Maximizing the role of undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) to match signature pedagogies in leadership education

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the current application paper is to integrate previous literature with recent results from practitioners on effective practices for utilizing small groups in the leadership classroom.

Design/methodology/approach

We use these integrated findings to innovate practice on maximizing the role of undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) by matching their tasks to signature pedagogies in leadership education.

Findings

The integrated findings revealed three practice themes: (1) match UTAs to pedagogical approach, (2) create small groups by design and (3) providing training and reflection practice for UTAs.

Originality/value

In sum, leadership education can and should challenge historical practices in higher education whereby UTAs are used purely for grading and course logistics management.

Citation

Hastings, L., Sunderman, H. and Knopik, N. (2024), "Maximizing the role of undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) to match signature pedagogies in leadership education", Journal of Leadership Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOLE-01-2024-0012

Introduction

Expectations of higher education have evolved over time for college students as well as employers hiring recent graduates. For example, current employers of college graduates expect students to have a wide range of skills, abilities and attitudes, such as a positive view toward diversity, as well as an ability to work in teams and communicate (Jones, Baldi, Phillips, & Waikar, 2017; Michaelson, Davidson, & Major, 2014). The expectation of “soft skill” development has led to an increase in the use of pedagogical approaches that promote student participation and collaboration, such as utilizing small groups in the classroom (Haidet, Kubitz, & McCormack, 2014). Further, the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS), the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U), NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, ACPA: College Student Educators International, disciplinary accreditor members of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), and the Degree Qualification Profile (DQP) all propose student learning outcomes related to the development of team-based skills and interpersonal, collaborative competencies (Adelman, Ewell, Gaston, & Schneider, 2011; AAC&U & NLC, 2007; CAS, 2015; Dreschsler Sharp, Komives, & Fincher, 2011; NASPA/ACPA, 2004; NACE, 2019).

Starting in the late 20th century, higher education instructors began shifting away from overwhelmingly lecture-based instruction to a menu of teaching methods in which students were active participants in the learning process (Davidson, Major, & Michaelsen, 2014). One of the predominant teaching methods that arose during this time was cooperative learning, defined as “students working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned” (Cohen, 1994, p. 3). Teaching methods that emphasize participation in small groups have demonstrated positive outcomes for students including enhanced knowledge acquisition and critical thinking (Haidet et al., 2014; Roberson & Franchini, 2014; Webb, 2008), participation and engagement (Clark, Nguyen, Bray, & Levine, 2008) and teamwork (Bou Akl et al., 2012). Additional research indicates that students who participate in team-based learning (TBL) experience increased learning transfer (Pai, Sears, & Maeda, 2015) and self-management (Michaelson et al., 2014). While these results provide evidence of the value of small group and TBL, students tend to describe frustrations with group work, particularly regarding social loafing (Hall & Buzwell, 2013).

Jenkins’ (2012) exploration of signature pedagogies in undergraduate leadership education revealed the following as the most frequently used instructional strategies: (1) class discussion, (2) interactive lecture and discussion, (3) small group discussions, and (4) group projects and presentations. Overall, Jenkins (2012) summarized that discussion-based pedagogies were the most frequently utilized pedagogy among the sampled leadership educators (N = 303) in a national study. Considering leadership education’s heavy usage of discussion-based teaching methods in large and small group contexts, reconsidering the role of undergraduate teaching assistants (UTAs) in leadership education is paramount. Only utilizing one or two UTAs for grading and course logistics management is mismatched with leadership education’s signature pedagogies.

The positive outcomes associated with small group and TBL encourage leadership educators to reflect on effective uses of small groups in the classroom and reconsider the role of UTAs to purport effective small group experiences (e.g., small group experiences that avoid social loafing). The purpose of this paper is to innovate practices for maximizing the role of UTAs in leadership education by synthesizing and integrating previous literature and recent research results on best practices for utilizing small groups in the leadership classroom.

Organization of current paper

The current application manuscript is organized nontraditionally as data collection and analytic procedures were conducted a priori to inform the content presented related to maximizing the role of UTAs in leadership education. Qualitative data were collected via focus groups in the 2019 Association of Leadership Educators Conference Roundtable Discussions. The goal of the discussion roundtable was to provide participants the opportunity to discuss best practices for utilizing small groups in the leadership classroom. Discussion questions included the following:

1. What have you learned from attempts at utilizing small groups in the leadership classroom? What strategies have been successful?

