• 沒有找到結果。

Students' Perceptions of GTA Instruction of the English Listening Lab

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Students' Perceptions of GTA Instruction of the English Listening Lab"

Copied!
49
0
0

加載中.... (立即查看全文)

全文

(1)

Students’ Perceptions of GTA Instruction

of the English Listening Lab

Huey-nah Cindy Chou

Providence University

cchou@pu.edu.tw

Abstract

An increasing amount of undergraduate instruction is undertaken by graduate students working as teaching assistants (GTAs) in higher education institutes worldwide. Likewise, more colleges and universities in Taiwan have also started involving GTAs in their effort of enhancing excellence in teaching. Therefore, this study aims at examining GTAs’ instruction of the English listening lab from the undergraduate students’ perspective. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected through student interviews and a survey questionnaire. Five major themes were derived from analysis of the interview transcripts. In addition, the questionnaire survey results indicated that the GTAs’ teaching performance was rated higher than course design and student learning by the participating undergraduate students. This study was concluded by proposing suggestions for GTAs’ pedagogical, English, and lab skills training. Findings of this study will have implications for and significant contributions to GTA training programs in Taiwan and in other EFL contexts. Key words: graduate teaching assistants, English language

laboratories, student evaluation of teacher performance

(2)

INTRODUCTION

Decades ago, language laboratories, or the dinosaur of a

previous era (Koerner, 1988), were believed by audiolingual advocates to be primary tools for supplementing in-class language drills. Although many researchers (Harding & Rodgers, 1985; Howatt & Widdowson, 2004; Koerner, 1988) have questioned the effectiveness of language laboratories, labs are still being widely used as aids to improve students’ language skills in secondary and higher education institutes in Taiwan.

In many countries, particularly in North America, an increasing amount of undergraduate instruction is undertaken by graduate students, who work as teaching assistants. Graduate student teaching assistants (TAs/GTAs), defined as “any postgraduate student who teaches part-time, on a paid basis” (Park, 2002, p. 50), are primarily responsible for teaching introductory or laboratory courses. However, Shannon, Twale, and Moore (1998) cautioned that “We cannot continue to staff undergraduate courses with TAs simply because they are available and economically affordable. TAs can not just be placed as instructors in college classrooms with little or no preparation in pedagogical methods” (p. 461). Since the quality of GTA instruction can have a significant impact on undergraduate learning and attitudes, concerns about problems associated with GTAs and suggestions pertaining to GTA training programs have been discussed in

(3)

pervious studies (Bailey, Pialorsi, & Zukowski/Faust, 1984; Bomotti, 1994; Fisher, 1985; Luo, Grady, & Bellows, 2001; Park, 2004; Rubin, 1992; Shannon et al., 1998; Young, 1990). In Taiwan, the Ministry of Education (MOE) started launching a nation-wide Teaching Excellence Development

Program in 2005 in an effort to enhance university teaching quality and to improve the education environment for students. Since then, the Taiwan government has subsidized more than thirty higher education institutes with multi-billion Taiwan dollars to encourage innovative and more comprehensive curriculum plans. Among the funded plans, a noteworthy innovation is the establishment of a GTA system to enrich teaching resources and raise student performance in various disciplines.

The GTA-instructed English listening lab (ELL) course of the university in the present study, a requirement of non-English-major sophomores, was established with an aim to develop students’ listening skills beyond Freshman English training with additional practices. Being held in the language laboratories with a master console and student stations, a primary classroom activity of the ELL was students’ listening to tapes accompanying the textbooks for various instructional objectives and topics. GTAs took full responsibility for the ELL course including selecting material, planning classroom activities, and designing quizzes. Prior to the start of the semester, the GTAs were required to attend a 3-hour orientation session offered by a faculty member in the TEFL

(4)

skills training.

Although the MOE-funded universities have claimed that the GTAs have helped increase student satisfaction of instruction by 70% to 80% (National Education Radio, 2007), empirical research in this area is still scarce. Undergraduate concerns about GTA instruction are frequently expressed in anecdotes, but evidence from research is hard to find. Besides, despite the fact that North American experience from the aforementioned research can provide insights into the employment and training of GTAs, the implications derived from such findings may not always be applicable to Taiwan or other Asian countries partially due to differences in educational systems, culture, and legislation. It is thus necessary to gather data from Taiwan and other Asian educational institutions implementing GTA programs in order to build up database for future planning and improvement.

This study plays a pioneering role in achieving at a more in-depth understanding of GTA instructional effectiveness from the undergraduate students’ perspectives. Examining undergraduate students’ evaluation of aspects pertaining to English lab instruction will provide valuable insights and feedback about GTA teaching. Two research questions guiding this study were: (a) What are the undergraduates’ overall perceptions of the ELL course in terms of GTA teaching performance, student learning, and course design? and (b) What are the undergraduates’ major concerns about the GTAs’ lab instruction? Results of the study

(5)

can pinpoint factors of effectiveness of English lab teaching and GTA training, which in turn will enhance English skills development in higher education.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A variety of issues with GTAs undertaking the instruction of undergraduate courses have been reported in the related literature. Among the issues, three are particularly

critical in enhancing GTA teaching effectiveness: (a) classroom management, (b) communication with students,

and (c) GTA’s perceived role.

Luo, Bellows, and Grady (2000) conducted a survey on international and U.S. GTAs at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln to investigate GTA classroom management problems in terms of GTA types, gender, teaching experience, and academic discipline. Their questionnaire elicited responses on GTA knowledge of teaching duties and responsibilities, perceptions of instructional roles, style of teaching, preferred instructional strategies, problems related to classroom instruction, and student classroom behaviors. Based on the findings, the authors suggested that GTA training programs should be developed to help GTAs: (a) provide extended language training, (b) understand the classroom culture, (c) use active instructional strategies, (d) to be reflective about teaching, and (e) to be prepared for to their

(6)

English inadequacy is often a difficult problem that most non-native-English-speaking GTAs face. Park (2004) found that GTAs generally have difficulties in communicating with their students and socializing with their peers. Such a drawback is particularly serious to GTAs whose language proficiency may not allow them to communicate clearly in English. Even though many problems that GTAs face may not be directly related to language, a widespread concern of undergraduates about inadequate language skills of GTAs has been reported in many studies. Rubin (1992) pointed out that students’ perceptions of the instructor’s accent are the strongest predictors of teacher ratings. Moreover, Feezel and Meyers (1997) reported eight interrelated types of communication concern of GTAs: self, task, impact, role conflict, teaching, area knowledge, procedural knowledge, and time management. Therefore, involving TESOL professional and staff in GTA training for pronunciation, accuracy, and appropriateness has been proposed (Hoekje & Williams, 1992; Rutgers University Senate Committee on Instruction, Curriculum and Advising, 2001).

