Journal of Learning and Teaching

2012 Series: Paper 4

Introduction

The role of a teaching assistant is essentially to provide support

for students in the learning environment. The tasks of teaching

assistants predominantly consist of providing individual support

to students with specific needs, however the role has extended to

encompass work that involves whole class, group and individual

work that supports more inclusive approaches to teaching and

learning (Burgess and Mayes, 2009). The use of teaching support

is widespread in England, particularly in primary schools for which

in 2000 there was a full-time support staff employee for every 2.7

teachers (Cremin, Thomas and Vincett, 2003). Furthermore, many

individuals across the educational field, reportedly up to fifty per

cent of employees in some faculties (Mueller et al., 1997), have

worked in a teaching assistant, or teaching support, capacity

at some stage in their career. Whilst the presence of teaching

assistants has become commonplace in schools, in higher

education institutes associate lecturers are being employed to fulfil

various roles and responsibilities that are comparable to that of a

teaching assistant. Teaching assistants are often individuals who

are experienced learners but also neophyte teachers and so they

can provide some useful insight into both teaching and learning

processes, yet they remain an understudied group (Helland, 2010;

Luo, Grady and Bellows, 2001). The current discussion will focus on

my experiences of employment as an associate lecturer at a higher

education institute during which I assisted with teaching sessions.

I will consider whether the role of the associate lecturer can be

perceived as an important stage in pedagogical development

as it provides a unique platform to both gain experience whilst

working with students, yet equally observe the interactions of the

The Role of a Teaching Assistant: Effective Practice for Student Learning and for Developing as a Teacher?

lead lecturer. As a novice to teaching I will reflect on whether I felt I

contributed to the students’ learning experience and also whether

working as an associate lecturer has impacted my own approach

or philosophy towards both teaching and learning.

Before discussing my experiences it is important to put the

teaching into context. I was employed as an associate lecturer at a

university institute and worked on research methods and statistics’

modules for courses in the department of sport and exercise

science. Having recently graduated from the same institute, in a

Masters in sport and exercise psychology, I was familiar with the

teaching environment, staff and, to an extent, the content. The

sessions I assisted with involved working with students from a

variety of sports-based courses, including first year, second year

and masters’ students, during computer practical sessions. My

primary role during these sessions was to provide support to

students whilst using statistical computer software. The support

was required as the sessions could include up to thirty students

at one time, many of whom were novices to the software and

therefore two working staff were required to provide enough

support for an entire group. These experiences will be discussed

as two distinct but interrelated sections; interaction with the

lecturer, and interaction with the students.

Interaction with the Lecturer

When reflecting on my interaction with the lead lecturer, the

questions I consider are; did working with the lecturer impact

my own approach to teaching? What was my role during the

sessions? Did our collaborative teamwork enhance the students’

learning? Or perhaps, did we even work collaboratively? I was

Abstract

In this paper I consider whether the role of a teaching assistant can be important for both teaching support and for individual learning and

development. Reflecting on my own experiences of working as a teaching assistant I discuss whether I positively impacted student learning,

but equally if I have personally developed in my capacity to teach and work collaboratively with students. Fundamental to the discussion is the

notion that both my relationship and communication with the teacher and with the students will impact the effectiveness of my practice and

ultimately the students’ learning. Examples of approaches and strategies experienced are discussed, such as a room management strategy

derived from Cremin et al. (2003)’s model for teacher and teaching assistant collaborative teamwork. The discussion provides an insight into

the impacts of working in this role, and considers whether it may be important for the initial stages of the pedagogical process.

Eamon Grimes, Sport and Exercise Science

Journal of Learning and Teaching

2012 Series: Paper 4

working with two lecturers who were teaching content from the

same modules and although the learning objectives were the

same the differences between their sessions, and distinct teaching

styles, quickly became apparent. For example, during my first

session the lecturer announced to the students that lecture slides

would not be provided throughout the module and insisted that

the students should take notes. The rationale behind this strategy

was that it encouraged students to listen as they would not be

dependent on lecture notes being provided to them. In the second

session, on the same module, I assisted with a different lecturer.