2. How do we as leadership educators create conditions for small groups to work effectively and independently?

3. How do you provide feedback to small groups in the classroom?

Three rounds of focus groups were conducted with five to ten participants in each session. While discussion questions created a structure for each focus group, leads presented by the participants were followed. Each roundtable was recorded via voice memo, and field notes and observations were recorded by one of the researchers. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained to certify ethical conduct in the data collection and analytic process. Data analysis followed basic qualitative analytic procedures as outlined by Creswell and Poth (2018): (1) preparing and organizing the data for analysis, (2) reducing data into themes via coding and code reduction, and (3) representing the data in a thematic discussion.

In response to the analytic process, the following sections offer synthesized and integrated themes from previous literature alongside the focus group results. Each theme begins with a short introduction, previous literature follows, then each theme closes with results from the focus groups. The paper concludes with reflections and recommendations for applying and implementing the innovative practice themes.

Innovative practice theme 1: match UTAs to pedagogical approach

Considering signature pedagogies in leadership education largely involve discussion in large and small group contexts (Jenkins, 2012), utilizing UTAs to match that pedagogical approach perhaps requires reframed thinking. For example, course infrastructure design in leadership education may need to evolve to support large UTA cohort models whereby each UTA facilitates one intact small group throughout an entire leadership course or program. This large UTA cohort model requires a paradigmatic shift from UTA as “instructor helper” to UTA as “co-facilitator of leadership learning.”

Previous literature

Peers play an important role in student learning and student motivation (Bovill, 2013; De Voider, De Grave, & Gijselaers, 1985; Fingerson & Culley, 2001; Goff & Lahme, 2003; Marvell, Simm, Schaaf, & Harper, 2013; Moust & Schmidt, 1994; Moust, De Volder, & Nuy, 1989; Yew & Yong, 2014), as well as in the development of leader identity and leadership learning outcomes (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Haber, 2011; Komives et al., 2009). Peer facilitation strategies can help generate innovative ideas, motivate students to participate actively in the discussions and provide an atmosphere for involvement and commitment (Baran & Correia, 2009). De Voider et al.’s (1985) comparative study of student progress via small group discussions revealed that student-led group discussions are as effective as instructor-led discussions in retaining course material. Fingerson and Culley (2001) concluded from their study of active learning models among UTA-supported undergraduate classrooms that students are more active in the classroom when UTAs are present and are more confident in seeking help when they lack understanding of the material. Goff and Lahme’s (2003) comparative study of undergraduate math students with (n = 218) and without (n = 218) a UTA indicated that students with UTAs spent more time on mathematics outside of class, had more contact with their instructor, felt more supported and enjoyed their mathematics classes more than students without UTAs.

UTAs in a small group experience can positively affect a student’s ability to develop mental schemas through which new knowledge can be acquired (Kwok, Jian, & Vogel, 2002). Face-to-face interaction with peers is especially important in leadership education, as Mitchell and Daugherty’s (2019) perception study of students and alumni (N = 130) from an academic leadership minor program revealed that students felt, as leaders, they benefitted most in courses where they could interact with their peers in person.

Roundtable results

Focus group participants, overall, recognized UTAs as important to creating the necessary conditions for small groups to work effectively and independently. All three roundtable sessions highlighted the value of using UTAs for small group work. Repeated field notes from participant comments indicated that small groups create a better environment for students to feel comfortable enough to share openly and that UTAs are important to creating team-based accountability. Regarding pedagogical matching mentioned earlier, one participant highlighted the importance of ensuring that small group work ties back to the learning objectives.

Innovative practice theme 2: small groups by design

Small group experience does not necessarily assume that student learning will be enhanced. Johnson and Johnson (2008, 2009) emphasize the role of the teacher in ensuring effective small group use and providing the foundation for cooperative learning in the classroom.

Previous literature

Instructors play an important role in influencing student cooperation in small groups (Webb, 2008). Johnson and Johnson (2008) suggest that the teacher’s role is to: (1) strategically form small groups; (2) organize times for the groups to meet regularly; (3) provide concrete tasks that establish a routine for the groups; (4) ensure students periodically process the effectiveness of their small groups and (5) confirm that students implement the five basic elements of effective cooperative groups, namely positive interdependence, promotive interaction, individual accountability and personal responsibility, appropriate use of social skills, and group processing. These elements have been researched and validated using social interdependence theory and are critical for effective small group cooperation (Johnson & Johnson, 2008). Student frustrations with group work that warrant instructor recognition include social loafing, free-riding and differing work styles within groups (Hall & Buzwell, 2013). Instructors who utilize small groups effectively tend to involve students in the learning process (Gillies, 2008) and create conditions in which small groups can work effectively and independently (Michaelson et al., 2014).

TBL emphasizes that the teacher’s role is to generate tasks that provoke intellectual frustration or dissonance in students, which promotes critical thinking (Roberson & Franchini, 2014). TBL requires larger groups than cooperative learning, so students are rarely resource-deficient when facing challenging decision-based tasks during TBL (Michaelson et al., 2014). Roberson and Franchini (2014) suggest that educators using TBL should ensure that students interact frequently and make decisions that generate consequences in order to provide frequent and timely feedback loop opportunities.