In the contemporary studies, the perceived role of GTAs has also been discussed by many researchers. Feinman (1991), adopting the Bloom (1956) taxonomy of educational objectives, defined cognitive and affective roles for GTAs. The cognitive role requires GTAs to help students learn better while the affective role requires GTAs to provide emotional support for students. Moreover, the perceived roles can vary

(7)

individually. French and Russell (2002) found that GTAs conducting labs tend to consider themselves as facilitators or guides rather than as presenters of information. Other studies (Bauer, 1996; Davis, 1991; Twale, Shannon, & Moore, 1997) reported that GTAs tend to perceive their instructional roles solely as conveyors of information and therefore approach teaching in a formal and noninteractive way. In discussing GTA instructional roles, Smith, Meyers, and Burkhalter (1992) concluded that GTAs, regardless of their perceived roles, are expected to be: confident in subject matter, comfortable with their position of authority, open-minded, approachable, and interested in students’ learning.

Effectiveness and influences of GTA training programs have also been studied. Shannon et al. (1998) conducted a study to examine the influence of GTA training and pervious teaching experience on undergraduate students and GTA self-perceptions of teaching effectiveness. They found that GTAs with actual teaching experience indicated higher levels of self-efficacy toward teaching and received higher student ratings. In addition, GTAs with degrees in education were rated more effective than GTAs without such training. The authors also noticed that university and departmental training offered to GTAs failed to produce positive effects. They thus suggested that universities expand their efforts to more adequately prepare GTAs for teaching courses to ensure that the enrolled undergraduate students receive a higher quality of instruction. The expansion of existing training programs

(8)

teaching ability, which should include case studies, simulations, and microteaching. Follow-up observations of GTA teaching by faculty were also suggested for GTAs to obtain feedback on their effectiveness. In Taiwan’s higher education, Cheng and Lee (2001) examined a training model of microteaching to improve GTAs’ skills of teaching calculus and found that the GTAs valued mentor feedback most highly and learning from teaching videotapes least. Likewise, Lin, Liu, Tsai, and Wu (2007) also found GTA training programs using mentor feedback more effective in improving teaching performance.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology of this study is both quantitative and qualitative in design. In phase 1, a survey questionnaire for eliciting student perceptions of thirteen GTA instructor’s teaching was administered in three consecutive semesters from Spring 2006 to Spring 2007. In phase 2, semi-structured interviews with 12 randomly selected ELL students were conducted to substantiate the quantitative data and to illustrate students’ major concerns about the GTAs’ instruction.

(9)

DATA COLLECTION

Participants

The English listening lab was a zero-credit-hour, one-semester course which was a requirement for non-English-major sophomores at the hosting university in central Taiwan. Students met weekly for one hour at the lab. Thirteen GTAs were recruited to collaborate with the course instructor to take full instructional responsibilities for ELL. In order to obtain information needed to answer the research questions addressed in this study and to collect sufficient data for meaningful research findings, 22 randomly selected ELL classes in the three semesters from Spring 2006 to Spring 2007 were surveyed. Moreover, of the participating GTAs, 7 were female and 6 were male. They were all full-time graduate students, 6 of whom were majoring in teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL), 6 in English linguistics, and 1 in English literature.

The Survey Instrument

The 58-item survey instrument contained two parts. Part 1 elicited students’ background information that included the following variables: gender, major, expected lab course grade, interest in ELL, self-perceived English proficiency level, importance of English in one’s major, and confidence in learning English. Survey items in Part 2 were adapted from an item bank of student ratings of GTA instruction provided by

(10)

1987), Syracuse University. Based on a review of the research and examination of published instruments, items of the CSTL item bank directly related to the purposes of this study and thus were selected to be included in the survey. A preliminary draft questionnaire (Appendix A), both in Chinese and English, was distributed to four second-year graduate students in TEFL for comments and suggestions, which were then incorporated into the final version of the questionnaire. The resulting 43-item questionnaire (Appendix B) focused on aspects of ELL instruction such as: (a) teaching performance (organization and preparedness, communication abilities, instructor/student interaction), (b) course design (grading, examinations, textbook, assignments, course difficulty, pace, and workload), and (c) student learning (self-perceived learning outcome, attitude, effort, and involvement). Student responses to the items of Part 2 were recorded on a 5-point rating scale, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being

strongly agree. The Cronbach’s α values of the three aspects of teaching performance, course design, and student learning were .95, .95, and .90, respectively.

Procedures

Phase 1: The survey. In this phase, the 58-item survey

questionnaire was distributed to students in class to elicit background information and student evaluation of the GTAs’ instruction of ELL. In total, 1,197 valid copies of the questionnaire were collected.

(11)

Phase 2: The interviews. The worth of qualitative

research is “the degree to which it generates theory, description, or understanding” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992, p. 46). Its importance, in comparison to quantitative research, is supported by Marquart, Li, and Zercher (1997) as follows:

While numbers can assess empirical reality more precisely, they are incapable of providing details on the process that leads to a certain kind of situation. Qualitative data, on the other hand, are often rich in process-oriented information. So combining the two can help ensure a more complete understanding of the topic under study. (p. 10)

To substantiate the quantitative data collected in Phase 1 and to illustrate major student concerns about the GTAs’ instruction of the English lab course, 12 randomly selected undergraduate students were interviewed. All students agreed to the tape recording of the interviews and all recordings were then transcribed. The interviews, conducted in summer 2007, were semi-structured, during which several predetermined questions based on the survey questionnaire were posed with considerable flexibility.

DATA ANALYSES

Descriptive analysis of the quantitative data was first employed for frequency counts and mean response scores for each statement. Seven negatively stated items (questions 14,

(12)

One-way ANOVAs were conducted to test the group differences in satisfaction with aspects of GTAs’ teaching performance and course design. Moreover, the interview transcripts were carefully examined for regularities and patterns. Steps for interview data analysis were adopted from Bogdan and Biklen’s (1992) scheme of coding system development, which was focused on identifying major themes and concepts having general explanatory power.

QUANTITATIVE RESULTS

Demographics and Background Information

Table 1 summarizes characteristics of the ELL students in the study. The majority of the students were females (70.5%). In addition, a majority of the students either majored in management (34.9%) or science (20.2%). Regarding the ELL course and English learning, 59.1% of the students expected to receive mediocre course scores ranging from 70 to 89. A majority of the students (85.4%) were, to a certain extent, interested in the ELL course, and 63.2% considered English important in their majors. However, when asked if they were confident in learning English well, less than half of the students (45.4%) responded positively.