This lecturer advised the students that they should not take notes

whilst the lecturer spoke, as the lecture slides would be available

electronically following the session. The rationale was that the

lecturer didn’t want the students to be concentrating on writing, but

instead to pay full attention and listen. These were two completely

different, almost conflicting, approaches to achieve the same

goal. So, which lecturer was using the correct strategy? I soon

realised that the teachers were using approaches and strategies

that were fundamental to their own teaching styles and that

there isn’t necessarily a single, or correct, approach to teaching.

Therefore, I found myself in a unique situation where I could

observe and interact with two different approaches to teaching,

using a varieties of strategies, yet also experience the impacts

these approaches had on students’ learning. Rowland and Hatch

(2007) discuss their accounts of working as associate lecturers

during the early stages of their academic career and notably the

inspiration of fellow colleagues, through the acquisition of their

ideals and knowledge, were fundamental to developing their own

philosophy of education. I share this view and can relate to the

beneficiaries of working alongside lecturers, or colleagues, with

different approaches.

In terms of my role and interaction with the lecturer in the classroom,

there were times in the earlier sessions when I was not entirely

confident of my role. On reflection I would attribute this to some

initial nervousness and lack of confidence in assisting the students

but also I was working with two different teachers on different

modules with a variety of student groups so my working patterns

varied. Although no formal teamwork strategy was discussed

in terms of the dynamics of the sessions (as I did not receive

specific instruction of what to do and when), I can relate some

of my experiences to the room management strategy proposed

in Cremin et al. (2003)’s model for teacher and teaching assistant

collaborative teamwork. In this model there are three roles to

consider for room management to provide support throughout the

group, these are; individual helper, mover and activity manager.

During the sessions I took the role of individual helper and mover,

whereas the teacher was predominantly the activity manager. The

teacher would introduce an activity to the whole group, provide

a group demonstration if needed and then provide the students

with tasks to complete. Throughout this my role would be to move

around the room and provide individual support where needed,

and similarly following the group demonstration the teacher would

assume the role of mover and individual helper for the students.

However, the teacher remained in control of the activities, and

decided on timings and when to conclude an activity. Therefore

we did not experience a clash with role clarity, which was found

by Cremin et al. (2003) when assistants took the role of activity

manager. In reflecting on the use of room management, it was an

effective strategy that would allow the lead teacher to address the

whole group, whilst individuals who encountered difficulties could

be supported without overall group disruption. Similarly once the

groups worked on tasks independently it was important to have

two movers to provide individualised help across the whole group,

as this would be a time consuming task for one person. Therefore,

I felt with the lead lecturer this was a collaborative and effective

approach for enhancing the students’ learning experience as

a whole group but also allowing individualised support where

needed.

Interaction with the Students

From my experiences of working with first year, second year and

Masters’ level students from different courses I feel it is appropriate

to consider the students as two groups; undergraduate and

postgraduate. My role in the classroom was to provide support

to the students during activities, yet I did not feel effective during

the first few sessions when working with either undergraduate or

postgraduate students. I often found myself wandering the room

monitoring for any indication of helplessness from the students,

or for an arm to be raised or question to be heard, and yet there

were times when I would have no interaction with students for

up to ten or fifteen minutes. When reflecting on this, and with

some advice from the lecturer, I realised this was related to the

students’ confidence in me. It was noticeable that students would

reserve their question until the lead lecturer was nearby, and this

was a clear indication that the student would prefer to talk to the

lecturer rather than me. To overcome this communication obstacle

Journal of Learning and Teaching

2012 Series: Paper 4

I decided to simply talk to and familiarise with students more

often, or just proceed to asking a student if they needed help, or

how they were getting on, rather than wait for them to instigate an

interaction. Once I overcame this communication barrier, I began

to develop a working relationship with the students.

