next »

[frogfactory]

Okay.  I TA an intro class for majors.  I had formed the idea that the purpose of an intro class was a) to teach the essential basics and b) spark interest in the subject in freshers.  Most of last semester's syllabus covered a), but also scared off large numbers of potential bio majors - the class as a whole (lectures plus all lab sections) has a reputation for being impossible. 
 
I'm wondering if my co-ordinator's (C) own difficult grading (he truly believes it's fair to test on anything in the lab manual - which is a meandering and poorly written document - even if it's an insignificant detail [in lab manual figure 4, how many snails were in the shrubbery?], because 'the A students should be memorizing the whole thing') has artificially supported my new TA/UK (?overly)high standards, as well as his expectation that many of my students ought to fail, or something ain't right.

This semester really covers neither a) nor b).  All the labs apart from three are skewed to fit co-ord's own narrow area of research and the manuals are insanely detailed.  Not only that, but they're riddled with errors.  Some errors the TAs find before the classes, some we only discover during class.  On top of that, more labs fail (in terms of results, across all sections) than succeed because of problems with reagents etc that are not discovered by the prep people until it's too late.  This, to my mind, makes lab a punishment to students without the reward of decent experimental results most of the time.

I feel completely caught.  On the one hand, I can't tell my students they don't need the info in the lab manual or that the lab manuals are badly put together.  On the other hand, it's so hard to structure a decent class/lab around them that I find I have to throw out half the material every week.  It's also really hard to summon enthusiasm when I know I'm teaching very little of general importance every week.  My students don't explicitly know this, but they probably pick up on it to some extent, unfortunately.

I've voiced my concerns (in very watered-down form) to co-ord.  He's been very nice, but not in a manner that makes me think anything will change.

Maybe this belongs under 'venting', but maybe some of you have ideas for solutions here.  Or at least for recharging my enthusiasm for teaching this class.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Is your coordinator successful in his field?  More so than you?  If so, you should consider if maybe he has a point, and is not entirely deficient in good judgment. - DvF

[frogfactory]

He's certainly older than I am.  However, he's almost completely inactive in research, and his future in the department is definitely a subject of vague gossip I only partly understand, being relatively new.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

He's certainly older than I am.  However, he's almost completely inactive in research, and his future in the department is definitely a subject of vague gossip I only partly understand, being relatively new.

Your environment sounds vaguely toxic.  Or maybe just characteristically British.

Here's the thing: most of us, consciously or unconsciously, adopt teaching styles and ideas from the professors who made the biggest impressions on us as students.  Natural selection ensures that good ideas get passed on, and bad ideas die.  It seems likely that this person, as a student, studied and internalized the manuals for his equipment.  Now, if his career (not necessarily right now, but over the course of) was successful, then advice like this, even if it looks ridiculous to you, might well be worth following.  - DvF

[frogfactory]

Your environment sounds vaguely toxic.  Or maybe just characteristically British.

I'm in the US.  Students aren't taught by grad students in the UK.  And 'inactive in research' would mean 'gone' in my subject.

The rest:

I do appreciate what you're saying, and I know I probably sound too big for my boots.  That's frustration and insomnia to a large extent, which is bad post-fu, I know.  So let's reframe this.

How can I effectively teach material I don't really give a crap about, and for which I cannot forsee any possible use for my students unless they join [specialist field]? I can manage teaching areas where either one of those is false, but not both.  Teaching and grading already takes up most of my time and I have my own degree to worry about, so spending much more time on it is completely out of the question.  While I enjoyed teaching stuff I could see the point of last semester, this semester I am becoming resentful of the time I'm spending on teaching because it's a) a time drain on my part and b) a waste of time for my students as far as I can make out.

[t_r_b]

Your best course of action:

1. STFU
2. during the hours they pay you for, do what you can to help your students (if the course really is pointless, that may not be much, but that's beyond your control)
3. try to learn something in the process
4. use the rest of your time for your own work, and
5. take notes on what you don't like about the course so that when you teach your own course some day, you'll do a better job.

