection of the course
content, in making assignments, or in the final evaluation
of the students in their classes; these teaching components
were pre-determined either by the department offering the
course or by the major professor in charge of the course.

Twenty (14%) of the graduate teaching assistants
replying to the survey expressed in their remarks that they
believed we were attempting to evaluate their teaching
rather than providing them with a means of assessing it
themselves. They went on to note that they did not think
their teaching style could be characterized by an Inventory,
and that the statements written were too simplistic to be
of any use.

Eighty—four (57%) of the graduate teaching assis-
tants noted in their remarks that they did not believe they
had very much control over their present style of teaching,
and that their style of teaching would probably differ
greatly if they were given more responsibility for selecting
the course content, making assignments, and the final

evaluation of their students.

29

How the Graduate Teaching Assistants
Believed They Were Influenced by the
Inventory of Teaching Styles

 

 

 

After responding to the Inventory, 79 (49%) of the
graduate teaching assistants asserted that the way in which
they had self-assessed their style of teaching on the Inven-
tory was not the way in which they had desired it to be
portrayed. This same group indicated in their remarks that
after giving some thought to the way they taught and to the
way their teaching had been represented, they began to seek
ways in which they could increase and improve student inter-
action in and out of class, and to look for alternative
methods of presenting the course to their students that
would be more effective. Most of the teaching assistants
in this group were among those who claimed that, although
they had minimal input into the selection of course content,
making assignments, and the final evaluation of their stud-
dents, they were free to present the content selected for
the courses in whatever way they preferred as long as the
topics Specified by either the department offering the
course or the major professor in charge of the course
were covered.

Eleven (7%) of the teaching assistants noted in
their comments that the way in which they had self-assessed
their styles of teaching was the way in which they had

expected and desired it to be characterized. This same

30

group indicated that before replying to the survey, they
had spent a great deal of time planning and reflecting

on effective ways in which they could best present their
course to the students. All of the teaching assistants in
this group claimed they had been given almost total respon-
sibility for teaching a course along with guidance from
their major professors. They noted that they did have
input into the selection of course content, in making
assignments, and in the final evaluation and grading of
their students.

The Graduate Teaching Assistants'

Justification for Adopting
Certain Styles of Teaching

 

 

 

Forty-seven (32%) of the graduate teaching assis-
tants noted in their comments that they had never attempted
to assess their style of teaching before replying to the
survey, and could not realize any value in this exercise.
Most of those in this group also asserted that they had
adopted a style of teaching which had been and still is
favored, and commonly practiced by the senior teaching
faculty in their discipline. They further expressed the
notion that if one had command of the subject matter, the
ability to communicate it will follow automatically. This
group claimed in their remarks that there appears to be,

in their opinion, only one effective way to represent the

31

subject matter in their discipline and that was the method

being utilized.

Interview Findings

 

Purposes and Problems

 

The present study was based on the belief that most
graduate teaching assistants become engaged in teaching
without ever reflecting on their approach or adopting a
philos0phy of teaching and of education directed toward
meaningful learning. One broad question therefore must
be considered: What type of education and experiences are
necessary to prepare individuals to be effective college'
teachers? This question was not included in the Inventory
because there was a desire for a better understanding of the
graduate teaching assistants' reactions to self-assessing
their own college teaching experiences, which could best
be handled through personal interviews. By talking with
teaching assistants actively engaged in college teaching,
we believed insight could be gained into the problems and
attitudes which persisted even for those graduate teaching
assistants who believed they were effective in carrying out
their teaching responsibilities.

The attitudes and assumptions held by many of the
graduate teaching assistants regarding the type of education

and experiences necessary to effectively teach at the

32

college level was evidenced by the reluctance with which
some of them agreed to be interviewed and the brevity of
their responses in the interview. Many of them agreed

to be interviewed noting that they did not believe their
teaching responsibilities related to the survey. Some of
the graduate teaching assistants appeared to be strongly
against discussing the Inventory and their teaching styles
and only after several requests for an interview were we
able to talk with them. Others expressed concern about
their teaching practices and wanted to discuss the way in
which they had assessed their teaching styles.

Because the graduate teaching assistants who
participated were given assurance that they would not be
identified, their annonymity has been safeguarded. By
design and by constraint, a tOpical approach has been taken
in identifying their reactions to the various components of
teaching where difficulties were typically found. State-
ments from the graduate teaching assistants supplied
examples of problems militating against them being
adequately prepared for college teaching.

It has been pointed out that the utilization of
graduate teaching assistants in many higher educational
institutions involves serious problems--problems that
deserve to be assiduously addressed and thoroughly analyzed

(Chase, 1970). Over 80 percent of a group of graduate

33

teaching assistants included in one study were found to

be performing some teaching function in situations where
supervision and evaluation seldom, if ever, took place.

The assistants reportedly looked upon their programs as
being dificient and believed many of their experiences were
chance rather than purposely planned (Clark, 1963, Preface).
Also in the literature, attention has been called to some
major weaknesses associated with graduate teaching assis-
tantship programs. There are individuals who assert that
many graduate teaching assistantship programs do not provide
teaching assistants with worthwhile experiences to prepare
them for college and university teaching; that the needs of
the institution are too often allowed to supersede the needs
and capabilities of graduate assistants; that a lack of
unity exists between teaching assistants' responsibilities
and their total degree program; and, that most institutions
involve graduate teaching assistants almost immediatly in
the teaching role rather than gradually increasing their
involvement (Clark, 1963; Koen and Ericksen, 1967).

Graduate teaching assistants in the survey were
found to be teaching in (l) recitation classes, (2) lab-
oratory classes; (3) classes that were rigidly controlled
by either the department offering the course or a senior
faculty member, and (4) classes where teaching assistants
were given almost total control over their teaching

assignments.