I have considered my interactions with the students and thought in

depth about my role in providing support. The support I provided

was either knowledge of how to use the computer software or

of the theory and logic behind the statistical activity the students

were taking part in. I believe my role in providing this support

can be likened to a scaffolding strategy based on Vygotsky’s

sociocultural theory (van der Stuyf, 2002). The theory is based

around the zone of proximal development; which is the distance

between what the student can achieve independently and what

the student can achieve with appropriate support. The scaffolding

strategy proposes support, or scaffolding, is provided to learners

to facilitate development through internalising new information,

and that consequently after internalisation of the new information

a student will become independent and ready to move onto the

next level of understanding (van der Stuyf, 2002). The zone of

proximal development is a balance between the difficulty of the

challenge being set and the competence of the student. There is

a risk of the student becoming bored in situations where they are

un-challenged as they are already competent and knowledgeable,

or anxious in situations where they are over-challenged and feel

incompetent.

Figure 1. Based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory the scaffolding strategy

proposes there is a zone of proximal development, depending on the level of

challenge and competence of the student.

When I consider this approach I feel that the scaffolding strategy

was more effective when interacting with the postgraduate

students compared to the undergraduate students. In theory

this strategy can be used for any level of student, so I should

consider, why did I only feel a scaffolding effect developed

successfully with the postgraduate students? Firstly, this could be

due to the characteristics of the student. I found postgraduate

students are more proactive in developing and internalising new

information. With assistance the postgraduate students could

reach their own solutions and eventually the scaffolding effect

resulted in the student becoming familiar with the processes and

requirements and they could then act independently in completing

tasks successfully. Once the postgraduate students had reached

a conclusion they would also develop the interaction further by

asking a new question or finding a new problem. In contrast,

undergraduate students appeared to be more interested in

being shown what to do, and perhaps were less interested in the

theoretical underpinnings, or to consider ‘why?’ The important

issue here is to consider my role in this scaffolding strategy.

Although a student has some responsibility to learn, I should really

be debating what should I do, or what should I not have done, to

improve my teaching capacity with the undergraduate students.

The scaffolding teaching strategy is based on the premise that you

provide new information that is more complex than the students’

understanding. Therefore they acquire this new information and

build on their own knowledge base, thus internalising. However,

what if I provided information that was too complex for their

knowledge base, or maybe moved onto the next scaffold before the

student internalised the previous? It is comprehensible that during

the scaffolding process as new information is not understood a

student would lose interest in the internalising aspect, and would

then focus on the how to, the procedure or the ‘what button do I

press now?’.

When considering why I felt working with the undergraduates was

not as productive I realised a fundamental problem with my own

practice. Kugel (1993) proposed that as a teacher develops they

progress through three key stages; self, subject and student. I

think I can accept that due to inexperience I was more focused

on ensuring I was prepared and knowledgeable of the the session

content (self and the subject) so that I could provide this information

to the students, rather than considering how this information was

being received by the student. Gonsalves, Harris and McAlpine

(2009) reported from interviewing graduate student teaching

7

Appendices

Figure 1

Figure 1. Based on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory the scaffolding strategy proposes there is a zone of proximal development, depending on the level of challenge and competence of the student.

Journal of Learning and Teaching

2012 Series: Paper 4

assistants that their views were far more focused on ‘thinking

about teaching’ compared to ‘thinking about learning’. This is

comparable to my own experiences as in these early stages of

experiencing teaching I was only ‘thinking about teaching’’, which

perhaps involves more focus on the ‘self’ and ‘subject’ stages of

Kugel’s (1993) development process.

Conclusions

Mueller et al. (1997) discusses that becoming an effective

teacher is a complex progress, and it is possible that the role of

a teaching assistant provides a firm pedagogical foundation for

the development process. In reflecting on my own experiences,

I would concur that the role has enabled me to experience both

teaching and learning in a more comfortable environment that

has allowed for development. This is because there is lesser

responsibility for a teaching assistant, as ultimately the lead

lecturer is responsible for the session, and consequently this lesser

responsibility has enabled me to focus more on the students and

the impacts our actions have on their learning experience. From a

teaching perspective the working experience has provided much

insight into how to plan and conduct sessions and use different

strategies to maintain student engagement. In terms of the

students’ learning process, I think this is an area that I still lack

understanding of. When reflecting on the lack of effectiveness of

the scaffolding strategy with undergraduate students, I need to

consider alternative approaches to engage the students to develop

understanding, and perhaps gain the collaborative interactions

experienced with the postgraduate students. In this sense, I feel

that in Kugel’s (1993) three stages of personal development I need

to consider further the importance of focusing on the student, and

their ability to absorb and internalise information and knowledge,

and subsequently I can develop further my teaching capability.

