- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Impact of high-intensity training with a mixed-reality simulator on graduate teaching assistants use of questioning

Constance M. Doty1, Ashley A. Geraets2, Tong Wan1, Christopher A. Nix2, Erin K. H. Saitta2, and Jacquelyn J. Chini1,*

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Central Florida, 4111 Libra Drive, Orlando, Florida 32816, USA
  • 2Department of Chemistry, University of Central Florida, 4111 Libra Drive, Orlando, Florida 32816, USA

  • *Corresponding author. jchini@ucf.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020101 – Published 5 July, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.19.020101

Abstract

Physics graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) are tasked with multifaceted teaching assignments, such as leading tutorials and inquiry-based laboratories, yet their professional development rarely includes opportunities to rehearse complex pedagogical skills or receive feedback on their teaching. In this study, physics GTAs practiced specific pedagogical skills during four sessions in a mixed-reality classroom simulator; here, we focus on GTAs’ use of a specific questioning strategy called “Stretch-It.” GTAs can apply Stretch-It by asking students to explain their logic (Explain Logic), either by explaining their work or providing evidence for their claim; or by asking students to take the content further (Follow-Up), either by applying it in an analogous situation or answering the initial question in another way. We found GTAs used all four types of Stretch-It subcategories during simulator sessions that incorporated facilitator feedback about their use of questioning. We also compared the use of Stretch-It questioning in the classroom for a pretraining semester cohort and the high-intensity simulator training cohort and found that the high-intensity cohort’s average use of Explain Logic questions in the observation immediately following the Stretch-It rehearsal was meaningfully higher than the pretraining cohort’s average use of Explain Logic. However, the high-intensity cohort’s use of Explain Logic is unstable, and values fall back within the pretraining average in subsequent classroom observations. We did not find a significant difference between the cohorts’ use of Follow-Up. We discuss the implications of our findings for science, technology, engineering, and medicine GTA professional development and the significance of providing feedback to GTAs about their teaching.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (70)

