15, no. 1 (September 1983): 34-36 To the Editor Search

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

No Works Cited

TA TRAINING and supervision programs at our universities take many and varied forms, but most of them have one characteristic in common: inadequacy. Over the past few decades studies and surveys have addressed the question of TA training and supervision, analyzing programs and making recommendations for improvement. According to MacAllister, institutions did relatively little to train and supervise TAs up to 1963. By 1970, when Hagiwara published the results of his study, the situation had improved somewhat: institutions had begun to offer formal training in teaching methods and to develop some type of preservice orientation. A survey conducted by Nerenz, Herron, and Knop in 1979 examined topics and issues dealt with in TA training programs. Although the programs had improved, they still had a lot of ground to cover: offerings varied greatly from institution to institution, and their quality left much to be desired.

The Schulz report in 1979 confirmed this observation. Schulz conducted an extensive survey among 370 graduate departments of foreign languages, linguistics, and comparative literature and came to the following conclusion:

Considering, however, that most individuals performing the functions of TA trainer and supervisor have received no special preparation for this assignment; that over one fifth of the responding departments provide no formal training whatsoever for their TAs; that a considerable number Of departments do not use direct classroom supervision of TAs; and that in almost one half of the responding departments the responsibility of elementary and/or intermediate language instruction is performed exclusively by one individual, much needs to be done before the profession as a whole can clear itself of the suspicion of abusing the TA system. (7)

The Gibaldi and Mirollo survey, which appeared in 1981, demonstrates that the profession has indeed begun to take seriously the training of TAs and their preparation for teaching: “A crucial change in attitude is taking place toward the importance of teaching in the preparation of graduate students for the profession” (26). The profession is now beginning to recognize the need for improvement in this area and to work in the right direction, but the extensive list of suggestions and recommendations given in the study shows that many deficiencies persist. The wants and needs of TAs preparing to teach languages were surveyed by Ervin and Muyskens, who also investigated the question of whether the status of those surveyed affected the way departments rank these wants and needs.

These observations and studies on TA training and supervision make it clear that major improvements are still needed. Some university foreign language departments do little to train TAs, while others have methodical and organized programs. The following remarks will attempt to delineate some general considerations for TA training programs. They do not represent an exhaustive list of techniques for TA training and supervision but simply suggest some procedures that might be included in an effective operation. Departments can implement these procedures without expanding their facilities and without further expenditures. There are three major areas of concern: TA Orientation, TA In-Service Training, and TA Evaluation. ¹

At a number of institutions TAs are introduced not only to departmental courses and practices but also to rudiments of methodology, and they receive practical pointers for the first few weeks in class as well; at others, they are simply handed the textbook and are declared able to teach. The latter approach might be somewhat effective if TAs had some prior teaching experience, but since most beginning TAs have had no teaching experience, they need at least an introduction to the strategies and logistics of their new departments. A minimal orientation program should include the following activities:

1. TAs should be exposed to a “shock” language so that they will undergo a language-learning experience similar to that of their students.
2. TAs should be required to teach the first day's lesson with sample lesson plan and exercises, in a peer-teaching situation.
3. It is important to discuss both university and departmental administrative procedures, including language proficiency exams for incoming TAs (incoming TAs could be required to submit a tape when applying for an assistantship or could be interviewed in the target language), administration of departmental exam, methods of record keeping, grades, and absences, as well as a review of counseling services available to students.
4. TAs should be introduced to the language laboratory's operation and application, as well as to the materials center.
5. Experienced TAs or professors in the department might demonstrate advanced lessons or units to incoming TAs.
6. A panel of former first-year TAs could assist incoming TAs with orientation in their new surroundings.
7. New TAs should observe videotapes of experienced TAs' teaching.
8. If possible, new TAs should be assigned to offices with experienced TAs, who can answer many of their questions.
9. New TAs should have their teaching videotaped, and they should have the opportunity to criticize their own work.
10. TAs should share ideas and materials with one another and establish a materials center for this purpose.
11. It is useful to introduce new TAs to methods of presenting and integrating cultural units or other supplementary materials and to demonstrate that different activities require different procedures.
12. The orientation period should include a discussion of potential problems concerning attendance, homework, and grades.
13. The following general classroom procedures should be reviewed: error analysis and correction, reinforcement strategies, lesson preparation, timing of activities, anticipating questions, giving directions, and eliciting student participation.

A department can easily conduct this kind of program during a three- to five-day orientation period in morning and afternoon sessions at the beginning of the semester. (For a description of one such program, see Freed.)