(13)

Table 1

Characteristics of Participating ELL Students

Personal Characteristics ELL and English Learning (N = 1,197)

Variable n % Variable n %

Gender ELL course grade expected to receive

Female 844 70.5 90-100 79 6.6

Male 353 29.5 80 – 89 310 25.9

Major 70 – 79 397 33.2

English 93 7.8 60 – 69 247 20.6

FL* 161 13.5 59 and below 23 1.9

Humanities 206 17.2 Not sure 141 11.8 Science 242 20.2 Interest in ELL

Management 418 34.9 Very low 73 6.1

C&I* 76 6.3 Low 102 8.5

Year A little 688 57.5

Sophomore 997 83.3 High 291 24.3

Junior 133 11.1 Very High 43 3.6

Senior 54 4.5 Importance of English in your profession Delayed graduation 13 1.1 Not at all 204 17.0

Expected grade Not much 236 19.7

90-100 79 6.6 A little 399 33.3

80-89 310 25.96 Somewhat 254 21.2

70-79 397 33.2 Very much 104 8.7

60-69 247 20.6 Confidence in learning English well 59 or below 23 1.9 Not at all 122 10.2

Not sure 141 11.8 Not much 532 44.4

Interest in ELL A little 396 33.1

Very Low 73 6.1 Somewhat 108 9.0

Relatively Low 102 8.5 Very much 39 3.3

Low 688 57.5

High 291 24.3

Very High 43 3.6

(14)

Overall Student Perceptions of ELL Instruction

To provide an objective measure of GTA instruction of ELL, a survey questionnaire that deals with GTA teaching performance, course design, and student learning was administered to randomly selected ELL classes for 3 semesters. A total of 1,197 valid questionnaires were collected for analysis. Table 2 presents item numbers, item means, and standard deviations of the three categories of ELL instruction. Note that all the three aspects of GTA instruction were rated above 3 (somewhat agree) but below 4 (agree), which may suggest that the students were only moderately content with the GTAs’ instruction. Moreover, the standard deviations appeared to indicate that the student responses to the GTA instruction were relatively homogeneous.

Table 2

Aspects of ELL Instruction (N = 1,197)

Category Item Number Scale Mean Item Mean SD

Teaching Performance 15 54.83 3.66 .66

Course Design 18 63.57 3.53 .66

Student Learning 10 32.26 3.23 .67

Teaching performance. The average rating of the GTAs’

teaching performance ranged from 3.43 to 3.80. When examining individual item ratings, the GTAs’ preparation (M = 3.80) and enthusiasm (M = 3.79) received higher ratings (see Table 3). On the other hand, the statement addressing

(15)

whether the GTAs provide challenging learning opportunities received a lower student rating (M = 3.43, SD = .89). In other words, even though most students were aware of the GTAs’ positive attitude toward instructing the ELL, they felt less positive about the GTAs’ instructional activities being challenging enough to make progress in English listening skills.

Table 3

Higher Teaching Performance Ratings (N = 1,197)

Statement Mean SD

The instructor seemed well-prepared for each class. 3.80 .79 The instructor is enthusiastic about teaching. 3.79 .84 The instructor effectively encouraged students to

participate in class discussion. 3.75 .86

Course design. In responding to statements about ELL

course design, the average rating ranged from 3.27 to 3.96. In particular, the students generally felt positive about the GTAs’ clear explanation of the grading system (M = 3.96, SD = .84), assessment methods being appropriate (M = 3.78, SD = .82), and the evaluation being fair (M = 3.74, SD = .87) (see Table 4). However, they felt less positive about appropriate selections of teaching materials (M = 3.41, SD = .89), providing stimulating activities (M = 3.27, SD = .90), and feeling satisfied with the educational experience provided by the GTAs (M = 3.31, SD = .94) (see Table 5).

(16)

Table 4

Higher Course Design Ratings (N = 1,197)

Statement Mean SD

The grading system was clearly explained. 3.96 .84 The type of assessment used in this course

was appropriate for the course objectives. 3.78 .82 The instructor evaluated my work fairly. 3.74 .87

Table 5

Lower Course Design Ratings (N = 1,197)

Statement Mean SD

I found this course challenging enough to be

stimulating. 3.27 .90

The assigned textbook was useful. 3.41 .89 I was very satisfied with the educational

experience this instructor provided. 3.31 .94

Overall, the results showed that the students perceived the GTAs’ teaching as having moderate high levels of preparation and enthusiasm. However, the relative lower average scores of course evaluation may imply that the GTAs need to design more activities which can stimulate, motivate, and engage the students in classroom learning.

Student learning. The average rating of student learning

(17)

as positive in their learning as they did with the other two aspects of ELL experience, teaching performance and course design. According to Table 6, the students disagreed with the statements that they looked forward to coming to class (M = 2.94, SD = .93) or that they would have taken this course if it were not a requirement (M = 2.83, SD = 1.06). Overall, the students were slightly discontent about the learning experience of the lab course.

Table 6

Lower Self-Perceived Learning Ratings (N = 1,197)

Statement Mean SD

I would have taken this course even if it were

not required. 2.83 1.06

I looked forward to coming to class. 2.94 .93 I participated actively in class discussion. 3.12 .87

Finally, in terms of the overall ELL experience, the students generally felt positive about their learning, the quality of instruction, and the course (see Table 7). Although they were not highly satisfied with their ELL learning, they still confirmed the value of the GTA-instructed English listening lab.

(18)

Table 7

Overall ELL Experience (N = 1,197)

Statement Mean SD

Overall, I learned a great deal from this course. 3.31 .94 Overall, I rate this instructor an excellent

teacher. 3.52 1.0

Overall, I rate this an excellent course. 3.29 1.0

In order to investigate group differences in evaluating the ELL instruction, responses to the GTAs’ teaching performance and course design were analyzed using ANOVAs. The overall response means of GTAs’ teaching performance and course design were 3.66 and 3.22. The students were then grouped by gender, major, year of college, expected lab grade, and interest in ELL. First, in terms of rating of GTAs’ teaching performance, there were significant differences in gender (p < .000), major (p < .000), year of college (p = .013), expected grade (p = .002), and interest in ELL (p < .000) (see Table 8).

Particularly, males (M = 3.83), science majors (M = 3.92), delayed-graduation students (M = 4.01), students who expected grades of 90 and above (M = 3.76), and students who were highly interested in ELL (M = 4.26) were more satisfied with GTAs’ teaching performance than other groups.

(19)

Table 8

ANOVA Summary for GTAs’ Teaching Performance

Source of Variation SS DF MS F Age Between Groups 15.457 1 15.457 36.563** Within Groups 505.180 1195 .423 Major Between Groups 35.970 5 7.194 17.678** Within Groups 484.667 1191 .407 Year Between Groups 4.678 3 1.559 3.606* Within Groups 515.958 1193 .432 Expected Grade Between Groups 8.030 5 1.606 3.732** Within Groups 512.606 1191 .430 Interest in ELL Between Groups 98.263 4 24.566 69.328** Within Groups 422.373 1192 .354 Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

In terms of ELL course design, there were also significant differences (p < .05) in gender (p < .000), major (p < .000), year (p < .000), expected grade (p = .001), and interest in ELL (p < .000) (see Table 9).