34

Teaching Assistants in Recitation
Classes

All of the graduate teaching assistants who were
assigned to teach a recitation class asserted that they
were essentially responsible for presenting their students
with a review of the tOpics discussed in the lecture by the
major professor; for answering questions students presented
concerning the topics under consideration; and for posing
questions over concepts, principles, terminology that stu-
dents usually had difficulty understanding. They claimed
that they were not responsible for selecting the content
for the course, the standard text, for making assignments,
or for the total evaluation of the students' performance.
Neither experience nor discipline seemed to have been a
determining factor.. The duties they were assigned seemed
to have been selected primarily to relieve the major pro-
fessor in charge of the course from having to engage in
these particular teaching functions. Many of the people
in this group claimed they had been functioning as graduate
teaching assistants for at least three years, and some for
as long as four years. All of the disciplines represented
by this group reportedly offered some type of brief training
to their graduate teaching assistants in the form of three-
day seminars or workshops directed by a senior faculty
member and two or three experienced graduate teaching

assistants. During these training sessions, it was reported

35

that graduate students were given an opportunity to
demonstrate their teaching skills and receive feedback
from the session leaders on ways they should improve.
However, none of the disciplines represented were reported
to have programs directed and planned to prepare their
graduate teaching assistants for college and university
teaching on a continuous basis.

Teaching Assistants in Laboratory
Classes

 

The graduate teaching assistants of laboratory
classes asserted that their responsibilities essentially
rested with providing students with an overview of their
laboratory assignments using the standard text, laboratory
manual, or other materials selected and/or developed by the
major professor. They reported that much of their time
is spent answering questions students present related to
laboratory experiments and equipment, and supervising and
assessing how well students have performed on the exper-
iments. The content, standard text, laboratory manual,
or other printed material used in the course are selected
by the major professor, usually with very little, if any,
input from the graduate teaching assistant.

The course content is always selected by the
professor. I'm locked in by the lecture and the
standard text. Recitation sections are mainly

used for problem solving, problems designed to
test the students on whether they actually

36

understand the problems they should have already
worked. What I decide to discuss in the recita-
tion is based primarily on my feeling of what is
important. Certain fundamental concepts have to
be taught in this course regardless of who is
teaching it. But, it is usually designed to see
if the students understand the principles that
the major professor covered in his lectures.
Usually, it is a question and answer type period,
with myself posing the questions and the students
responding.

One graduate teaching assistant responsible for teaching a
laboratory class stated:

I do not choose the lab experiments that are
done by the students. I have assisted in preparing
the problems but, as a rule, I don't do that. What
can you say about teaching a lab? You go up to the
head of the class; run through the procedures; point
out any pitfalls they may encounter; tell them where
all the equipment is; stay there for questions and
any help they may need.

The professor under whom I teach the lab had me
go through a couple of dry runs before I met with the
class. He listened to me and gave suggestions that
he felt would be helpful.

What I have to say to the students is taken from
the professor's materials. I couldn't do this at
first because I have no experience. The laboratory
assignments are given by the professor in the lecture
to force the students to be prepared for the lab
session.

Teaching Assistants in Controlled
Classes

 

Another group of graduate teaching assistants
reported that they were assigned to teach a class for which
the course content, standard text, method of instruction
and final evaluation of students were predetermined by
either the department offering the course or the major

professor in charge. This group asserted that they were

37

primarily responsible for presenting the content selected
via the selected text and the method Of instruction approved
Of by the person or persons in charge. Generally, when
engaged in teaching, they claimed they worked towards
preparing students for the departmental final examination
or the final examination designed by the major professor--
stressing concepts, principles, or techniques deemed most
significant by the person or persons in charge, and those
included on the final examination. All puported to have
adopted a style of teaching approved Of by either the
department and/or practiced by their major professors.

Two graduate teaching assistants from this group commented
very Openly on their teaching assignments. One teaching
assistant stated:

The method Of instruction I use is based largely

on the major professor's preferences. I have to
single that out because I am teaching this course
specifically for one professor and because he hasn't
been here, I am teaching just what he gave me, and

in what I feel is his style. I am imitating him as
much as I can. I think consequently his style is my
style. The course content and other materials used
in the course were selected by him, but I have chosen
some of the ditto materials. Assignments are given
because the professor said to give them. The purpose
for assignments is to force the students to look at
the subject matter more deeply and to help them
develop teaching strategies for their actual future
teaching experiences in the field. Students are
graded on their participation in class, term papers,
and the final examination developed by the major
professor.

Another teaching assistant stated:

38

I don't control the course content. That is the
function of the lecturer. But, to the extent that
I do control it within the classroom (which is a
minor extent in the course), I talk about things
that I am interested in and that I know something
about. Students view me as a resource person.
They feel free to ask me questions about things
related to the course which they don't understand.
I ask them questions about matters of fact, termi-
nology, about general principles, and about con-
nections between facts and principles. Assignments
are given by the lecturer to cover the information
he selected for the course and about application
Of that theory to applied areas Of study. The
students are given three tests; two hourly exam-
inations and a final exam, each determined by the
lecturer.

Teaching Assistants in Uncontrolled
Classes

 

Among the graduate teaching assistants in this
survey, one group was reported to have been assigned classes
for which they were given almost total responsibility;
almost, because the graduate teaching assistants were
expected to report to either the department or a particular
senior faculty person in charge Of the course. Nevertheless,
this group Of graduate teaching assistants asserted to have
been given the responsibility for selectingthe content of
their courses; for their own methods of instruction, assign-
ments, and the criterion for evaluating their students.
Individuals who claimed they taught a section of the same
course, reported they often met as a group to select impor-
tant basic topics that should be included in each section

Of the course and a standard text. Once these issues were

39

agreed upon, each claimed to function independently,
stressing tOpics that were of interest to the students
and to themselves. Individuals of this group who were
teaching courses with no additional sections asserted
they used professors within their departments as resource
persons to help them solve their pedagogical problems. The
consultations with these professors were never reported to
be systematically sequentially planned learning encounters;
most were arranged when the graduate teaching assistant had
problems in teaching which he could not resolve alone.
Unlike the other groups Of graduate teaching assistants
discussed so far, this group asserted that the Inventory
of Teaching Styles provided them with a way in which to
look more closely at elements of teaching which they
personally and individually wanted to change and/or improve.
Each talked about how much they enjoyed teaching and the
teaching-learning experiences they were having. One
graduate teaching assistant stated:
I have groped at times for techniques, theories,

and sometimes lesson plans. I've received some

input from professors, but nothing specific. I

feel that the material to be covered should be what

is characterized as the field. I teach a survey

course so the lecture method is the best way to

give the material. In the course Of lectures I

try to choose certain tOpics for discussion to get

student participation and get input. I encourage

discussions and questions.

My assignments tend to supplement my lectures

and compliment them too. I generally don't have
time tO gO into details in some areas and so the

40

assignments are designed to sort of force the
students to probe more deeply into one area and
to approach it from an evaluative, analytic point
Of view.

I'm very informal in the classroom because I
don't like to create extreme status differences.
I'm still a student and it wasn't so long ago
that I was an undergraduate. If there is an Open,
friendly atmosphere, students are more likely to
participate, and to criticize me, and I need
feedback—-positive and negative.

When evaluating my students, I try to test
an important area in the field. I View evaluation
and testing as a learning experience.

Another graduate teaching assistant stated:

The first time I taught this course I was
very nervous. I would go too fast and some of
the students took it rather negatively. It was
basically nervousness on my part. But some type
Of formal training to teach at the college level
would simply have been a lot more helpful to me.

All of us who are teaching the course have a
general agreement about what will be taught in
terms Of certain topics to be covered and the
textbook.

Direct lectures is the method of instruction
I use with time always left open for questions.
At the start Of the class I usually ask if there
are questions on the material from last time. I
present a film about once a week. Usually the
film tOpic is close to what I'm lecturing on——
they can see connections between what I've been
lecturing on and the movie, so there is some
discussion that goes on after each film
presentation.

Assignments are given to help the student
learn the material. What they are reading will
make my lectures more coherent, so they can put
the two together. Hopefully, the assigned reading
will give them a practical sense of how the
material applies to the real world.

When evaluating my students, I'm interested
in knowing how much do they apply what we have
talked about in the course Of their own experi-
ences. I evaluate my students on the basis of
what I consider important. I do include a
project which should have some creativity,

41

but that's just a small part Of the grade. The
basis Of the grade is dependent mostly on their
ability to give back what I have taught.

Observation Findings

 

Graduate teaching assistants who were Observed
teaching recitation classes were primarily engaged in
discussion sessions with the students, focusing on the
tOpics previously presented by the major professor in the
lecture. The method Of instruction utilized was basically
that Of answering questions the students raised regarding
related concepts, techniques, or terminology. Sometimes
the teaching assistant, when it was appropriate, provided
the students with examples of how to use a certain technique
for solving a problem or attempted to explain the use Of
terminology characteristic of the discipline. In all Of
the recitation classes visited both the graduate teaching
assistant and students appeared to be at ease in the class-
room situation. The sessions were generally informal in
that students Often referred to the teaching assistants on
a first-name basis, and freely asked questions related to
the tOpic under discussion. In several Of the classes
visited, the teaching assistants used the first quarter
Of the class to give a 25 point quiz over the material
that had been presented in the lecture by the major

professor and discussed in the recitation class. After

42

the quiz was collected, the remaining three-quarters of the
class period was used by the teaching assistant to solve the
problems included in the quiz and answer questions the stu-
dents presented concerning his explanation. NO assignments
were given by the teaching assistants responsible for reci-
tation classes visited, but students were apprised of the
next recitation quiz to be given. Often, after each class
period was over, some Of the students remained to talk with
the teaching assistant and with each other; some wanted
answers to questions not covered during the class discussion
and others were attempting to make conference appointments
with the teaching assistants.

The Observed laboratory classes taught by graduate
teaching assistants were all conducted in about the same
manner: The graduate teaching assistants began their
classes by reviewing the directions for the experiments
under consideration, directing students to the laboratory
equipment, and answering questions the students presented
regarding the implementation Of the experiments. Most Of
the students worked in pairs and in some cases, such as the
laboratory survey class, they worked in groups Of five or
six. Most Of the teaching assistants who were Observed in
laboratory classes spent most Of their time casually walking
around the room, Observing students assemble the apparatus

and start their assigned experiments. The students freely

43

asked questions and solicited the aid Of the teaching
assistants when necessary; the teaching assistants appeared
to have been comfortable functioning in this capacity. In
the labs Observed, no assignments or tests were given. One
laboratory class Observed was taught via closed circuit
television. The teaching assistant started the class by
announcing to the students that the directions for their
laboratory experiment would be explained on video tape by
the major professor in charge of the course. During the
video tape presentation, both the teaching assistant and
students viewed and listened intently. After the presen-
tation was given the teaching assistant directed the stu-
dents to the appropriate equipment and they began setting
up the experiment. While the students were setting up the
apparatus, he walked slowly around the room, sometimes
pausing to Offer suggestions on how best to complete the
tasks.

In classes where the course content, standard text,
and final evaluation were predetermined by either the
department offering the course or the major professor
in charge, the teaching assistants were Observed reviewing
the homework assignments with their classes and illustrating
techniques for solving the problems assigned. The tOpics
discussed and the assignments given seemed to have been

based primarily on and taken from the text chosen for the

44

course. Most of the teaching assistants presented mini
lectures over key concepts, principles, techniques, and
terminology related to the discipline, emphasizing those
they believed would most likely be included on the depart-
mental final examination. Generally, the atmosphere in
these classes was formal; that is, students raised their
hands when they wanted to ask a question, and the teaching
assistants usually answered but not necessarily recognizing
by name the individuals who presented the questions. In one
of the classes observed, the students were administered a
15 point quiz designed by the teaching assistant to examine
the students' understanding Of the concepts and problem-
solving techniques discussed in the previous classes. After
the quiz, the students were provided with the answers to the
questions and solutions to the problems included, with the
teaching assistants sometimes providing alternative answers
and solutions for solving the problems. In all of the
classes Observed in this group, the teaching assistants
gave their students assignments and called attention to
principles and techniques that would be considered during
the next class period.

In classes where course content, standard text,
assignments, and evaluation were determined by the graduate
teaching assistant, both teaching assistants and students

appeared to be at ease. The teaching assistants in these

45

classes generally used a variety Of techniques to present
the content which they had selected for their courses.

In one class Observed, the teaching assistant gave a mini
lecture covering key concepts and principles for about 15
minutes; during the second quarter Of the class period,

he role-played with a visiting expert on the topic under
consideration; and for the remaining two quarters of the
period, he allowed the students to work in groups, prac-
ticing the techniques presented earlier in the class period.
In another class visited, the teaching assistant collected
papers written by the students and made appointments to
meet with them in groups to discuss their work and, before
the class ended, he gave them directions for writing and
submitting their next paper. All Of the classes in this
group appeared to be somewhat informal; students appeared
to be interested in the topics and at ease asking questions
related to the course. The teaching assistants appeared to
enjoy their teaching responsibilities and seemed at ease in

their role as college teachers.

Summary

Based upon the data collected, there appear to be
some serious problems associated with the graduate teaching
assistantship programs included in this survey. The teach-

ing assignments given tO graduate teaching assistants

46

included in this survey varied widely; some had little,

if any, input into the selection Of various elements of
teaching while others were given almost total control.

TOO many were performing some teaching function but were
not given adequate supervision and evaluation; and some of
the graduate teaching assistants were teaching in situations
where the needs Of the department or the major professors
were allowed to supersede the needs and capabilities of the
graduate teaching assistants. The data collected strongly
suggest that there are educators who appear to believe that,
while graduate assistants may be knowledgeable enough to
provide the correct answers and solutions to question and
problems students may pose, they are not and will not be
qualified to handle traditional or regular classes until
they have been awarded the terminal degree; and any effort
to systematically provide graduate teaching assistants with
guided and sequentially planned educational experiences
designed to adequately prepare them for college and
university teaching, would be useless.

The teaching assistants who were assigned to teach
the recitation and laboratory classes had difficulty under—
standing the purpose and meaning Of the Inventory of Teach—
ing Styles, and difficulty self-assessing their particular
styles Of teaching. Their inability to relate to the

Inventory perhaps stemmed from the fact that the components

47

Of teaching as described and defined across four styles

Of teaching did not characterize their particular role and
function as "college teachers." The teaching assistants
assigned to controlled classes were able tO understand the
Inventory and to assess their teaching styles but seemingly
rejected the notion that there is value in self-assessment
Of one's attitude, philOSOphy, and approach to teaching.

As a result Of this position, as a group they did not
attempt to provide ways in which the instrument could be
improved. Teaching assistants given almost total respon—
sibility for a course appeared to understand the purpose

Of the Inventory and were receptive to the notion of self-
assessing their styles Of teaching and appeared to be com-
fortable in their role as college teachers. They indicated
on their Inventories and in the interviews an interest in
Obtaining a way in which to lOOk at their teaching practices
and assess where they should seek to change and improve so

as to bring about more meaningful learning.

 

 

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

One purpose of this survey was to see whether the
reactions of graduate assistants to the Inventory of Teach-
ing Styles would assist us in its refinement. A second
purpose was to determine the possible usefulness of such an
instrument with graduate students. We were concerned that
traditional programs usually do not confront graduate teach-
ing assistants with the matter Of considering and adopting
a philosophy Of teaching and of education that will serve as
a base for their instructional practices. By interviewing
and Observing some of the graduate teaching assistants it
was believed that additional insight could be gained which
would be helpful to us in further refining this Inventory,
so that it could be used as a self-assessment by individuals
preparing for college teaching. The present survey was
based on the beliefs that: (l) at some point individuals
who engage in college teaching should face up to a charac-
terization Of their present teaching and their ideal of what
college teaching ought to be; (2) that if a person has the
Opportunity to re-think his approach to teaching, there are

many things he can do on his own to improve, whereas by

48

49

setting up a program oriented to specifics we may provide
him with gimmicks that are a little more effective, but we
may not necessarily change his point of view; and (3) that
individuals who engage in college teaching ought to develop
a philosophy Of teaching and, as a basis for planning their
instructional practices, they should look closely at how
their philosophy of teaching is related to meaningful
learning.

Based on a review Of the literature and the
immediate returns from the Inventories, personal interviews,
and classroom Observations, very little has been done to
stimulate the individuals included in this survey to face up
to a characterization of their present teaching or to their
ideal of what college teaching ought to be and what consti-
tutes effective college teaching. Most Of the teaching
assistants indicated that, before participating in this
survey, they had not considered characterizing their own
teaching styles, but after doing so via the Inventory and
the personal interviews, they felt that some type of sys-
tematically planned program designed to prepare graduate
teaching assistants to effectively teach at the college
level would have been helpful to them in fulfilling their
responsibilities, especially if the timing Of the program

was flexible and kept to a minimum.

 

50

Most of the graduate teaching assistants included
in the survey had been assigned some teaching function
without ever being confronted with the matter Of developing
a philosophy of teaching or Of education on which to base
their teaching practices, and very few Of them seemed to
have planned their instructional practices based on well-
developed philosophies Of teaching and Of education.

Most of the graduate teaching assistants included in
the survey had not been assigned teaching responsibilities
to adequately prepare them to fully function as college
teachers. The majority Of them taught in situations (reci-
tation classes, laboratory classes, and controlled classes)
where the major components Of teaching were predetermined
by either the department in which they functioned or by a
senior faculty member. The majority Of graduate teaching
assistants included in the survey seemingly assumed their
teaching responsibilities primarily to Obtain financial
support, rather than as a way in which to become effective
college teachers.

While one group of graduate teaching assistants
appeared to be functioning effectively in their roles as
college teachers (those given almost total responsibility
for a course), very few were being given adequate guidance
and supervision. There was no indication on their returned

Inventories, in their personal interviews, or in the

51

observations of their classes that their instructional
practices were necessarily based on clearly formulated
philosophies of teaching or Of education. One was left with
the feeling that their efforts were more a demonstration Of
their ability to survive as college teachers and their abil-
ity tO mimic the behavior Of a senior faculty member, rather
than the representation of teaching techniques that were
selected and adOpted because they were believed to be appro-
priate, well thought out, and based on well-defined beliefs
and assumptions about what constitutes effective college
teaching.

The findings Of the present survey strongly suggest
that:

1. There is a need for educators within each discipline,
and eSpecially in the Natural Sciences to confront
individuals committed to teaching with the matter
of considering a philosophy Of teaching and Of
education that would provide them with a basis for
acquiring mastery of the subject matter and the
ability to communicate it effectively to students
with something more than content coverage in view.

2. There is a need for some type of continuous program
directed and systematically planned to prepare
graduate teaching assistants for college and uni-

versity teaching. Such a program should be designed

52

to gradually and systematically allow graduate
assistants to assume responsibility for teaching
as they demonstrate command Of the teaching-learning
process.

3. A program should be planned such that graduate
students who are committed to college teaching
could conveniently participate in the program
activities and be provided with adequate guidance
and supervision during their involvement in the

teaching-learning process as teaching assistants.

Because most of the current senior teaching faculty
have not indicated interest in teaching graduate teaching
assistants how to effectively teach at the college and
university level; because they themselves have come through
an educational system that did not necessarily prepare them
to become or be effective college teachers; and because they
may or may not themselves be effective college teachers; it
would seem most appropriate to have the responsibilities for
such a program delegated to person(s) who have demonstrated
concern for, interest, and expertise in the preparation Of
college and university teachers, supported by the depart-
ments and directly related to the disciplines of the

graduate assistants.

53

Such a program designed for graduate teaching
assistants would seemingly function most effectively and
efficiently if interested and competent faculty from each
discipline were utilized as consultants where and when it
was appropriate, and if it was designed as a central service
to all the departments within the university which use

graduate students as teachers.

Implications Of Survey Findings

 

Based on the data collection, the Inventory of
Teaching Styles was useful to graduate teaching assistants
in the Social Sciences and Humanities, perhaps because they
were already oriented to the idea of assessing their effec-
tiveness as college teachers and because many of them had
been given almost total responsibility for teaching
undergraduate courses.

Use Of the Inventory by graduate teaching assistants
in the Sciences and Mathematics was found not to be useful,
perhaps they had never been given sufficient duties and
responsibilities for teaching undergraduate courses and
had never been confronted with self—assessing how effective
they were as college teachers. In order for the Inventory
to be useful to this group, a program or seminar designed
to orient graduate teaching assistants to the importance of
teaching at the college and university level would need tO

be implemented.

54

Most Of the graduate teaching assistants included
in this study indicated when interviewed that after giving
thought to the Inventory, to the way they taught and to
the way their teaching had been represented, they began
to examine closely alternative methods Of presenting their
courses to the students based on their philOSOphies of
teaching or Of education.

The fourth category on the Inventory of Teaching
Styles--Student—Centered Teaching, Affective Approach--
should be revised to a Cognitive-Affective Approach,
basically because none Of the graduate teaching assistants
included in this study believed it related tO their teaching
practices. Indeed, there are probably very few teachers
who would subscribe to an entirely affective approach to
teaching.

Recommendations for the Application
of the Present Findings

 

 

Although restricted in nature, the findings Of this
survey could be of assistance in at least three areas of the
teaching profession. These three areas are:

1. Training programs for Doctor of Arts candidates;
2. Pre-service training programs for teaching
assistants;

3. Inservice training on college teaching.

 

55

The Inventory could be especially useful for D.A. candidates
who have committed themselves to a career in undergraduate
teaching; it may also be useful with graduate assistants in
confronting them with some of the choices about teaching,

in planning seminars, or in planning discussion on college

teaching.

 

   

APPENDICES

 

 

APPENDIX A

INVENTORY OF TEACHING STYLES

 
   

CONTENT

1.

APPENDIX A

INVENTORY OF TEACHING STYLES

The course content is chosen to be at once
interesting to the students and productive
of intellectual growth.

Course content is based upon the professor's
preferences and perceptions Of the discipline
and may include practical applications or
interrelations with other disciplines.

Content is necessary-~used to help students
to grow and confirm their status as adults.

The course content is determined by selecting
those concepts, methods, theories, or materials
which best present the discipline.

Other

 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONAL METHOD(S)

 

1.

2.

The instructional procedures reflect the
professor's personality and preferences.

By lectures and use of standard texts and
references, the professor systematically covers
the body of knowledge accepted by scholars in
the discipline.

Student discussions or dialogues supplemented
with lectures and explanations are used to
encourage students to think.

Methods emphasize group interaction to the end of
individual insight, acceptance, and develOpment.

Other

 

 

 

56

 

    

57

CLASSROOM SETTING

 

l.

2.

3.

Classroom atmosphere is highly informal,
encouraging student participation and full
expression Of feelings and concerns.

The professor dominates and develops the classroom
setting to his own liking.

The classroom setting tends to be formed with
emphasis on scholarly authority and Objectivity.

4. Classroom setting is somewhat relaxed,

5.

encouraging student participation and encouraging
them to become more analytical and logical in
their thinking.