As a general rule, whenever you are confronted by what appears to be faculty ineptitude in grad school, the appropriate response is to STFU, listen, and learn. Wherever your career takes you, you will have to deal with inept colleagues. Consider this experience part of your training.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Your environment sounds vaguely toxic.  Or maybe just characteristically British.

I'm in the US.  Students aren't taught by grad students in the UK. 

Obviously field- or school-dependent; I know people who have been GTAs at LSE, for example.

How can I effectively teach material I don't really give a crap about, and for which I cannot forsee any possible use for my students unless they join [specialist field]?

Ah, now I remember your previous threads.

You have three issues to deal with.  The first is that you do not understand the way curricula work in US universities.  You should know that those of us who were trained in the US then worked in the UK initially find the way things work there (lack of coursework, lack of continuous evaluation, extreme narrowness) equally baffling.  Rather than engage in a quixotic mission to transform the system into something that seems more sensible to you, try instead to have some respect for the people who crafted this system, and take it on faith that there is reason behind it.  You might even try to embrace the new system, even if only for the duration of your stay here, and observe it while you do so for signs that it might have its good points.  In other words, make coming to understand this system a part of your graduate learning experience.

The second issue is that you are not interested in the material you are teaching.  The point of most jobs, and this includes Teaching Assistant, is not to entertain the employee.  Take your responsibility seriously, and for the sake of your students make an effort to get yourself interested in this material - do outside readings, get advice from faculty who work in the area, and so on.   It is entirely possible that the effort will pay off in the long run in your own career; but, even if not, it is why someone is paying you to be a student and do a little teaching, rather than cleaning fish or pumping gas six days/week.   (In my early days I had a position where my department chair somehow didn't understand what specialty I was in, and I ended up teaching junior- and senior-level courses in pretty much every area offered in the department except my own.  It was rather hard work, and especially irritating because some of these were areas I had intentionally avoided as a student.  In later years I published papers that were only possible because of this experience.)

The final issue is that you are having trouble multitasking and finding time for your own work (or your own life).  Every graduate student in every good program in every field is in the same situation.  (OK, there are well-known exceptions, but if I name them someone from those areas is going to hijack this thread.)  If you are good enough to succeed, you will overcome this, as everyone else does.  It actually gets worse as a postdoc and in your first TT job, the difference being that there the penalty for being imperfect is losing your chance at a good job.  Now is the perfect time to work on time management, as well as develop the skill of working on your subject at odd hours (like while waiting in line at the coffee shop), and resuming broken trains of thought without apparent seam.  The latter abilities are shared by all good scientists.  In other words, these time issues too are part of your professional training, and if you address them as such (rather than as meaningless obstacles) it will help you when you finally do get your degree. - DvF

[frogfactory]

Okay, those are all goals.  I know I have to live with the system for the next year and a half, and I shall do the best I can while I must. 

My most major  issues here are not with the system as a whole, which I think I have started to come to terms with.  Probably the idea that I don't care about x sub discipline was read as more important.  It is rather with having to use materials that ought to be authoritative that contain errors both in fact and reasoning (always accepted by co-ord when caught, who tells us we'll just have to explain to our students that the manual is wrong).

This is not my fault, but it reflects badly on me as the person presenting the information.

The second issue is that you are not interested in the material you are teaching.  The point of most jobs, and this includes Teaching Assistant, is not to entertain the employee.

Indeed, but this job ought to be filled by someone with an interest in teaching, and especially someone interested in teaching the appropriate fields, not just anyone who happens to be entered as a PhD student.  I would rather clean fish for my cheque.

I'm probably a crappy TA, and I wish I wasn't.  Any suggestions for becoming a less crappy TA that don't involve teaching taking up even more time would be welcome.

[threefive]

Natural selection ensures that good ideas get passed on, and bad ideas die.

Actually, a lot of the more recent science education research would suggest the exact opposite happens with respect to pedagogy.

[grasshopper]

I'm not in the sciences, so I can't speak to actual things you might want to do in the lab, but here are some general ideas.