  1. S. Freeman, S. L. Eddy, M. McDonough, M. K. Smith, N. Okoroafor, H. Jordt, and M. P. Wenderoth, Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, 8410 (2014).
  2. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Report to the president, Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Washington DC, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf 2012.
  3. J. A. Luft, J. P. Kurdziel, G. H. Roehrig, and J. Turner, Growing a garden without water: Graduate teaching assistants in introductory science laboratories at a doctoral/research university, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 211 (2004).
  4. G. Harris, J. Froman, and J. Surles, The professional development of graduate mathematics teaching assistants, Int. J. Math. Educ. Sci. Technol. 40, 157 (2009).
  5. T. D. Reeves, L. E. Hake, X. Chen, J. Frederick, K. Rudenga, L. H. Ludlow, and C. M. O’Connor, Does context matter? Convergent and divergent findings in the cross-institutional evaluation of graduate teaching assistant professional development programs, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, ar8 (2018).
  6. D. Lemov, Teach Like a Champion: 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2010), pp. 41–47.
  7. J. B. Stang and I. Roll, Interactions between teaching assistants and students boost engagement in physics labs, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 10, 020117 (2014).
  8. K. M. Koenig, R. J. Endorf, and G. A. Braun, Effectiveness of different tutorial recitation teaching methods and its implications for TA training, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 3, 010104 (2007).
  9. E. C. Goodwin, J. N. Cao, M. Fletcher, J. L. Flaiban, and E. E. Shortlidge, Catching the wave: Are biology graduate students on board with evidence-based teaching?, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 17, ar43 (2018).
  10. R. M. Goertzen, R. E. Scherr, and A. Elby, Respecting tutorial instructors’ beliefs and experiences: A case study of a physics teaching assistant, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020125 (2010).
  11. E. A. West, C. A. Paul, D. Webb, and W. H. Potter, Variation of instructor-student interactions in an introductory interactive physics course, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 9, 010109 (2013).
  12. C. Henderson, M. Dancy, and M. Niewiadomska-Bugaj, Use of research-based instructional strategies in introductory physics: Where do faculty leave the innovation-decision process?, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 8, 020104 (2012).
  13. M. Stains and T. Vickrey, Fidelity of implementation: An overlooked yet critical construct to establish effectiveness of evidence-based instructional practices, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 16, rm1 (2017).
  14. T. M. Andrews, M. J. Leonard, C. A. Colgrove, and S. T. Kalinowski, Active learning not associated with student learning in a random sample of college biology courses, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 10, 394 (2011).
  15. S. Sandi-Urena and T. Gatlin, Factors contributing to the development of graduate teaching assistant self-image, J. Chem. Educ. 90, 1303 (2013).
  16. T. D. Reeves, G. Marbach-Ad, K. R. Miller, J. Ridgway, G. E. Gardner, E. E. Schussler, and E. W. Wischusen, A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 15, es2 (2016).
  17. S. W. Lee, The impact of a pedagogy course on the teaching beliefs of inexperienced graduate teaching assistants, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 18, ar5 (2019).
  18. G. E. Gardner and M. G. Jones, Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate teaching assistant: Challenges and implications, Sci. Educ. 20, 31 (2011).
  19. T. Pentecost, L. Langdon, M. Asirvatham, H. Robus, and R. Parson, Graduate teaching assistant training that fosters student-centered instruction and professional development, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 41, 68 (2012).
  20. L. B. Wheeler, J. L. Maeng, and B. A. Whitworth, Teaching assistants’ perceptions of a training to support an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory course, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 16, 824 (2015).
  21. E. E. Schussler, Q. Read, G. Marbach-Ad, K. Miller, and M. Ferzli, Preparing biology graduate teaching assistants for their roles as instructors: An assessment of institutional approaches, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 14, ar31 (2015).
  22. E. Etkina, Pedagogical content knowledge and preparation of high school physics teachers, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 020110 (2010).
  23. D. Doucette, R. Clark, and C. Singh, Professional development combining cognitive apprenticeship and expectancy-value theories improves lab teaching assistants’ instructional views and practices, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 020102 (2020).
  24. M. Wilcox, Y. Yang, and J. J. Chini, Quicker method for assessing influences on teaching assistant buy-in and practices in reformed courses, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 020123 (2016).
  25. K. A. Ericsson, R. T. Krampe, and C. Tesch-Romer, The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance, Psychol. Rev. 100, 363 (1993).
  26. A. Remesh, Microteaching, an efficient technique for learning effective teaching, J. Res. Med. Sci. 18, 158 (2013).
  27. Z. Arsal, Microteaching and pre-service teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching, Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 37, 453 (2014).
  28. M. M. Richard, The impact of micro teaching lessons on teacher professional skills: Some reflections from South African student teachers, Int. J. Teach. Learn. Higher Educ. 10, 164 (2021).
  29. M. L. Fernández, Learning through microteaching lesson study in teacher preparation, Action Teach. Educ. 26, 37 (2005).
  30. M. L. Fernandez and M. Robinson, Prospective teachers’ perspectives on microteaching lesson study, Education 127, 203 (2007).
  31. E. Alicea-Muñoz, Transforming the Preparation of Physics Graduate Teaching Assistants, Doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2019.
  32. E. A. Becker, E. J. Easlon, S. C. Potter, A. Guzman-Alvarez, J. M. Spear, M. T. Facciotti, M. M. Igo, M. Singer, and C. Pagliarulo, The effects of practice-based training on graduate teaching assistants’ classroom practices, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 16, ar58 (2017).
  33. J. S. Brown, A. Collins, and P. Duguid, Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educ. Res. 18, 32 (1989).
  34. K. Kunkler, The role of medical simulation: An overview, Int. J. Med. Robot 2, 203 (2006).
  35. G. Sroka, L. S. Feldman, M. C. Vassiliou, P. A. Kaneva, R. Fayez, and G. M. Fried, Fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery simulator training to proficiency improves laparoscopic performance in the operating room—a randomized controlled trial, American Journal of orthodontics and oral surgery 199, 115 (2010).
  36. G. Echegaray, I. Herrera, I. Aguinaga, C. Buchart, and D. Borro, A brain surgery simulator, IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 34, 12 (2014).
  37. R. T. Hays, J. W. Jacobs, C. Prince, and E. Salas, Flight simulator training effectiveness: A meta-analysis, Mil. Psychol. 4, 63 (1992).
  38. K. Perkins, W. Adams, M. Dubson, N. Finkelstein, S. Reid, C. Wieman, and R. LeMaster, PhET: Interactive simulations for teaching and learning physics, Phys. Teach. 44, 18 (2006).
  39. C. E. Wieman, W. K. Adams, P. Loeblein, and K. K. Perkins, Teaching physics using PhET simulations, Phys. Teach. 48, 225 (2010).
  40. C. He and C. Yan, Exploring authenticity of microteaching in pre-service teacher education programmes, Teach. Teach. Educ. 22, 291 (2011).
  41. A. H. Brown, Simulated classrooms and artificial students: The potential effects of new technologies on teacher education, J. Res. Comput. Educ. 32, 307 (1999).
  42. L. A. Dieker, C. L. Straub, C. E. Hughes, M. C. Hynes, and S. Hardin, Learning from virtual students, Educ. Leadership 71, 54 (2014), https://www.learntechlib.org/p/153594/.
  43. A. T. Hayes, C. L. Straub, L. A. Dieker, C. E. Hughes, and M. C. Hynes, Ludic learning: Exploration of TLE TeachLivE™ and effective teacher training, Int. J. Gaming Comput. Mediated Simul. 5, 20 (2013).
  44. J. J. Chini, C. L. Straub, and K. H. Thomas, Learning from avatars: Learning assistants practice physics pedagogy in a classroom simulator, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 12, 010117 (2016).
  45. T. Wan, C. M. Doty, A. A. Geraets, C. A. Nix, E. K. Saitta, and J. J. Chini, Evaluating the impact of a classroom simulator training on graduate teaching assistants’ instructional practices and undergraduate student learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010146 (2021).
  46. A. Geraets, Developing GTA instructional skills: How does a mixed reality teaching simulator Impact GTA Instruction?, Doctoral dissertation, University of Central Florida, 2021.
  47. K. D. Tanner, Structure matters: twenty-one teaching strategies to promote student engagement and cultivate classroom equity, CBE Life Sci. Educ. 12, 322 (2013).
  48. J. Dunlosky, K. A. Rawson, E. J. Marsh, M. J. Nathan, and D. T. Willingham, Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology, Psychol. Sci. Publ. Interest 14, 4 (2013).
  49. L. B. Wheeler, J. L. Maeng, J. L. Chiu, and R. L. Bell, Do teaching assistants matter? Investigating relationships between teaching assistants and student outcomes in undergraduate science laboratory classes, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 463 (2017).
  50. D. F. Feldon, J. Peugh, B. E. Timmerman, M. A. Maher, M. Hurst, D. Strickland, J. A. Gilmore, and C. Stiegelmeyer, Graduate students’ teaching experiences improve their methodological research skills, Science 333, 1037 (2011).
  51. W. Carr and S. Kemmis, Becoming Critical: Education, Knowledge and Action Research 2nd ed. (Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria, Australia, 1986).
  52. J. M. Case and G. Light, Emerging methodologies in engineering education research, J. Eng. Educ. 100, 186 (2011).
  53. A. A. Geraets, I. L. Nottolini, C. M. Doty, T. Wan, J. J. Chini, and E. K. Saitta, Preparing GTAs for active learning in the general chemistry lab: Development of an evidence-based rehearsal module for a mixed-reality teaching simulator, J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 30, 829 (2021).
  54. J. J. Chini and J. W. T. Pond, Comparing traditional and studio courses through FCI gains and losses, Proceedings of the Physics Education Research, 2014, Minneapolis, MN (2014), http://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2014.pr.009.
  55. A. Elby, R. E. Scherr, T. McCaskey, R. Hodges, E. F. Redish, D. Hammer, and T. Bing, Open Source Tutorials in Physics Sensemaking: Suite I (2007), https://www .physport.org/curricula/MD_OST/.
  56. E. Etkina and A. Van Heuvelen, in PER-Based Reforms in Calculus-Based Physics, edited by E. F. Redish and P. Cooney (American Association of Physics Teachers, College Park, MD, 2007), Vol. 1, pp. 1–48.