Other

 

 

 

 

STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTION

 

l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Student-professor and student-student interactions
relate primarily to issues arising out Of course
content.

Student discussions and interactions are preferred
modes Of understanding in applying concepts and
principles.

Intensive group interactions are viewed as a
preferred mode Of learning.

Classroom discussions focus upon and clarify the
views expressed by the professor.

Other

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

ASSIGNMENTS

 

l.

2.

Assignments are largely self-determined and
self-imposed.

Assignments reflect the professor's personality
and preferences.

Assignments are designed to require and develop
cognitive abilities and to motivate the student
toward self-reliance and intellectual maturity.

All students are given the same or very similar
assignments tO be pursued through the text or
standard reference materials.

Other

 

 

 

 

OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATION

 

1.

2.

Students are judged and graded on specific items
of knowledge and standard ways of presenting it.

Students are judged and grading on the basis of
their ability to solve problems that require new
resources and strategies.

The professor judges and grades students on the
basis of their ability to imitate and reflect his
approaches, perspectives, conceptions, and
formulations.

Each student is encouraged to develop his or her
own standards and goals and evaluate accordingly.

Other

 

 

 

 

 

59

PROFESSORIAL SELF-IMAGE

 

l. The professor views his role as that of
encouraging students to think for themselves.

2. The professor radiates self-confidence and a
strong ego.

3. The professor views himself more as a counselor
and resource person than as a teacher.

4. Professor identifies closely with discipline and
especially with certain subphases or courses in
which he is the resident expert.

5. Other

 

 

 

 

STUDENTS

 

l. The professor views students as an audience and
a source of acolytes.

2. Students are all viewed as prospective majors
and graduate school prospects.

3. Students are regarded as individuals who must
become self-reliant and who will use their
knowledge in ways not predictable by the
professor.

4. Students are viewed as individual who must
understand themselves and accept full respon—
sibility for their own behavior and goals.

The cognitive emphasis may be conjoined with a
recognition that affect Often directs and controls
cognition. Affect then is to be recognized and
brought under control to achieve fully rational
behavior.

5. Other

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

 

 

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

Your Sex
Male

Female

 

Your Discipline and Major Area Of teaching
responsibility.

Discipline:

 

Major Area:

 

What type Of formal training have you received to teach
at the college level?

 

 

 

 

What type of informal training have you received at the
college level?

 

 

 

 

How long have you been teaching at the college level?

 

 

 

 

What criteria do you use in selecting course content?

 

 

60

10.

11.

12.

61

What methods of instruction do you use in your class(es)?

 

 

 

 

What kind Of climate do your class(es) have, i.e.,
emotion—free, relaxed, formal, informal?

 

 

 

How do your students interact with you in the classroom?

 

 

 

How do your students interact with each other in the
classroom?

 

 

 

What are the purposes underlying assignments in your
class, i.e., why do you give assignments?

 

 

 

 

What criteria do you use to evaluate students in your
class(es)?

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

DEFINITIONS

 

 

APPENDIX C

DEFINITIONS

Discipline-Centered Teaching: (The content and structure of

 

the discipline are rigidly emphasized and cannot
(should not) be re-arranged tO meet the requirements,
needs, or special conditions Of the teacher or
learner.

Instructor-Centered Teaching: The teacher is the expert and

 

the main source Of knowledge in the subject matter
or discipline for the student. Both subject matter
and student are expected to be adjusted to the
instructor, who is the focal point Of wisdom in

the teaching-learning process.

Student-Centered Teaching (Cognitive Approach): The

 

intellectual development Of the student is held

to be the most important element in the teaching-

learning process. Both content and teacher should
be adjusted to accommodate the cognitive growth of
the student.

Student-Centered Teaching (Affective Approach): The

 

personality and intellectual development Of the
student is considered to be the important element

in the teaching-learning process. Both subject
matter and teacher should be adjusted to accommodate
the total development Of the student. The student
should not be expected to adapt to the other two
elements in the teaching—learning process.

62

APPENDIX D

MATRIX OF TEACHING STYLES

 

 

 

63

 

.u0e>onon

anneauou endow o>oanoo ou Houunoo Hound unosoun one oowwnuoOou on
ou we .nonu uoouun .nofiuwnmoo maouunoo can mucouec nouuo uoouuo
umnu nowuaanUou m nod: counHOnaoo on was memonmao o>wuenuoo one

 