Although I have addressed only a few of the strategies or

approaches I experienced, I would acknowledge that the increased

confidence in communicating with students, either individually

or in groups, is perhaps the most significant change in terms of

my development. This change was similarly a key response for

participants following working experience in a teaching assistant

training course (Burgess and Mayes, 2009) and this poses the

contention that experiencing teaching in a supporting role, and by

this I suggest active participation and not simply observation, is a

necessary process for development. Indeed, previous research has

identified that graduates employed at higher education institutes

feel prepared for research but not to teach undergraduates (Austin,

2000). Golde (1997) found that of 197 doctoral graduates, 93 %

felt confident to conduct research yet only 63 % felt prepared to

teach undergraduates. Furthermore Anderson and Swazey (1998)

reported that over half of teaching graduate respondents learnt

more from peer interaction than from the faculty. In considering

this, it is comprehensible that for individuals pursuing a teaching

career gaining experience in a teaching assistant role alongside

lecturers, or colleagues, would help them acquire a multitude

of skills and better prepare them for teaching practice. I would

conclude that working as a teaching assistant provides a unique

platform for initial pedagogical development and this could be

important in the early stages of developing a teaching philosophy.

References

ANDERSON, M. S. AND SWAZEY, J. P. (1998). Reflections on

the Graduate Student Experience: An Overview, in Anderson, M.S.

(Ed.), The Experience of Being in Graduate School: An Exploration.

New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 101, San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

AUSTIN, A. (2002), Preparing the next generation of faculty:

graduate school as socialization to the academic career, The

Journal of Higher Education,73 (1), pp.94 - 122.

BURGESS, H. AND MAYES, S. (2009), An exploration of higher

level teaching assistants’ perceptions of their training and

development in the context of school workforce reform, Support

for Learning, 24 (1), pp. 19-25.

CREMIN, H., THOMAS, G. AND VINCETT, K. (2003), Learning

zones: an evaluation of three models for improving learning through

teacher/teaching assistant teamwork, Support for Learning, 8 (4),

pp. 154 – 161.

HELLAND, P. (2000), Espousal of undergraduate teaching

normative patterns of first-year teaching assistants, The Journal

of Higher Education, 81 (3), pp. 394 - 415.

GOLDE, C. M. (1997), Gaps in the training of future faculty: Doctoral

student perceptions, paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Association for the Study of Higher Education, Albuquerque, USA.

Journal of Learning and Teaching

2012 Series: Paper 4

GONSALVES, A.J., DIK HARRIS AND MCALPINE, L. (2009),

The zones framework for both teaching and learning: application

to graduate student teaching assistants, Journal of Further and

Higher Education, 33 (3), pp. 205–218.

KUGEL, P. (1993), How professors develop as teachers, Studies

in Higher Education, 18 (3), pp. 315-328.

LUO, J., GRADY, M.L. AND BELLOWS, L.H. (2001), Instructional

issues for teaching assistants, Innovative Higher Education, 25,

pp. 209–30.

MUELLER, A., PERLMAN, B., MCCANN, L. AND MCFADDEN,

S. (1997), A faculty perspective on teacher assistant training,

Teaching of Psychology, 24 (3), pp. 167 – 171.

ROWLAND, T. AND HATCH, G. (2007), Learning to teach? The

assistant lecturer in colleges of education 1960-75, History of

Education, 36 (1), pp.65-88.

VAN DER STUYF, R. R. (2002), Scaffolding as a teaching strategy,

Adolescent Learning and Development Section, retrieved

11/04/11 from http://condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/~group4/

Van%20Der%20Stuyf/Van%20Der%20Stuyf%20Paper.doc.