1. Think of yourself as an apprentice, not as a professor.

I took a TAship this year instead of a teaching position, because I wanted to devote myself as fully as possible to my dissertation. I've been TAing for... holy crap... nine years. I've been at this for a while, and have also taught a bit on my own, and so the profs I assist tend to give me a lot of leeway. But still, it's just a TAship. This is someone else's class. Not mine. My job is to help them carry out their vision.

And you know what? I've been really, really lucky. The professor I'm TAing for this year is amazing, and I have learned a lot of things that I can't wait to implement in my own classroom. If I had gone into this thinking that I knew what was best, either in terms of content or pedagogy, chances are the prof and I would have been at odds. (And in fact, this happened once. Only once, though. The prof was teaching something that I didn't agree with, and I actually (I still can't believe I did this) spoke up in class about it. That will never happen again. Never). My point is that, although I have very strong ideas about what is and is not effective in the classroom, I made a conscious decision to go into this position with an attitude of apprenticeship, and it has made all the difference.

Also, this prof makes a lot of "extracurricular" requests of his TAs. (No, Spork, not those kinds of requests). He wants his TAs to go to the library for him, to take care of his administrative tasks, to make photocopies for other courses he's teaching, or do grunt work for a conference he's organizing, etc. A lot of his TAs balk at this. They say things like, "That's not what I'm paid for! I'm not an errand person!" And they're right, of course. But because I'd adopted an attitude of apprenticeship, when Prof. Big Name would ask me for these favours, I'd do them. Hell, I was going to the library anyway. It would only take five minutes. And you know, Prof. Big Name has become one of my stronger supports in the department. He's written me wonderful letters of recommendation. He's gotten me additional funding. He's agreed to read over parts of my dissertation that fall within his specialization.

That attitude of apprenticeship will not only save your sanity, but might just yield some unexpected fruit.



2. In a similar vein, remember that you don't know what all you don't know.

For instance, you're assuming that a first year intro course should both introduce students to the discipline and spark interest in doing a major in the discipline. Some intro courses are designed that way (that's the norm in my discipline). But others are designed to weed out students. Sociology and Psychology intro courses were weeders at my undergrad institution. The honours programs in those disciplines were rigorous, and they only wanted the best, so they weeded them out early.

Maybe your department does this. Or maybe the department doesn't, but the prof you're TAing for thinks that they should. Or maybe the department intends to introduce a specialization around that particular prof's expertise, and is changing the structure/content of the intros to reflect that. Or maybe the department isn't doing it, but the prof wants that to happen, so is including more of his specialized research into the intro course in the hopes that more students will agitate for courses in that area.

In the end, though, who knows what's going on? The point is, you don't. And even if you did, it wouldn't be your place to change it. You're not the professor. You're the minion, carrying out someone else's vision.

It's also possible that there are aspects of the field that you don't know about. After all, this is why you're a student, right? Maybe this narrow field of research is actually important in ways that you don't realize. Or, maybe not. But you're not really in any position to make a definitive judgment.



3. Correct errors in class.

This is not a big deal. The manual is wrong in places. Oh, well. You'll catch it before class or in class. And you'll correct it. The end. As long as you tell the professor which details you've corrected (so students aren't marked wrong on those details), I don't see the problem.

It is rather with having to use materials that ought to be authoritative that contain errors both in fact and reasoning (always accepted by co-ord when caught, who tells us we'll just have to explain to our students that the manual is wrong).

This is not my fault, but it reflects badly on me as the person presenting the information.

No, it doesn't. Well, it would reflect poorly on you if you were presenting the wrong information. But you're not. You're correcting the manual. This is no big deal, and it seems like the professor recognizes it as such. It sounds to me like you think that the fact that he treats it as no big deal indicates a lack on his part - a lack of caring, of understanding, etc. I think it indicates his experience. You could learn from this.

It's also really hard to summon enthusiasm when I know I'm teaching very little of general importance every week.  My students don't explicitly know this, but they probably pick up on it to some extent, unfortunately.

This is your cross to bear. If you want to be gutting fish instead of TAing, by all means, free up the spot for someone who wants it.

How can I effectively teach material I don't really give a crap about, and for which I cannot forsee any possible use for my students unless they join [specialist field]? I can manage teaching areas where either one of those is false, but not both.