maoom Una H0w>onon :30
neon» u0u huwawnAmnommou Hana
umoooo Una mo>aomeonu ocean

Monmououmionu an oammuoavoum
van was: Ge ouwodzonx neon»
on: aae3 on: can unannoulwaom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:uovns onus on: mamsce>wunfi ofiooon umsfi on: maoscw>wvnw ooudOm a can oonowvso no no can nachos o>euoommoum munoosum
no vozofl> one mucousum mo docummou one munovsum munouflum msoa> Hammououm one no oosow> Ham ouo munocsum
uuomwo umwowmou
nonooou a onu me on nofin3 an mouudoo
no menu nomuom oouaowou mo>HomEonu you xnwnu 00 no mononmndm :Houuoo nae: omoaulwaom
can Hoaomnsoo a mo ouoa mucousum mnemousoono mo uonu omo mnouum M can oonokunoo >HHMM0ommo can onwamfiomev nuns moauommououm
maomawn mzoa> Howmououm one no oHou man maoe> Monmououm one nwaom mouaauou uOmmououm one eaomoao mowmwunoow nommowoum
mmmwummmwuou vmmi.onOwamOnoo
hamnwvuoooo ouosdd>o mowmouuuum one ooouaooou so: .mo>auoommuom .monoooummo men we mnowuonao>o
can madam Ono ovuovnoua ouwsvou umnu maoanoum o>aoo ou uooawou one ououfiaw cu aueawno oceanoooum no who: vuounouo 0nd one
:30 non no men moao>ov ou unwauno unonu we wanna onu no uwonu no owmon onu no munoozum oovoasonx uo maouw oauwoomm no mo>wuoonno
vomousoono ow unovauo noon wovoum can voonan ouo mucousum novmum can moons“ hammououm one vooouo one coupon out munocaum
Nwausuofi Hoauooaaouna can mamauoumfi
ounmwaouluaom ouozou unovsum oonouowou ouocnouo no axon on»
. vomomsa onu ouo>euos ou one mofluaawno moonouomoua and nosounu nonmudm on o» munoa
luaon can vonwahouovluaoo o>au«nuoo moao>ov 0nd ouwsvou hueaonoouom o.u0mmououm Inuwomm unawadm >Ho> no osom nunoanoenud
muouuoa oum ounoanmeomn on donoemot ouo munoanuwmnn on» uooauou munoflnuwoon on» no>wu oud munocsum Add
moamaonwum omMImmmwonou unounoo omHsoo no use
noduoououna
oanuooH we once onwaammo one unannoumuovn: Hammououm on» an commoumxo mnfimeuo moammfi ou maeudaaum . auasoow
wouuououm o no cozow> own no mouoa wouuououm oum mnowuoo m3ow> onu emuuoau can com: ouoaou mnowuoououna unouaum
oceanouuounw macho o>wmnoune Iuounw one unawmusomac unovsum macaw mnowmmsomev sooummoau lunovsum Una nommomoumuunouaum tunooaum
9.3:?» has... 5 13mg can
onuoonoo can ouneaoou «0 coin Hooeueaond once oaooon ou aonu >ua>fluoonno
Imoumxo HHflw 0nd noeummwowuumm onwooudoono 6:0 coaunmwoeuuom weaned :30 man on can euwuonuao >&Hoaonoo no mnduuom
unovsum unamousoono .Hoauounw unousum mnemonsoono voxdaou unauuoo sooumomao on» mmoao>ou meoonmao nae: vosHOM on on Economoao
xanmun ma ouonmmosno Economoao uan3osOm me unauuom aoouoomau find moumnwsoc “ammououm one mono» onwuuom acoummoao one
ocwdmwomwo onu cw muaaonom an
wnoanoao>oc can oonoumooom nanny ou mucousum omouaoono woumoooo omvoasonx mo econ onu
.unmamnw ausvw>wvna mo 0» wood ohm mnOHuononxo ooonouowoum one auwaanmuom ouo>oO eaaoOHuoaouwem nemmomoum
vno on» O» coauouuouna Ono mounuooa nun: uounoaodmmam m.u0muowoum onu uoonwou on» .moonououou one muxou cannot
msoum onwmmnmeo moonuo: monooawwv Ho noflmmaomuo unovzum mousvoooum HonoMuushumnH one UHMOnMUm no on: can mouduooa an
monwamwomwo Honuo nun)
mnowuoaouuouna Ho mnofluoowammu
nusouu Hmsuooaaouna mo Hoowuuoum otnaonw has can onHHmflomHu onu unomoum noon nown3
nuance mm osuuum Neon» auaunoo o>fiuosuoum 0nd munovsum onu oneamwomwt onu no mnofiumoouom maowuouma no .mofiuoonu .moonuoa
can scan cu munovsum maon on on mneumouoUCA oono an on ou can moonouououm m.u0mmowoum onu .oumoonou omonu unwuooaom an unounoo
oooauuhuovnooom we ucounou comono ma unounoO omusou one com: woman on unounoo omnaoo confiauouoo me unounoo ouoaaoo one ownsoo
Anunommmd m>Heommh¢V Amonommmn m>Hequouv quzonme QmmmezmoumoeoamewzH oanonme ommmeszImanmHUmHo wezmzomzoo

UZHSU‘HB Dmmmezmolezmnbem

 

UZHIUde DmmmBZWUIBzmQDBm

 

 

 

 

mmAMBm UZHZUde ho meedt

Q XHszmmfl

 

APPENDIX E

OBSERVATION INVENTORY

   
 

APPENDIX E

OBSERVATION INVENTORY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Code No. Discipline
Class Title or Number
Day Visited Class Time
Room No. Location
CONTENT
1. Focus of the learning unit was on principles,

theories, and methods characteristic of the
discipline. Comments:

 

 

Focus of the learning reflected the professor's
personal choices, preferences, and perceptions of
the discipline. (The professor uses phrases such
as "I suggest," "I prefer," "My interpretation of,"
to indicate his preferences.) Comments:

 

 

Focus was on both content and the students; students
were encouraged and allowed to indicate and pursue
their interest within the boundaries of the content
area. Comments:

 

 

Focus was primarily on the students—-content was
secondary--used primarily to encourage student
involvement and student feedback. Comments:

 

 

64

65

METHOD OF INSTRUCTION

 

1.

Method of instruction utilized was primarily
lectures from notes and the standard texts.
Comments:

 

 

 

 

The method of instruction was based primarily on
the professor's personal point of view. (Consider
various statements that the professor makes, such
as: "I" or "my"; the way he shifts his approach
or technique with students.) Comments:

 

 

 

 

The method of instruction was by way Of discussion

sessions or dialogues or mini lectures and explana-
tions which were used to encourage the students to

participate in the classroom. Comments:

 

 

 

 

The method of instruction was by way of discussion
sessions led by the students allowing the professor
to participate. Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

66

CLASSROOM SETTING

 

l.

The atmosphere in the class was emotion-free with
emphasis on scholarly Objectivity. (There was no
emotional involvement displayed by students and
teacher.) Comments:

 

 

 

 

The atmosphere in the class was such that the
professor assumed a dominant role or position.
(Students were not encouraged to become involved
in the presentation or discussion, or they did_ngt
become involved.) Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

The atmosphere in the class was somewhat relaxed.
Students were encouraged to participate in the
discussion sessions, and use their ability to
think analytically, and to keep to the subject.
Comments:

 

 

 

 

The atmosphere in the class was highly informal and
encouraged students to direct the class activities
and behavior. Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

STUDENT

l.

67

INTERACTION WITH PROFESSOR

The professor, although not unfriendly, did not
relate personally to the students. Comments:

 

 

 

 

The professor was sensitive to student interest and
involvement with the subject matter but restricted
questions to the assigned content. Comments:

 

 

 

 

The professor encouraged students to determine the
nature and depth of the analysis of the subject
matter; emphasis was on clarifying and analyzing
the topics at hand. Comments:

 

 

 

 

The professor interacted informally with students.
Often they referred to each other on first name
basis. He showed little concern for coverage or
integration of knowledge, or closure. Comments:

 

 

 

 

68

STUDENT INTERACTION WITH EACH OTHER

1.

If students interacted with each other, they did
so before and after class, not during the class.

Comments:

 

 

 

 

Students were not encouraged to work together,
though they might. Comments:

 

 

 

 

Students were encouraged to exchange ideas, to
stimulate each other's thinking; with the instruc-
tor and with other student participants in the
instructor-led discussion. Comments:

 

 

 

 

Students interact with each other informally and in
groups. Comments:

 

 

 

 

    

 

69

ASSIGNMENTS

 

1.

The assignment was highly structured and designed
to help students learn the principles, theories,
and methods identified in the lecture. Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

Assignments were designed by the professor to
encourage application, analysis, and integration
of knowledge in the discipline. (Directions or
other comments made about assignment will indicate
this notion.) Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

The assignment was planned to engage the interest
of the students, appeal to their curiosity, and to
cultivate within them the desire to move towards
intellectual maturity. (Students' attendance,
facial expressions, etc., should indicate whether
assignment is interesting. Assignment encourages
the students to engage in activities that will
require them to apply what they have learned in
the classroom.) Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

Only general assignments were given. Students
were encouraged to continue working towards
self—develOpment. Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

  
 
  
 
  
 
 

70

EVALUATION (Should ask for course outline to verify

 

1.

this category.)

Evaluation was by way of formal examination,
quizzes or tests that require mastery Of the
body Of knowledge presented. Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation was by way Of examinations that required

the students to demonstrate their ability to apply,

analyze, and integrate the body of material that was
presented--discouraged rote learning. Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation was by way of classroom participation,

-papers, and examinations, the focus of which was

on their ability to utilize a variety of sources
in a number of learning activities. Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation was based on their classroom participa-
tion and other affective gains such as attitude,
behavior, etc. Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adelson, Joseph. "The Teacher as Model." The American
Scholar 30 (1961): 395-398, 400-401.

 

Axelrod, Joseph. The University Teacher as Artist.
San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1973.

 

Berleson, Bernard. Graduate Education in the United States.
New York: McGraw-Hill, I960.

 

Chase, J. L. "Graduate Teaching Assistants in American
Universities: A Review of Recent Trends and Recommen-
dations." A Report issued by the Office of Education,
U.S. Department Of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970.

Clark, Mildred L. "An Exploratory Study of Graduate
Assistantship and Assessment of the Value of These
Assistantships for Beginning College Teaching."
Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1963.

Combs, Arthur W. The Professional Education of Teachers:
A Perceptual View of Teacher Preparation. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, 1965.

 

 

Daflucas, C. G. "Development of a Checklist of Selected
Activities Judged by Value in Preparing University
Teachers and Their Relationship to Teaching Effective-
ness as Measured by the Purdue Rating Scale for
Instruction." Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State
University, 1974.

Dressel, Paul L., and Mary M. Thompson. College Teaching
by Degrees. Iowa City: The American College Testing
Program, 1973.

 

 

Dunham, E. A. "Rx for Higher Education: The Doctor of Arts
Degree." Journal of Higher Education 41 (1971): 505-515.

 

Ebel, Kenneth. The Recognition and Evaluation Of Teaching,
The Project to Improve College Teaching. Salt Lake City,
Utah, 1971.

 

 

71

 

 

72

Finger, Frank W. Professional Problems: Preparation for
a Career in College Teaching. Washington, D.C.: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington
University, April 1970. ~

 

Heiss, A. M. "The Preparation Of College and University
Teachers." A Report issued by the Center for Research
and Development in Higher Education. Berkeley, Calif.:
University of California, 1968. (ERIC Ed 029 844.)

. Challenges to Graduate Schools. San Francisco:
Jossey—Bass, 1970.

 

 

Koen, F., and S. Ericksen. "An Analysis Of the More
Successful Programs for the Recruitment and Training
of College Teachers." A Final Report issued by the

Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. Ann
Arbor: The University Of Michigan, 1967. (ERIC
Ed 101 556.)

Mann, Richard, and others. The College Classroom: Conflict,
Change, and Learning. New York: Wiley, 1970.

 

Maslow, Abraham H. The Farther Reaches of Human Nature.
New York: Viking, 1971.

Mayhew, Lewis B. Innovation in Collegiate Instruction,
Strategies for Change. Atlanta, Ga.: Southern
Regional Education Board, 1968.

 

 

. Reform in Graduate Education. Monograph 18.
Atlanta, Ga.: Southern ReglOnal Education Board, 1972.

McKeachie, Wilbert. "Research on Teaching at the College
and University Level." Chapter 23 in N. L. Gage (ed.).
Handbook Of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1963.

 

Nowliss, B., K. E. Clark and M. Rock. The Graduate Student
as Teacher. Washington, D.C.: AmeflCan Council on
Education, 1968.

 

Rogers, Carl R. Freedom to Learn. Columbus, Ohio:
Merrill, 1969.

University of Michigan. "Memo to the Faculty“ 45 (1971): 2.

 

 

 

A A "—Ir.

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
WWIIHIllllHlWIUHIHWllWHlWllHlllHHll
31293102092024