Once again, males (M = 3.71), science majors (M = 3.73), delayed-graduation students (M = 3.97), students who

(20)

were highly interested in ELL (M = 4.13) were more satisfied with GTAs’ ELL design than other groups of students.

Table 9

ANOVA Summary for ELL Course Design

Source of Variation SS DF MS F Age Between Groups 17.215 1 17.215 40.559** Within Groups 507.212 1195 .424 Major Between Groups 27.847 5 5.569 13.358** Within Groups 469.580 1191 .417 Year Between Groups 7.959 3 2.653 6.128** Within Groups 516.468 1193 .433 Expected Grade Between Groups 8.838 5 1.768 4.083** Within Groups 515.589 1191 .433 Interest in ELL Between Groups 110.977 4 27.744 79.988** Within Groups 413.450 1192 .347 Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01.

(21)

QUALITATIVE RESULTS

Themes derived from the student interviews were organized and discussed in terms of the undergraduate students’ concerns about the GTAs’ instruction: teaching techniques and strategies, GTAs’ lab skills, the role of GTAs, and course design. Code names of E1 to E12 are used in this study to represent the 12 interviewees.

Teaching Techniques and Strategies

Previous studies (Norris, 1991; Park, 2002) have indicated that the most important qualification of GTAs is a positive attitude. GTAs are generally well-motivated and highly committed to teaching. There is no doubt that their enthusiasm and vitality can significantly lead to pedagogical innovation and reflective practices crucial in promoting excellence in teaching. The GTAs are particularly valuable in that they can provide approachability to undergraduates and invaluable teaching labor to departments and universities (Ross, 2003; Stepp-Greany, 2002). Although the students surveyed in this study recognized the GTAs’ positive qualities aforementioned, they still expressed concerns in the interviews about the GTAs’ ELL teaching performance. A student remarked, “Even though our GTA was always fully prepared and enthusiastic, his handouts obviously lacked organization, sequence, and consistency of topics and paper sizes” (E3). Another student expressed similar opinions: “The GTA would

(22)

consider its relevance to the target topic. Although he prepared plenty of instructional material, the learning outcome was not as what had been expected” (E5). On the other hand, some other students recognized the GTAs’ well-preparation of the course material: “The GTA collected news excerpts for us to learn the vocabulary for English proficiency tests” and “I learn the vocabulary that the GTA supplemented to the material, especially some technical terms” (E7). The students were generally satisfied with the GTAs’ being well-committed to ELL instruction, but they were concerned about GTAs’ abilities for organizing the course materials and activities for achieving the ELL goals.

In discussing classroom interaction for enhancing English communicative skills, Rivers (1987) suggested that the instructor should speak English in class for the students to “exploit the elasticity of language” (p. 5). Unfortunately, some students in this study expressed that their GTAs failed to provide sufficient opportunities for interactive learning. As a student mentioned: “There were not enough opportunities for speaking English in class; the GTA did not encourage class participation or discussion” (E10). Another student said, “We had expected more opportunities for speaking English in class, but our GTA provided only listening exercises. Nevertheless, I did not think my listening abilities improved much either” (E9).

Another central issue in English teaching is to foster learners’ learning motivation. In reviewing related literature (Brown, 2001; Deci, 1975, Dornyei, 2001; Dornyei & Csizer,

(23)

1988; Raffini, 1996), intrinsic motivation stands out as a powerful drive for effective learning. Learners with intrinsic motivation perform classroom tasks because it is interesting and challenging, and not because they anticipate extrinsic rewards from the teacher. The consequence of extrinsic motivators causes students to depend exclusively on material rewards. Therefore, GTAs should learn to foster students’ intrinsic motivation and use rewards appropriately. It was found in the interviews that not all ELL students agreed with the GTAs’ grading and rewarding system. As a student stated:

I did not like it that the GTA gave bonus points to those who volunteered to answer questions. If I know the answer, I would volunteer even without the bonus points. It turned out that I would not raise my hand to answer the GTA’s question even when I knew the answer. I did not want others to think I volunteered just for the bonus points (E10).

Therefore, rather than relying on extrinsic rewards, GTAs must learn how to facilitate learning, particularly for adult learners, by developing classroom activities, that capitalize students’ intrinsic worth, autonomy and independence.

GTAs’ roles and rapport with students can influence teaching and learning effectiveness (Brown, 2001; Harmer, 2001). GTAs’ should show respect and interest in all students as people, irrespective of how well they perform in class (Davies & Pearse, 2000). In this study, the GTAs failed to adjust to their new roles as teachers or to show respect for the

(24)

interacting with the GTA stated that, “The GTA instructor should respect different opinions of students. They should not criticize or try to change students’ opinions” (E12). Other students commented on the GTAs’ taking a leave without notice in advance and addressing himself Xue Zhang (the senior fellow student). The GTAs’ teaching behaviors indicated in the students’ remarks above can influence the GTAs’ relationship with their students. In students’ views, the GTAs obviously failed to balance between exercising control and encouraging a friendly atmosphere, which can result in losing students’ respect for them and class control. As Gower, Phillips, and Walters (2005) cautioned, “Sometimes you may feel that you have to sacrifice popularity for respect but in the long run teachers who are not respected are not generally popular either” (p. 60). Thus, GTAs also need to learn to be more comfortable with and consistent in being an authority figure in the classroom.

Lab Skills

A Language lab can play a facilitating role in second language learning, if an instructor can implement appropriate activities conducive to all positive learning outcomes (Brenes, 2006; Danaher & Danaher, 1998; Rivers, 1970). Lorge (1964) emphasized that a lab instructor’s ease in handling equipments can significantly influence learning results. The language laboratory equipments should be utilized optimally in various instructional activities and practices for maximizing language

(25)

learning effectiveness. Listening skills, in particular, can be strengthened if the learning opportunities of the language lab provided are fully seized. Unfortunately, it was noticed in this study that the GTAs seemed to lack adequate skills for operating the lab equipment to maximize learning effectiveness. The GTAs’ lab skills were mentioned in a student statement: “The GTA had problem operating the lab machine. Sometimes it took her half of the class time just to get the machine to work” (E6).

English Language Skills

Cullen (2001) considered non-native English teachers’ language skills essential for maintaining authority in the class. However, Medgyes (1994) noticed that non-native English teachers are especially vulnerable because of their language deficiencies. Furthermore, Horwitz (1996) found that non-native English teachers tend to use the target language less in the classroom. A reason may be that some non-native teachers are afraid of losing face, and they often lack self-confidence due to their self-perceived inadequate knowledge of English. Corresponding to the aforementioned research, indeed, the students in this study also believed that English teachers need a full command of English in order to teach and that the teachers should use English as the medium of instruction. Unfortunately, the GTAs may have lacked adequate English skills and failed to meet the students’ expectation of more English exposure and use. As a student

(26)

English” (E1). Another student also commented that “The GTA’s English lacked fluency, so it was painful to listen to him. The GTA spoke in Mandarin for most of the class time. I expected him to speak English only” (E6). Based on the aforementioned students’ opinions about the GTAs’ English inadequacy, the GTAs need to be aware of their areas of English difficulties in order to find ways for improving, in particular, the oral skills.

Course Design

Intrinsically motivating classroom activities should be able to elicit interest from the students’ intellect being (Ur, 1996). On the other hand, classroom activities lacking challenge may cause boredom among students, which can lead to learner inattention, low motivation, and ineffective learning. Although, based on the quantitative results in this study, the students generally felt moderately positive about the course being challenging enough to be stimulating (M = 3.27, SD = .90), however, a student in the interview thought that the class activities were not motivating enough to maximize their language learning opportunities or to foster active participation in class. As the student remarked, “Our GTA instructor did not follow the course syllabus. For example, he played a movie in class that lasted for a few weeks without any discussion. We were just watching the movie” (E6). Another student, however, responded positively to the GTAs’ playing of movies in class by saying, “He would play movie

(27)

clips for focused listening, then he would explain the idioms used in the movies. I liked his movie activity and could see his enthusiasm for teaching this course” (E4). These statements indicate that the GTAs in this study need to improve their classroom design skills for enhancing students’ intrinsic motivation for learning.

As the name suggested, a main objective of the ELL is to help students improve their aural skills. Therefore, the ELL equipments should be integrated into instructional techniques for providing the students with opportunities for practicing both extensive and intensive listening on their own or in pairs/groups. In addition, researchers have emphasized that the course content and objectives should appeal to the students and should be relevant to their lives to enhance intrinsic motivation for learning (Brown, 2001; Ur, 1996). In this study, a student pointed out that “The course content could have been more relevant to life in Taiwan, not to American high school students. It could also be more relevant to my learning needs and major” (E8). This student’s concern confirms with the researchers’ claim.

Another key pedagogic concern is textbook selection. Rivers (1970) contended that selection of teaching materials can affect the use of the language lab, and its effectiveness in helping students acquire the target language. GTAs, therefore, need to take into consideration students’ learning needs and course objectives when choosing the textbook. A student in this study brought up the issue of textbook selection: “Most students in my class did not buy the assigned textbook,

(28)

Finally, classroom-based assessment should be able to measure students’ progress in a course. Achievement tests, in particular, should be related directly to classroom lessons so students can perform to their best abilities on tests. Based on the student interviews, it was found that one of the GTAs’ tests was adopted from the listening sections of a standardized test, so there was no way of preparing for the test. As a result, a student cautioned that “I don’t think the course grades could reflect our class performance, since the tests were irrelevant to the course content and those who intentionally miss classes could also get a good grade” (E5). In terms of overall impression of the GTAs’ instruction of the English lab course, a student reacted somewhat negatively: “I would take this course again only for easy credits, though I would not expect to learn much from it” (E6).

Roles of GTAs

Another key concern of students was the role the GTAs played in the ELL. Pratt (1991) contended that, especially in Asian culture, standard-based performance and formal relationships between teachers and students are mostly valued. Similar to Pratt’s 1991 finding, the participating students displayed their preference of an authority figure that the GTAs presented. As a result, the GTAs’ taking on a relatively informal role in the ELL may induce students’ aversive feelings. As a student indicated, “The GTA tried hard to be friends with us, but he should have acted as an instructor

(29)

instead of a fellow student” (E1). Another student was concerned about the informal role of the GTAs, which inevitably affected learning: “Our GTA lacked authority. More than half of the class was chatting or eating in the back of the classroom without restriction” (E7). In addition, when trying to be friends with the students, the GTAs need to find an optimal balance between formality and informality. Otherwise, the GTAs may appear friendly in class but lose respect of the students. A student was concerned that: “The GTA often discussed personal matters in class. For example, he would talk about how late he had gone out drinking with his friends the night before, or how his advisor treated him” (E12). Other students may find GTAs sharing English learning experience with the students meaningful, as in: “Sometimes he would try to stimulate our thoughts by talking about his own experience” (E11).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION

This study intended to answer questions about the undergraduate students’ overall perceptions and concerns about the GTA-instructed English laboratory course. According to the results derived from the student survey, GTAs received relative high student ratings on being well-prepared, enthusiastic, and encouraging. The students also agreed positively that the assessment and grading systems

(30)

feel that the class was stimulating, the textbook was well used, or the educational experience was satisfactory. Besides, the students’ slightly negative responses regarding the two statements that asked whether they would take the ELL if it was not required, and whether the students looked forward to coming to class, indicate a somewhat low degree of overall course satisfaction. Moreover, the students did not agree that they actively participated in class discussion.

Although the students generally agreed that the GTAs were well-prepared, enthusiastic, and approachable, they felt less positive about the GTAs’ quality of instruction particularly in areas of lesson planning, teaching techniques, material design, and classroom interaction. They also felt that their GTAs were not adequately trained and knowledgeable in the use of the lab equipment, which may be one of the reasons why the students were somewhat dissatisfied with the overall ELL experience. As Lavine (1992) proposed, instructors who are not comfortable with the lab equipment will not be able to effectively motivate students to use a language laboratory. Therefore, it is recommended that future GTA training programs should include both pedagogical and lab skills training in order to successfully fulfill their ELL instructional responsibilities. So GTAs are aware of the variety of useful strategies to address student needs and take fullest advantage of the lab equipment for teaching English. Moreover, on-site technical personnel should be provided to keep the technological problems to a minimum level in order to ensure

(31)

the effectiveness of ELL instruction.

In terms of the overall ELL experience, the students responded somewhat negatively to the survey questionnaire statements: I looked forward to coming to class (M = 2.94), and I would have taken this course even if it was not required (M = 2.83). On the other hand, the students rated the overall course experience somewhat high (M = 3.29). Such a discrepancy in perceptions may be attributed partially to the GTAs’ enthusiasm, vitality, and approachability which can often prevail over pedagogical weaknesses (Smith, 2004) despite aforementioned inadequate pedagogical training. The instructor’s positive characteristics can also generate involvement of and build rapport with students.

The GTAs seemed to lack pedagogical skills required of ELL instruction to tackle the weaknesses in course planning, material organization, activity development, and classroom management as remarked by the students. The task of planning, organizing, motivating, and maintaining classroom control can be overwhelming for GTAs, who often lack teaching experience and formal training. Thus, adequate training of GTAs to be familiar with the strengths and limitations of the ELL instruction is essential for providing a positive English learning experience for students. With intensive training, GTAs can become more competent in their teaching, more responsive to student needs, more able to cope with specific problems they might encounter, and build confidence related to classroom practices (Luo et al., 2000).

(32)

training before they begin the ELL instructional duties. Meeting periodically with faculty supervisors following their classroom visits by pinpointing specific teaching incidents and problems is imperative to enhance lab instruction skills.

In summary, suggestions for improving GTAs’ pedagogical skills are proposed below for future GTA training programs. First, English lab GTAs should be trained for more EFL teaching techniques and strategies for teaching functional aspects of English in the language laboratories. Second, a mentorship with TEFL faculty is also suggested for the mentor to model pedagogical techniques and to provide helpful feedback on GTA teaching performance. Mid- and end-of-semester teaching performance evaluation forms should be completed by the faculty supervisor. Third, GTAs should be required to attend and critique classes taught by other GTAs, hands-on workshops, and microteaching (Davis and Kring, 2001; Goodlad, 1997; Shannon et al., 1998). Fourth, GTA training should be expanded to include systematic observation, individualized feedback, and formal discussions by faculty and peers based on actual teaching sessions in order to foster language lab teaching effectiveness. As noted by Chism (1993), systematic reflection can help improve instruction. Nyquist and Wulff (1996) also contended that the instructor should learn to deeply reflect about his or her practice to help them make better future teaching decisions. Thus, teaching portfolios consisting of personal information, the philosophy of teaching, teaching experiences, teaching

(33)

development activities and other relevant information should be compiled and teaching journals should be kept to promote GTAs’ teaching skills and professional development.

In addition to pedagogical and lab skills, a cardinal factor affecting GTAs’ quality of ELL instruction is their English proficiency. As noted by Medgyes (1994), the non-native English teachers’ command of English plays a considerable role in the success of teaching. The GTAs of this study, though majoring in English, may not possess adequate English proficiency or knowledge about American culture. According to the results gathered from the interviews, the students expected to learn language functions for meaningful interactions. However, the GTAs tended to focus on vocabulary instruction, which may be because they were more confident in teaching language forms such as vocabulary words and grammatical rules. Furthermore, Horwitz (1996) pointed out that English teachers are also English learners; therefore, they need to continue improving their English proficiency to meet the language demands posed by classroom teaching. Hence, language improvement should be a foremost aim of GTA training. To help GTAs advance their English and communicative competence, regular language trainings or tutorials may be needed so that GTAs can communicate more competently and effectively in English with their students. Finally, it was indicated in the interviews that the varying roles of a peer and of a teacher that the GTAs play in the ELL were confusing to the students. Therefore, GTAs need to be aware

(34)

students’ possible reactions, and to be able to switch appropriately between the various roles (Brown, 2001; Gower et al., 2005; Harmer, 2001).

CONCLUSION

This study is significant because it explores students’ perceptions of and concerns about GTA instruction of the English lab course in an EFL context. On a pragmatic level, this study can benefit GTA trainers by providing information about student concerns and opinions about GTA instruction. Future GTA training programs can thus focus on the specific instructional problems pointed out by this study and provide successful strategies for preventing these problems from happening. This study, however, has two specific limitations. First, although many students in this study were favorable about the GTAs’ teaching performance, including a comparison group of full-time ELL teaching assistants may help to examine the strengths and weaknesses of both groups. The findings derived from such a comparison would offer further insights into the GTAs’ abilities and even strengthen the evaluation for GTA effectiveness. Second, this study explored the GTAs of the ELL course who assumed full instructional responsibilities in an EFL context; therefore, its findings may not be generalizable to all GTAs taking on partial instructional responsibilities or participating in

(35)

academic disciplines other than EFL. In conclusion, by triangulating data from questionnaires and interviews, this study found, from the students’ perceptions, GTAs’ strengths and weaknesses in ELL instruction. The strengths included teaching enthusiasm and well-preparedness, and the weaknesses were in course planning, lab skills, classroom management, and command of English. Findings of this study may offer insights into GTA training in areas of instructional techniques and strategies, teaching evaluation, peer observation, systematic teaching reflection, and development of English competence.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to sincerely thank the anonymous ETL reviewers for their valuable comments on the earlier version of this paper.

REFERENCES

Bailey, K. M., Pialorsi, F., & Zukowski/Faust, J. (Eds.). (1984).

Foreign teaching assistants in U.S. universities.

Washington, DC: NAFSA.

Bauer, G. (1996). Addressing special considerations when working with international teaching assistants. In J. D.

(36)

graduate assistants (pp. 84-103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bloom, B. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives:

Handbook 1, cognitive domain. New York: Longman, Green and Co.

Bogdan, R. D., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research

for education: An introduction to theory and methods.

Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bomotti, S. (1994). Teaching assistant attitudes toward college teaching. Review of Higher Education, 17(4), 371-393. Brenes, C. A. N. (2006). The language laboratory and the

EFL course. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/447/44760202.pdf Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive

approach to language pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Center for Support of Teaching and Learning, Syracuse University. (1987). Student ratings of teaching effectiveness:

Using the CSTL item bank to create your own form.

Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://cstl.syr.edu/ cstl2/Home/Teaching%20Support/Teaching%20at%20SU/ Student%20Ratings/12A300.htm

Cheng, H.-o., & Lee, S.-c. (2001). Development of university teaching assistant training program: A case study on the training of TA of Tamkang University calculus courses.

Journal of Educational Media & Library Sciences, 38(4), 439-452.

(37)

Chism, N. (1993). How faculty develop teaching expertise. In M. Weimer (Ed.), Faculty as teachers: Taking stock of

what we know (pp. 33-36). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Cullen, R. (2001). The use of lesson transcripts for developing teachers’ classroom language. System, 29(1), 27-43. Danaher, M., & Danaher, P. (1998). The benefits of language

laboratories for learning Japanese as a foreign language.

Language Learning Journal, 18, 50-55.

Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in English teaching. New York: Oxford.

Davis, S. F., & Kring, J. P. (2001). A model for training and evaluating graduate teaching assistants. College Student

Journal, 35(1), 45-51.

Davis, W. E. (1991). International teaching assistants and cultural differences: Student evaluations of rapport, approachability, enthusiasm and fairness. In J. D. Nyquist, R. D. Abbott, D. H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.),

Preparing the professoriate of tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 446-451). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press. Dornyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation.

Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Dornyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (1988). Ten commandments for motivating language learners. Language Teaching

(38)

Feezel, J. D., & Meyers, S. A. (1997). Assessing graduate teaching assistant communication concerns.

Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 110-124.

Feinman, J. M. (1991). Teaching assistants. Journal of Legal

Education, 41, 269-288.

Fisher, M. (1985). Rethinking the foreign TA problem. In J. D. W. Andrews (Ed.), Strengthening the teaching assistant

faculty (pp. 63-73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

French, D., & Russell, C. (2002). Do graduate teaching assistants benefit from teaching inquiring-based laboratories? BioScience, 52(11), 1036-1041.

Goodlad, S. (1997). Responding to the perceived training needs of graduate teaching assistants. Studies in Higher

Education, 22, 83-92.

Gower, R., Phillips, D., & Walters, S. (2005). Teaching

practice: A handbook for teachers in training. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.

Harding, E., & Rodgers, T. (1985). Language laboratories: What have we learned? NASSP Bulletin, 69(480), 21-29. Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching.

Harlow, England: Pearson Education.

Hoekje, B., & Williams, J. (1992). Communicative competence and the dilemma of international teaching assistant education. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 243-269. Horwitz, E. K. (1996). Even teachers get the blues:

Recognizing and alleviating language teachers’ feelings of foreign language anxiety. Foreign Language Annals,

(39)

29(3), 365-372.

Howatt, A., & Widdowson, H. (2004). A history of English

language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Koerner, R. J. (1988). Language laboratory in the high school:

Dinosaur or valuable tool for the teaching of foreign languages? CALICO Journal, 6(1), 82-86.

Lavine, R. Z. (1992). Rediscovering the audio language laboratory: Learning through communicative tasks.

Hispania, 75(5), 1360-1367.

Lin, K.-c., Liu, J.-s., Tsai, P.-l., & Wu, C.-y. (2007). Preliminary evaluations of a training program for graduate students as teaching assistants. Journal of

Medical Education, 11(4), 275-283.

Lorge, S. W. (1964). Language laboratory research studies in

New York City High School: A discussion of the program and the findings. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED012158)

Luo, J., Bellows, L., & Grady, M. (2000). Classroom management issues for teaching assistants. Research in

Higher Education, 41, 353-383.

Luo, J., Grady, M. L., & Bellows, L. H. (2001). Instructional issues for teaching assistants. Innovative Higher

Education, 25(3), 209-230.

Marquart, J. M., Li, S., & Zercher, C. (1997, March). Making

the whole more than the sum of the parts: Challenges in a mixed method study of inclusion. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational

(40)

Document Reproduction Service No. ED408749)

Medgyes, P. (1994). The non-native teacher. London, UK: MacMillan.

National Education Radio. (2007, April 17). Report on

achievements of teaching assistant system at National Chi Nan University and Tung-Hai University. [暨大、東 海 展 現 教 學 助 理 制 度 成 果 ] [On-line]. Available: http://www.csal.fcu.edu.tw/Edu/program_PlanShow.asp? PPno=24

Norris, T. (1991). Nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants and student performance. Research in Higher

Education, 32, 433-448.

Nyquist, J. D., & Wulff, D. H. (1996). Working effectively with

graduate assistants. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Park, C. (2002). Neither fish nor fowl? The perceived benefits and problems of using graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) to teach undergraduate students. Higher

Education Review, 35(1), 50-62.

Park, C. (2004). The graduate teaching assistant (GTA): Lessons from North American experience. Teaching in

Higher Education, 9(3), 349-361.

Pratt, D. D. (1991). Conceptions of self within China and the United States: Contrasting foundations for adult education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 285-310.

Raffini, J. P. (1996). 150 ways to increase intrinsic motivation

(41)

Rivers, W. M. (1970). Teaching foreign-language skills. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interactive language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ross, P. J. (2003). Listening skills and language labs: A case study of a college-level ESL program. Dissertation

Abstracts International, 64(12), 4479. (UMI No. 3115072) Rubin, D. L. (1992). Nonlanguage factors affecting

undergraduates’ judgments of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants. Research in Higher Education, 33(4), 511-531.

Rutgers University Senate Committee on Instruction, Curriculum and Advising. (n.d.). 2001 review of teaching

assistant training. Retrieved December 29, 2005, from http://senate.rutgers.edu/tatrain.html

Shannon, D. M., Twale, D. J., & Moore, M. S. (1998). TA teaching effectiveness: The impact of training and teaching experience. The Journal of Higher Education,

69, 440-466.

Smith, E. A. (2004). Differences in attitudes, experiences, and success between delivering and receiving site students in interactive television foreign language classes.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(10), 3577. (UMI No. 3107915)

Smith, J., Meyers, C. M., & Burkhalter, A. J. (1992).

Communicate: Strategies for international teaching assistants. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.

(42)

learning in a technological environment: Implications for the new millennium. Language Learning & Technology,

6(1), 165-180. Retrieved December 26, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol6num1/STEPPGREANY/

Twale, D. J., Shannon, D. M., & Moore, M. S. (1997). NGTA and IGTA training and experience: Comparisons between self-ratings and undergraduate student evaluations.

Innovative Higher Education, 22, 61-77.

Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Young, R. (1990). Curriculum renewal in training programs for international teaching assistants. Journal of Intensive

English Studies, 4, 59-77.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Huey-nah Cindy Chou is an associate professor in the Department of English Language, Literature and Linguistics at Providence University, Taichung, R.O.C.. Her current research interests include affective factors in second language acquisition and integration of service learning into English teacher education.

(43)

APPENDIX A

Questionnaire on GTAs’ English Listening Lab Instruction: English Version

Directions: Using the scale provided, please complete this

questionnaire by indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about GTAs’ ELL instruction.

(1)strongly disagree (2)disagree (3)neither disagree nor agree (4)agree (5)strongly agree

Teaching Performance

_____ 1. The objectives of the course were clearly explained. _____ 2. The instructor’s presentations were clear and

understandable.

_____ 3. The instructor presented the course material clearly. _____ 4. The instructor used class time well.

_____ 5. The instructor’s presentations were well-organized. _____ 6. The instructor had a good command of spoken

English.

_____ 7. The instructor seemed well-prepared for each class. _____ 8. The instructor appeared to have a thorough knowledge

of the subject.

_____ 9. The instructor summarized or emphasized important points in class.

(44)

_____ 10. The instructor demonstrated good communication and presentation skills.

_____ 11. The instructor is enthusiastic about teaching.

_____ 12. The instructor effectively encouraged students to participate in class discussions.

_____ 13. The instructor motivated me to do my best work. _____ 14. The instructor provided me with an effective range

of challenges.

_____ 15. The instructor accepted viewpoints other than his/her own as valid.

Student Learning

_____ 16. I found this class intellectually challenging. _____ 17. My learning increased in this course.

_____ 18. I made progress toward achieving course objectives. _____ 19. I learned more in this course than I had expected. _____ 20. The time spent in class was worthwhile.

_____ 21. I looked forward to coming to class.

_____ 22. I would have taken this course even if it was not required.

_____ 23. I attended class regularly.

_____ 24. I studied and put effort into this course. _____ 25. I participated actively in class discussions.

Course Design

_____ 26. The grading system was clearly explained.

(45)

appropriate for the course objectives. _____ 28. The instructor evaluated my work fairly.

_____ 29. My grades accurately reflect my performance in the course.

_____ 30. The class activities prepared me for the exams. _____ 31. I knew which content topics were to be included on

the exams.

_____ 32. Answers to the exam questions were adequately explained after the exam.

_____ 33. Exams were reasonable in difficulty. _____ 34. The assigned textbook was useful.

_____ 35. The assignments were relevant to course objectives. _____ 36. I was challenged by the course assignments.

_____ 37. The amount of information covered in this course was reasonable.

_____ 38. The course content was presented at a satisfactory level of difficulty.

_____ 39. I found this course challenging enough to be stimulating.

_____ 40. I was very satisfied with the educational experience this instructor provided.

_____ 41. Overall, I learned a great deal from this course. _____ 42. Overall, I rate this instructor an excellent teacher. _____ 43. Overall, I rate this an excellent course.

(46)

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire on GTAs’ English Listening Lab Instruction: Chinese Version 指示 指示 指示 指示:::: 以下敘述是關於您對於英語聽講實習課研究生教學助理英語聽講實習課研究生教學助理英語聽講實習課研究生教學助理英語聽講實習課研究生教學助理 的教學意見。請針對每一項陳述表達你的意見。 (1)非常反對 (2)反對 (3)不反對也不同意 (4)同意 (5)非常同意 請在讀完每一項陳述之後,選擇你的答案 1-5。 Teaching Performance 教學教學教學 教學 _____ 1. 任課老師清楚地說明本課程的教學目的 _____ 2. 任課老師上課講解清楚且易懂 _____ 3. 任課老師清楚地講解上課教材 _____ 4. 任課老師恰當地使用上課時間 _____ 5. 任課老師授課組織分明 _____ 6. 任課老師有不錯的英語口語能力 _____ 7. 任課老師每節課都準備充分 _____ 8. 任課老師明顯地對教學內容有充分的知識 _____ 9. 任課老師會總結或強調上課內容重點 _____ 10. 任課老師表現出不錯的溝通與授課能力 _____ 11. 任課老師對於教學充滿熱誠 _____ 12. 任課老師善於鼓勵學生參與課堂討論 _____ 13. 任課老師會鼓勵我盡力而為 _____ 14. 任課老師提供我相當的學習挑戰 _____ 15. 任課老師可以接受跟他不同的意見或答案

(47)

Student Learning 學習學習學習 學習 _____ 16. 這堂課對我具有學習挑戰性 _____ 17. 我在這堂課的學習有進步 _____ 18. 我有達到本課程的教學目的 _____ 19. 在這堂課學到的東西比我之前預期的還要多 _____ 20. 上這堂課的時間相當值得 _____ 21. 我期待上這堂課 _____ 22. 即使這堂課不是必修課,我還是會選修這堂課 _____ 23. 我按時上這堂課 _____ 24. 我會花時間準備這堂課 _____ 25. 我主動參與課堂討論 Course Design 課程課程課程課程 _____ 26. 任課老師清楚地說明這堂課的評分標準 _____ 27. 這堂課的評分方式與其教學目的相配合 _____ 28. 任課老師公平地評量我的各項作業 _____ 29. 我的成績確實地反映出我的課堂表現 _____ 30. 上課內容有助於我準備這堂課的考試 _____ 31. 我清楚準備考試的方向 _____ 32. 任課老師會在考試後清楚地講解試題答案 _____ 33. 考試的難易度適中 _____ 34. 上課指定教材很有幫助 _____ 35. 作業與課程目的有相關聯 _____ 36. 課程作業對我具有挑戰性 _____ 37. 這堂課所涵蓋的內容分量適中 _____ 38. 上課內容難易度適中 _____ 39. 這堂課對我具有挑戰性並能激發學習

(48)

_____ 40. 我對老師所提供的課程學習感到滿意

_____ 41. 總體而言,我在這堂課學到很多東西

_____ 42. 總體而言,我認為任課老師非常優秀

(49)

英聽

聽實習學生對研究生助教授課

實習學生對研究生助教授課

實習學生對研究生助教授課

實習學生對研究生助教授課

之意見與看法

之意見與看法

之意見與看法

之意見與看法

摘要 摘要摘要 摘要 放眼許多歐美國家,特別美國大學依賴研究生 助教擔任基礎課程與實習課的教學工作日以俱 增;同樣地,近來台灣各大專院校因教育部獎 勵教學卓越以提昇教學品質及競爭力之故,積 極培訓研究生擔任教學助理已經成為計畫中極 為重要之方案。因此,本研究透過量化之教學 評鑑量表及質化之大學生訪談兩項研究方法收 集完整資料,探討大學生對英聽實習研究生教 學助教的看法及評鑑。研究結果指出學生對於 研究生教學助教上英聽實習課的五大看法(教 學方法與策略、英聽教室操作技巧、英語能力、 課程設計、及 GTA 角色),也發現學生滿意度 最高的為教學助教之教學表現。本研究結論對 於研究生助教負責大學部課程的教學現況提供 深入與建設性的建議,相信將有助於提升研究 生助教訓練品質、研究生授課與英語能力雙方 面專業發展、及英語學習效率。 關鍵詞:研究生助教 英聽實習 教學評量

參考文獻

相關文件

printing, engraved roller 刻花輥筒印花 printing, flatbed screen 平板絲網印花 printing, heat transfer 熱轉移印花. printing, ink-jet

(1) Western musical terms and names of composers commonly used in the teaching of Music are included in this glossary.. (2) The Western musical terms and names of composers

好了既然 Z[x] 中的 ideal 不一定是 principle ideal 那麼我們就不能學 Proposition 7.2.11 的方法得到 Z[x] 中的 irreducible element 就是 prime element 了..

Thus, our future instruction may take advantages from both the Web-based instruction and the traditional way.. Keywords:Traditional Instruction、Web-based Instruction、Teaching media

Wang, Solving pseudomonotone variational inequalities and pseudocon- vex optimization problems using the projection neural network, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 17

volume suppressed mass: (TeV) 2 /M P ∼ 10 −4 eV → mm range can be experimentally tested for any number of extra dimensions - Light U(1) gauge bosons: no derivative couplings. =&gt;

Define instead the imaginary.. potential, magnetic field, lattice…) Dirac-BdG Hamiltonian:. with small, and matrix

incapable to extract any quantities from QCD, nor to tackle the most interesting physics, namely, the spontaneously chiral symmetry breaking and the color confinement.. 