Roundtable results

Regarding strategic small group selection, there was no universal agreement among focus group participants. Some participants advocated for intentional small group assignment from the instructor, while other participants advocated for random assignment. For example, one participant maximized the cognitive diversity of teams using the Kirton adaption-innovation inventory (KAI; see https://kaicentre.com/) while another participant used a series of personality assessments. Participants who advocated random group assignment supported the idea of using assessments upon group formation like the StrengthsFinder to help the team analyze their existing makeup. One participant advocated for role assignment sharing in which students are assigned a different unique role each class session.

Focus group participants offered several insights as to effective small group interaction. All three focus groups offered suggestions related to the idea that effective small group interaction is intentional by design; it is not a haphazard outcome of bringing students together. Agreement was expressed broadly in one focus group when a participant advocated for making groups early and having the same groups work together all semester. A follow-up sentiment was offered to indicate that the longer groups are together, the more they warm up to working in groups. Several participants across multiple focus groups advocated for clear team objectives at group formation and frequent check-ins and formative assessments on group functioning. Suggestions offered included establishing team contracts, goals, timelines, norms and processes for how they will evaluate each other at the start of group work. Regarding mid-semester checkpoints, suggestions offered by participants included mid-semester check-ins on team processes and progress with teams presenting on milestones they feel they have reached as a team. As per evaluation, one participant’s comment about removing grades for group success/failure received broad support in one focus group, expressing that the important part is to have group members reflect on their function/dysfunction. Another participant advocated for having teams work on small projects first and evaluate their group performance before working on the larger project that bears the higher-stakes grade.

Innovative practice theme 3: training and reflection practice for UTAs

The selection and the dynamics of the teaching team (i.e., instructor and UTAs) are also important considerations for maximizing the role of UTAs. Course material can be enhanced through multiple perspectives and applications; thus, intentional diversity within a group of UTAs can impact student success (Felten et al., 2013). Additionally, training, preparation and reflection are critical for effective UTA use (Farrell, Alborz, Howes, & Pearson, 2010; Rubie-Davies, Blatchford, Webster, Koutsoubou, & Bassett, 2010; Sargent, Allen, Frahm, & Morris, 2009; Webster, Blatchford, & Russell, 2012).

Previous literature

Trained and supported UTAs tend to have the greatest success impacting the progress of students, especially when given clear objectives (Cremin et al.; Farrell et al., 2010). To increase UTA effectiveness, meaningful time for preparation before lessons as well as time for feedback and reflection after lessons with the lead instructor are considered essential (Rubie-Davies et al., 2010). Webster et al.’s (2012) evaluation of alternative UTA strategies highlights the importance of reflection as results revealed that utilizing review, reflection and action among UTA teams with the lead instructor allowed for positive change in classroom effectiveness.

Primary benefits of the UTA experience include increased teaching ability, improved public speaking ability, increased ability to work with people, gained confidence and insight into self, enhanced communication and leadership skills, gained knowledge about how students learn and behave, and preparation for graduate school (Schalk, McGinnis, Harring, Hendrickson, & Smith, 2009; Weidert, Wendorf, Gurung, & Filz, 2012). In leadership education, major skills that can be enhanced from UTA experiences include communication, active listening, mentoring, responsibility, followership, professionalism and collaboration (Odom, Ho, & Moore, 2015). The multitude of possible benefits and skill enhancements from the UTA experience accentuates the importance of instructor facilitation of the UTA experience to enhance students’ professional development. Spending extended time on UTA training and assigning developmental activities (i.e., writing exam questions, holding review sessions) can help to strengthen the cohesiveness among the teaching team and develop a deeper understanding of what it means to be a teacher, which can ultimately impact student outcomes (Sargent et al., 2009). For example, UTA training may include a discussion of learning objectives for students and UTAs, reflection on personal experiences previously in the course and facilitation techniques (e.g., asking effective questions).

Roundtable results

As one participant pointed out, instructors should intentionally have cognitive diversity within groups while recognizing that UTAs can also promote social cohesion. For example, one participant highlighted the importance of doing social activities (e.g., get-to-know-you activities) in small groups early in the course. Another participant discussed having groups engage in experiential activities. Two participants across two focus groups brought up the dual importance of teaching both content and process, ensuring that processing the small group dynamics is as much a part of the learning as the content. Notably, one participant highlighted the importance of UTAs being trained to use growth mindset language (e.g., “I see you working hard…”) as opposed to evaluative language (e.g., “Good job…”). Two focus group participants discussed student attitudes toward groups, acknowledging that UTAs and instructors must learn to anticipate negative student attitudes toward group work. One participant specifically reported that students in an online environment tend to be particularly apprehensive about working in small groups. The roundtable results confirmed previous literature, underscoring the significance of intentional UTA training to facilitate effective small group interactions.