See #2 above: You don't know what all you don't know.

Teaching and grading already takes up most of my time and I have my own degree to worry about, so spending much more time on it is completely out of the question.  While I enjoyed teaching stuff I could see the point of last semester, this semester I am becoming resentful of the time I'm spending on teaching because it's a) a time drain on my part and b) a waste of time for my students as far as I can make out.

I say this with tenderness: you're whining. Cut it out. Let me channel my father for a moment: "Grassy, that's why they call it work and not happy fun play-time!"

Okay, those are all goals.  I know I have to live with the system for the next year and a half, and I shall do the best I can while I must. 

Caught up in circles, confusion is nothing new. Didn't you just begin a doctoral program? How come for only a year and a half?

[inthelab]

Your environment sounds vaguely toxic.  Or maybe just characteristically British.

I'm in the US.  Students aren't taught by grad students in the UK.  And 'inactive in research' would mean 'gone' in my subject.

Not true.  Course coordinators for big courses (genetics, biochem,a nd micro at my med school) are run by tenured faculty who are inactive in research.  The courses are such big time sucks, they could do enough research to be comeptitve for grants anyway.  Labspouse was in such a position for the past 10 years.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Natural selection ensures that good ideas get passed on, and bad ideas die.

Actually, a lot of the more recent science education research would suggest the exact opposite happens with respect to pedagogy.

We're talking courses for majors.  At least in my field, most of the criticism of science education applies to the way non-majors are taught, the majors thrive on the same techniques that worked for the generations that came before them. - DvF.

[sciencephd]

You would be well served by focusing most of your energy in graduate school on your own research, and on learning your field.

[frogfactory]

This thread should probably die, being the product of midnight angst.  However, two points:

I don't see this as an apprenticeship, rather a duty to fulfil a contract.  I have to 'serve' four semesters of TAing as part of my studentship (hence just a year and a half left).  Bad attitude? Probably.  It waxes and wanes with the degree of frustration with the role, which is extremely high right now.  In order to see it as an apprenticeship I'd have to envision myself taking a similar but more responsible role after I graduate.  I have no plans to teach ever again beyond the odd lecture or small tutor group, and certainly not outside my field.  This will probably necessitate returning to Europe and/or living the rest of my days as a perpetual postdoc, since I do not intend to work in industry.  I'm not in this to teach.  And to anticipate the obvious: no, it's not because I think teaching is below me.  Frankly, it's beyond me

In terms of effective teaching/learning methods being passed on, I happen to have landed here on a year when the co-ordinator has decided to experiment with the content and format.  One result of this was that the lab in which how to use a microscope is taught is now the last of a large number of labs that involve using a microscope rather than the first.  This is not an isolated example.  I get the impression (which is a fair one, given the limitations of online communication) that most respondents think I'm simply being uppity and throwing my toys out of the pram.  Yes, I'm annoyed, and it probably wasn't appropriate to throw an online hissy fit, but I do think at least the majority of my concerns about the class are justified.  You have no way of confirming or denying this, and it makes sense that you are inclined to side with the experienced prof rather than the frustrated TA.  I understand this - it's the most sensible response.

Anyway, rest in peace, thread.

Edit - added:

You would be well served by focusing most of your energy in graduate school on your own research, and on learning your field

Believe me, I'm trying

[threefive]

Natural selection ensures that good ideas get passed on, and bad ideas die.

Actually, a lot of the more recent science education research would suggest the exact opposite happens with respect to pedagogy.

We're talking courses for majors.  At least in my field, most of the criticism of science education applies to the way non-majors are taught, the majors thrive on the same techniques that worked for the generations that came before them. - DvF.

Nope. I'm talking intro courses for majors and upper-level courses (though, work on the upper-level courses is much more recent). I have about 20 articles sitting on my desk right now concerning education research in my field (physics), and I spent the last week analyzing tons of data from my own courses (for majors). Next week, I'll begin working on an article that presents data (collected from majors) that suggests exactly the opposite of your claim. I'm also familiar with the literature in chemistry, and the finding there are similar. I know little about biology education research, though.