  57. We use the term “high-intensity” to differentiate between other iterations of the simulator training described in our previous work [45, 46, 53].

  58. N. G. Holmes, C. E. Wieman, and D. Bonn, Teaching critical thinking, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11199 (2015).

  59. We used this activity because it focuses on drawing conclusions from evidence (i.e., measurement data) which provides ample opportunities for GTAs to implement Stretch-It questions, and we intend to recruit GTAs who teach with different curricula in future work.

  60. J. Creswell and C. Poth, Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design 4th ed. (Sage Publications, Inc, Los Angeles, CA, 2018).
  61. K. Gwet, Kappa statistic is not satisfactory for assessing the extent of agreement between raters, Stat. Methods Inter-Rater Reliab. Assess. 1, 1 (2002).
  62. K. L. Gwet, Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability: The Definitive Guide to Measuring the Extent of Agreement Among Raters (Advanced Analytics, Gaithersburg, 2014), 4th ed., Vo1. 1, pp. 104–107.
  63. J. B. Velasco, A. Knedeisen, D. Xue, T. L. Vickrey, M. Abebe, and M. Stains, Characterizing instructional practices in the laboratory: The laboratory observation protocol for undergraduate STEM, J. Chem. Educ. 93, 1191 (2016).

  64. We observed two GTAs in Fall 2018 teaching the same lesson twice and thus have taken the average of the two observations as one observation.

  65. J. L. Hintze and R. D. Nelson, Violin plots: A box plot-density trace synergism, Am. Stat. 52, 181 (1998).
  66. RStudio Team, RStudio: Integrated Development for R. RStudio (PBC, Boston, MA 2022). http://www.rstudio.com/.
  67. H. Wickham, ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Spring-Verlag, New York, 2016).

  68. Periscope video lessons available to physics instructors at physport.org/periscope.

  69. J. D. Gaffney, A. L. H. Gaffney, and R. J. Beichner, Do they see it coming? Using expectancy violation to gauge the success of pedagogical reforms, Phys. Rev. ST Phys. Educ. Res. 6, 010102 (2010).
  70. E. K. Saitta, M. Wilcox, W. D. James, and J. J. Chini, The views of GTAs impacted by cross-tiered professional development: Messages intended and received, Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Educ. 6, 421 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 19, 020101– Published 5 July, 2023
  • Received 30 March 2022
  • Revised 28 March 2023
  • Accepted 30 May 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation