Competencies for online teaching assistants: Integrating technology, pedagogy, and communication skills

Zeinab Mostafavi; Laurie Shanderson  Shanderson

doi:10.24059/olj.v30i3.4999

Authors

Zeinab Mostafavi Tehran Universitu
Laurie Shanderson Shanderson FACHE Accreditation Insights

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v30i3.4999

Keywords:

Competency-based framework, interaction skills, online learning, professional development, qualitative research, teaching assistants

Abstract

The integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in higher education has transformed e-learning, however, challenges such as low course completion rates, limited learner engagement, and insufficient interaction persist. This study aims to develop a competency-based framework for teaching assistants (TAs) in fully online universities, focusing on their role in facilitating engagement and interaction within Learning Management Systems (LMS). Grounded in a constructivist and interpretivist paradigm, the study employed the Delphi method with 15 experienced TAs and 7 faculty members. Data analysis, guided by the Technology Acceptance Model, Social Interaction Theory, and Connectivism Learning Theory, revealed four main themes: technical-professional competencies, information and communication competencies, classroom management and teaching skills, and individual and general competencies, with 12 sub-themes. The framework emphasizes subject matter expertise, research skills, teaching skills, ICT thinking, knowledge, and skills, communication and collaboration, managing student behavior, strategic insight and intuition, creativity and innovation, and ethical and moral competencies. The study contributes to the understanding of the complex roles of TAs in digital education and provides actionable insights for optimizing their training and utilization in e-learning environments, ultimately enhancing the quality and accessibility of online education.

References

Arinto, P. B. (2016). Issues and challenges in open and distance OL: Perspectives from the Philippines. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.1913

Arshavskaya, E. (2015). International teaching assistants’ experiences in the U.S. classrooms: Implications for practice. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(2), 56–69. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i2.12947

Bartoletti, R. (2016). Learning through design: MOOC development as a method for exploring teaching methods. Current Issues in Emerging eLearning, 3(1), Article 2. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/ciee/vol3/iss1/2

Boman, J. S. (2013). Graduate student teaching development: Evaluating the effectiveness of training in relation to graduate student characteristics. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 43(1), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v43i1.207

Bourelle, T., Bourelle, A., & Rankins-Robertson, S. (2015). Teaching with instructional assistants: Enhancing student learning in online classes. Computers and Composition, 37, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.06.007

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Brent, R., & Felder, R. (2008, June). A professional development program for graduate students at North Carolina State University. In 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition (pp. 13–87).

Bubbar, K., Dimopoulos, A., Korpan, C., & Wild, P. (2017). An overview of the teaching assistant consultant program for developing competency in novice engineering graduate TAs. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA). https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.7335

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Reprinted as Wingspread Journal/Wingspread Report.

Ciston, S., Cerretani, C., & Went, M. S. (2016, June). Teaching with graduate TAs: Tips for promoting high performance instructional teams. In 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson.

Crowe, J., Ceresola, R., & Silva, T. (2014). Enhancing student learning of research methods through the use of undergraduate teaching assistants. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 759–775. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.871222

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Fernandez, C. J., Ramesh, R., & Manivannan, A. S. R. (2022). Synchronous learning and asynchronous learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A case study in India. Asian Association of Open Universities Journal, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAOUJ-02-2021-0027

Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate teaching assistant: Challenges and implications. Science Educator, 20(2), 31–41.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Goodwin, E. C., Cary, J. R., & Shortlidge, E. E. (2021). Enthusiastic but inconsistent: Graduate teaching assistants’ perceptions of their role in the CURE classroom. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 20(4), ar66. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.21-04-0106

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

Hardré, P. L., & Burris, A. O. (2012). What contributes to teaching assistant development: Differential responses to key design features. Instructional Science, 40, 93–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9163-0

Joksimović, S., Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Riecke, B. E., & Hatala, M. (2015). Social presence in online discussions as a process predictor of academic performance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(6), 638–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12107

Li, Y., Armstrong, A., & Krasny, M. (2024). MOOC teaching assistants’ global-engaged learning in the US and China. Online Learning, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i4.4567

Mayer, G., & Sekayi, D. (2018). Pedagogical practices of TAs in polysynchronous classrooms: The role of professional autonomy. InSight: A Journal of Scholarly Teaching, 13, 130–149.

McHenry, M. K. (2021). TAs in online classrooms: A basic qualitative study exploring undergraduate experiences [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University].

Meadows, K. N., Olsen, K. C., Dimitrov, N., & Dawson, D. L. (2015). Evaluating the differential impact of teaching assistant training programs on international graduate student teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 45(3), 34–55. https://doi.org/10.47678/cjhe.v45i3.187557

Miller, J. E., Groccia, J. E., & Miller, M. S. (2001). Student-assisted teaching: A guide to faculty-student teamwork. Anker Publishing Company.

Ntourmas, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Daskalaki, S., & Avouris, N. (2022). Assessing learner facilitation in MOOC forums: A mixed-methods evaluation study. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 15(2), 265–278. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2022.3166389

Park, C. (2004). The graduate teaching assistant (GTA): Lessons from North American experience. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251042000216660

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Vol. 3). Sage.

Rafi, A. M., Varghese, P. R., & Kuttichira, P. (2020). The pedagogical shift during COVID 19 pandemic: Online medical education, barriers and perceptions in Central Kerala. Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2382120520951795

Rai, L., & Chunrao, D. (2016). Influencing factors of success and failure in MOOC and general analysis of learner behavior. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 6(4), 262. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJIET.2016.V6.697

Reeves, T. D., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K. R., Ridgway, J., Gardner, G. E., Schussler, E. E., & Wischusen, E. W. (2016). A conceptual framework for graduate teaching assistant professional development evaluation and research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), es2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-10-0225

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Elearnspace.

Sohoni, S., Cho, Y., & French, D. P. (2013). A survey to capture needs assessment for graduate teaching assistant training. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(3), n3.

Staton, A. Q., & Darling, A. L. (1989). Socialization of teaching assistants. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219893904

U.S. Department of Labor. (2020). Teacher Assistants. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/education-training-and-library/teacher-assistants.htm

Varkey, T. C., Varkey, J. A., Ding, J. B., Varkey, P. K., Zeitler, C., Nguyen, A. M., ... & Thomas, C. R. (2023). Asynchronous learning: A general review of best practices for the 21st century. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 16(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-06-2022-0036

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540

Versteeg, M., Hendriks, R. A., Thomas, A., Ommering, B. W., & Steendijk, P. (2020). Conceptualising spaced learning in health professions education: A scoping review. Medical Education, 54(3), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14025

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Vol. 86). Harvard University Press.

Wadams, M. L., & Schick-Makaroff, K. (2022). Teaching assistant development and contributions in online, MOOC and blended synchronous settings: An integrative review. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(8), 1023–1039. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2022.203810

Webster, R., Blatchford, P., Bassett, P., Brown, P., Martin, C., & Russell, A. (2011). The wider pedagogical role of teaching aides/assistants. School Leadership and Management, 31(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.540562

Wheeler, L. B., Maeng, J. L., Chiu, J. L., & Bell, R. L. (2017). Do TAs matter? Investigating relationships between TAs and student outcomes in undergraduate science laboratory classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 463–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21373

Wingo, N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017). Faculty perceptions about teaching online: Exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing framework. Online Learning, 21(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i1.761

Winter, J., Turner, R., Gedye, S., Nash, P., & Grant, V. (2015). Graduate TAs: Responding to the challenges of internationalization. International Journal for Academic Development, 20(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2014.986661