next »

[frogfactory]

Hi, I'm new here, so hi and hope I haven't inadvertently broken any sort of forum etiquette so far.

I'm a TA in the US whose previous education to date has been entirely in the UK.  For many of you here teaching higher level classes in specialist fields this won't be an issue, but for any other TAs this will.

In the coming semester I am expected to TA classes in subjects I have never (at least, since the age of 16 and thus at a university level) studied.  This is batpoo insane, obviously, but appears to be the norm.  In the UK, (in my experience at a few universities) students taking an intro underwater basketweaving module will have a cardiac physiologist give the cardiac physiology lectures, a plant geneticist lecture plant genetics, and a GI surgeon teach GI anatomy (for instance).  In the US the whole of intro underwater basketweaving (okay, biology) is lectured by one person from one field, plus nearly half the class is taught by a single TA with no teaching experience and a very specific background in a single topic (at a decent level of expertise).  I can't understand how this can work for the students, or why they put up with it when they're paying ~20x what UK students do.  But that's a side note.

I don't want to pretend to be an expert in fields I've never studied, but I don't want to sell my students short by teaching the bare minimum when there are kids in the class potentially enthusiastic and interested in a subject I can't teach.  As a full time grad student myself, I also don't have the time to study and research all eleventy billion topics  covered in 'intro' to a graduate level or better. 

How do you do it without burning out or selling your students short?

[geonerd]

Are you assigned to an introductory level course or an advanced course? What are your specific responsibilities as a TA? Are you teaching labs? Are you leading recitation sections? Are you the lead instructor giving the lecturers?
If you are a teaching assistant, not the lecturer, then meet with the lecturer as soon as possible and find out what they expect you to cover. If you are teaching intro labs, then the lab content is probably pre-determined. If you are the head instructor giving the lecturers, then ask your department who was the last person to teach your class, then ask that person if you can see the materials that they used. 

Don't feel overwhelm yourself with the idea that you must have an entire semester's worth of material ready by next Monday. As a graduate student, you have the capacity to learn and understand much faster than the undergraduates whom you will teach. If you can stay one week ahead of them you should be OK. Good luck.

[frogfactory]

Is that really acceptable?  I'm teaching lab, which includes a ~30min intro each section which is my own responsibility, supervising the lab (not a problem), plus writing weekly quizzes, setting and grading weekly homeworks, midlterm and final exams.

When the lab happens to be on a topic I've studied, I can tell interesting stories, give illustrative examples from the recent and classic literature, and tell my students what's cool and new (and why it's cool).  The other 60% of the time, I was a child (literally, 16 and under) the last time I went near the topic and feel like I'm just going over the lines.  It's embarrassing to hold classes like that, where I know I'm just teaching to the test.  I should not be teaching those classes and I don't know how to make it worth my students' time.  I have very high expectations of them, and that only works if I allow them to have high expectations of me.

[erzuliefreda]

If you stay in the US for a TT position, you will be teaching this material routinely if it is part of the standard survey. And if you don't land a job at a research school, and find yourself teaching at a regional school or SLAC, you will be teaching even upper-level courses outside of your comfort zone, too. Stretching yourself is one of the hardest parts of learning to teach this way. Yes, a week ahead is fine. You may wish to think of yourself as the top student in your own class--sometimes that takes the pressure off a bit. Best of luck!

[concordancia]

Yes, a week ahead is fine. You may wish to think of yourself as the top student in your own class--sometimes that takes the pressure off a bit. Best of luck!

Heck, with a couple of my new Honor's students, I am not even entirely sure this is true, but I am still looking forward to the experience. We always put a lot of effort on the research part of a PhD - in my opinion it is also about being a solid generalist in your field. This way, even when you are teaching the upper division courses, you can tell the students that Underwater Basketweaving is similar to Basketweaving on dry land in X ways, but different in Y ways. You can help them learn to draw the connections. If you can't make these kinds of connections, no matter how many exciting stories you tell, you will become a dull teacher.

[frogfactory]

I'm sorry, that is insane.  Is that why US UG degrees take four years and PhDs take ~6 years?  The lecturers/TAs don't know what they're talking about any better than a reasonably diligent UG student in the class might?

I don't like this.  Generalist higher education *might* have some advantages, but not if it goes hand-in-hand with reduced quality of education.


(excuse me, I'm not anti-American - I'm just frustrated and blowing off steam)

If you can't make these kinds of connections, no matter how many exciting stories you tell, you will become a dull teacher.

Well... biology basically covers everything alive on the planet.  If you can think of a way to link protein folding or second messenger signalling to human psychology or food webs, etc.  in anything other than a conversational/trivial (illustrative) manner, I'd like to hear it.

[concordancia]

I'm sorry, that is insane.  Is that why US UG degrees take four years and PhDs take ~6 years?  The lecturers/TAs don't know what they're talking about any better than a reasonably diligent UG student in the class might?

I don't like this.  Generalist higher education *might* have some advantages, but not if it goes hand-in-hand with reduced quality of education.


(excuse me, I'm not anti-American - I'm just frustrated and blowing off steam)

Why is this reduced quality? Someone who takes the time to prepare should be able to teach the topic just as well as someone who can babble from their arse. Perhaps you are balking at actually having to learn?