Orientation at the beginning of a semester is, of course, only a preliminary step in any TA training program. To be effective, the program must aim for the continual development of TAs' teaching skills. In-service staff training might include the following:

1. The department can offer a formal methods course, either under its own auspices or in conjunction with the education department. The methods course should include ways to develop the four skills and strategies for teaching literature and culture, as well as the usual theoretical and practical topics. If budgetary or personnel restrictions prohibit such a course, weekly staff sessions must deal with the specific questions and problems TAs encounter in their teaching.
2. The practice of observing experienced TAs or professors begun in the orientation period should continue during the academic year, either in class visits or on videotape.
3. TAs should video- or audiotape their classes regularly and criticize their own teaching performances.
4. TAs should request other TAs to observe their classes, thus establishing a kind of exchange-visit program.
5. TAs should establish and maintain a central materials file with handouts and visual aids accessible to everyone.
6. A further step in the professional development of TAs is involvement in local, regional, and national foreign language conferences. Such activities will reinforce methods TAs have developed and will encourage them in their pedagogical pursuits.
7. Intradepartmental articulation is often neglected in TA training. To encourage students in their study of a second language, TAs must be familiar with course sequencing within a department. Since many TAs teach only lower-division courses, they are sometimes not aware of all course listings for undergraduates in their department. Familiarizing TAs with this structure could aid in the articulation process between course levels and could perhaps lead to better enrollments in upper-division language courses.
8. Teaching an occasional upper-division literature and culture class under the supervision of departmental faculty would provide for TAs a realistic encounter with the higher-level courses that they will eventually teach.
9. TAs should periodically review counseling services for students in case problems arise.

Evaluation, a necessary component of in-service training, is often considered a threatening experience. Consequently, departments should take care to explain that the purpose of evaluation is to assist TAs in improving their teaching skills and to provide them with the tools necessary to assess their own classroom performance on a continual basis (Knop 186). If TAs understand not only why but also how they will be evaluated, their tension and anxiety will decrease. An effective evaluation program might include the following items:

1. The supervisor should supply TAs with a checklist of suggestions so that they know ahead of time what will be evaluated in a class observation. Such a list should at least address lesson planning, classroom techniques, and class atmosphere.
2. More than one person should visit each TA's class, so that no single visit looms large.
3. Previous observation by peers, as well as audio-and videotaping, will help alleviate anxiety caused by the supervisor's visit.
4. Most important, a preobservation conference should be held to determine the ground rules of the visit and to give TAs the opportunity to discuss the background of the class with the supervisor. A preobservation discussion will also afford the supervisor an opportunity to review the TA's lesson plan and the criteria for judging each activity in the plan.
5. Student participation in TA evaluations should be encouraged. Using a standard student evaluation form midway through the semester would provide TAs with immediate feedback on their teaching at a point where they still have time to make improvements.

This brief checklist could contain many more recommendations for establishing effective TA training and supervision procedures, but the suggestions set forth here are essential for addressing in a practical way the inadequacy of our TA training programs.

The author is Assistant Professor of German at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. This paper is based on a presentation delivered at the AATG conference in Boston, 21–23 November 1980.

¹ These suggestions are summarized from idea-sharing sessions at a conference on the training of teaching assistants at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, on 21 May 1979. Participants were faculty members from the foreign language departments of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. Chairpersons: Martha Best, Constance Knop; recorder: Robert Di Donato.

Ervin, Gerard, and Judith A. Muyskens. “On Training TAs: Do We Know What They Want and Need?” Foreign Language Annals 15 (1982): 335–44.

Freed, Barbara F. “Why Train Teaching Assistants? Foreign Language and Communication at the University Level.” ADFL Bulletin 7.2 (1975): 9–14. [Show Article]

Gibaldi, Joseph, and James V. Mirollo. The Teaching Apprentice Program in Language and Literature . New York: MLA, 1981.

Hagiwara, Michio P. Leadership in Foreign-Language Education: Trends in Training and Supervision of Graduate Teaching Assistants . New York: MLA, 1970.

Knop, Constance K. “The Supervision of Foreign Language Teachers.” In Learning a Second Language . Ed. Frank M. Grittner. Seventy-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Chicago: NSSE, 1980, 186–207.

MacAllister, Archibald. “The Preparation of College Teachers of Modern Foreign Language.” Modern Language Journal 50 (1966): 400–15.

Nerenz, Anne G., Carol A. Herron, and Constance K. Knop. “The Training of Graduate Teaching Assistants in Foreign Languages: A Review of Literature and Description of Contemporary Programs.” French Review 52 (1979): 873–88.

Schulz, Renate A. “TA Training, Supervision, and Evaluation: Report of a Survey.” ADFL Bulletin 12.1 (1980): 1–8. [Show Article]

© 1983 by the Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. All Rights Reserved.

ADFL Bulletin 15, no. 1 (September 1983): 34-36

---

Table of Contents

Previous Article Next Article

No Works Cited