[frogfactory]

Why is this reduced quality? Someone who takes the time to prepare should be able to teach the topic just as well as someone who can babble from their arse. Perhaps you are balking at actually having to learn?

I think you have very low expectations of educators, then.  I actually enjoy teaching, and I want to do the best I can by my students.  But the fact of the matter is, if I can teach myself to do it in a week, so can my students - they've qualified for university, just as I did, and they can be assumed to be capable of as much as I was expected at university.  Maybe they don't have the drive or motivation to, but that's their problem.  How am I qualified to teach a subject just because I looked it up in the library a week before they did? Bullpoo.

[neutralname]

It depends what you are teaching.  If it is a first year intro course, it is possible to get by being slightly ahead of the students, and then you'll do better the next time you teach it, but it is far from ideal.  If it an upper level course, and you already know most of the material, then you can get away with learning some new elements the week before the students.  But if you are teaching an upper level course and it is all new to you, it's a recipe for disaster.

I find that having plenty of teaching experience helps you know what shortcuts you can take without significantly reducing the course quality.  For most people, their first teaching experience is exhausting and challenging even when you know the material pretty well.  

[frogfactory]

FYI, since I've given the game away anyway, it's a *very* broad, two semester intro level biology class.  My background is wholly biomedical, meaning no ecology, evolution, plants etc since high school (although of course some of that comes under my 'for interest only' reading).  Most of the course so far has been at or around 'A' level biology (age 16-18), but I swapped the 'Ecology and evolution' module for 'Medical genetics'.  All I know is on those subjects is what I've read for fun.  I don't think that's a substitute for a grad level degree, when it comes to a teacher.

[concordancia]

As someone working on an advanced degree, you should already be able to process the information differently than your students. You also should have a more solid preparation than students who are just learning to approach the subject. You will be more familiar with the lab equipment than they, as well as the general principles of performing labs and reporting on them. You have thirty minutes to introduce them to the general principles involved, the equipment they will be using and the parameters of the experiment. In many cases, someone who has just learned information, or refreshed it after a few years break, will do a better job of this kind of introduction than someone who specializes in the topic and rambles on about concepts that the students don't really understand, rather than focusing on the concepts that the students need to perform this lab. If someone happens to come up with a question that you can't answer, you look it up and/or teach them to. Based on these skills, you should be able to stay ahead of the students. Tough while you are keeping up with your own coursework/ research? YES. But necessary for most positions in the US that involve teaching, so it is something that will prepare you for that reality down the road.

[crunchy_frog]

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that a week’s preparation for teaching an unfamiliar subtopic in one’s field is equivalent to a graduate degree in said subtopic, whether the instructor is a TA or faculty.  Most instructors in higher education have to teach material that is outside their particular area of scholarly interest.  This is a fact of academic life.

Try and look at this as an opportunity to get to grips with topics that you have not previously had the chance to cover in depth.  Increased knowledge of your field in general can only benefit your research (at least, that’s how it works in my field, which is in the humanities).  You may find unexpected connections to your own particular area of scholarly interest in the topics that you are forced to investigate in order to teach (again, this is how it has worked for me).  TAing is about teaching, obviously, but it’s also a part of the TA’s graduate education.  Though the situation is not ideal, try to take this as a learning opportunity if you can. 

In many cases, someone who has just learned information, or refreshed it after a few years break, will do a better job of this kind of introduction than someone who specializes in the topic and rambles on about concepts that the students don't really understand, rather than focusing on the concepts that the students need to perform this lab.

Concordancia makes an excellent point.  Having the experience of learning (or re-learning) material still fresh in your mind can be a real asset when attempting to teach it to others.

Good luck!

[frogfactory]

Most instructors in higher education have to teach material that is outside their particular area of scholarly interest.  This is a fact of academic life.

This (alongside other similar comments) is horrifying.  I can only hope I can find a postdoc back in Europe after this PhD, where people teach what they're qualified to teach and students learn from qualified lecturers.

[voxprincipalis]

Most instructors in higher education have to teach material that is outside their particular area of scholarly interest.  This is a fact of academic life.

This (alongside other similar comments) is horrifying. 

You will want to get yourself a really cute helmet, as I think that you may be in for a bumpy ride.

VP

[grasshopper]

But the fact of the matter is, if I can teach myself to do it in a week, so can my students - they've qualified for university, just as I did, and they can be assumed to be capable of as much as I was expected at university. 

Actually, as Concord mentioned, you are able to learn material much more easily than your students.

You're probably in the beginning years of a grad program? Recently out of undergrad? I would bet that you don't yet realize what all you know.

(Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why I think teaching evaluations are idiotic - you can't measure your learning while you're doing it).

But the point I'm making is that part of your undergraduate and graduate training has been to teach you how to learn on your own. You may not have realized how much of that you've taken in, but believe me, you've taken it in. That's why you're being trusted with a class section. Your first year students haven't yet been taught how to learn on their own. It's gradual. It's painful, and it's annoying, but it happens. Every time you felt like you were banging your head against a brick wall? That was you learning how to learn on your own.

Yes the system would be infinitely better if experts only taught their own small bits of ivory. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. So your choice is to suck it up and give it your best shot, or find a system that works on a principle that you find more acceptable.