Reflections and recommendations

The synthesized and integrated literature review and focus group analysis led to the refinement of existing UTA practices as well as the development of new practices. For example, we developed a new UTA training agenda and training objectives (see Figure 1). Additionally, we refined our UTA handbook (see Figure 2 for a Table of Contents). Our UTA handbook and weekly UTA training and reflection meetings include facilitation guides (see Figure 3). We also developed a new rubric to evaluate UTA performance both formatively and summatively (see Figure 4). The UTA infrastructure we employ now involves the following processes and procedures:

1. UTA cohorts are intentionally selected by the previous year’s UTAs and instructor(s) based on course performance, demonstrated talent for engaging in small group discussions, and positive contributions to small group culture.

2. Upon selection, the UTA cohort engages in a one-hour orientation (see Figure 1).

3. Each member of the UTA cohort receives a comprehensive UTA Handbook that includes basic training in small group facilitation and weekly summaries of the lesson plan along with facilitation guides for small group activities (see Figures 2 and 3).

4. The instructor(s) and UTAs meet each week to (a) reflect on the previous week’s content, learning and small group progress, (b) discuss student growth and challenges, and (c) process and prepare for the following week.

5. Throughout the semester, UTAs are offered the opportunity to engage in reflections on their UTA experience (e.g., in person or via writing) and offer “keep, start, stop” recommendations for the course.

6. During the semester and at the end of the semester, UTAs are offered feedback on their performance (see Figure 4).

7. At the end of the semester, UTAs and the lead instructor engage in a summative reflective discussion on overarching personal growth from the UTA experience.

Challenges

This paper addressed the many benefits associated with involving UTAs in leadership classrooms; however, challenges exist, particularly for instructors who utilize large UTA cohort models in their classrooms. First, navigating compensation can be difficult. Instructors can compensate UTAs for their contributions to the classroom with stipends, work-study (if students are eligible), course credit or volunteer hours (Begley et al., 2019). Instructors who pay UTAs should recognize that the stipend amount sends a clear message to students about the importance of their work, so stipends should be commensurate with the role’s demands (Prieto, 2003).

Our UTAs can receive course credit for their work that counts towards a leadership major or minor. In a for-credit model, while instructors do not need to secure additional funding for a team of UTAs, they may need to consider the demands on their time that managing a teaching team requires. We recruit and select UTAs, prepare and update UTA handbooks, provide an orientation for UTAs, meet weekly as a teaching team, offer feedback on UTA reflection assignments during the semester, and facilitate a reflective discussion to provide UTAs feedback on their performance at the end of the course. Each procedure demands instructor time and should be considered when incorporating UTAs in the leadership education classroom.

An additional challenge exists for instructors who utilize UTAs for grading student work. In this UTA grading model, instructors are responsible for ensuring that grading is consistent across the teaching team. A popular model for grading alignment involves organizing a group grading session, or a “grading party” (Felder, 1997), where instructors and UTAs grade as a group. Grading parties have several benefits (Drake, 2001), including (a) consistent grading; (b) immediate feedback for the instructor; (c) graders staying on task and (d) timeliness. Providing an incentive, like a meal, for UTAs to attend grading parties tends to produce grading outputs greater than the effort and cost (Mirza et al., 2019). Notably, some institutions do not allow UTAs to grade undergraduate students’ work because of their peer status. It will be important to understand institutional policy and adjust UTA work accordingly (e.g., using a moderated system in which UTAs provide feedback that the instructor reviews and accepts or edits).

Limitations and recommendations

While the stated purpose of this application paper was intentionally limited in scope (integrating previous literature with recent results from practitioners on effective practices for utilizing small groups in the leadership classroom) to reflect the limitations of the data collected, it will be important to acknowledge specifically that focus group data were only collected from 2019 Association of Leadership Educators conference attendees and only from those attendees who elected to attend the roundtable, likely due to an inherent interest in the roundtable discussion topic. As a result, there may have been some missing perspectives that would have provided disconfirming evidence to the surfaced themes or that would have challenged the prevailing support of using UTAs to support small groups in leadership education classrooms. While the data collected and the data collection approach had inherent limitations and while we recognize that many leadership education classrooms are not supported by UTAs, our goal was to offer these integrated findings with previous literature to innovate practice on maximizing the role of UTAs by matching their tasks to signature pedagogies in leadership education.

Leadership education’s reliance upon discussion-based pedagogies in large and small group contexts (Jenkins, 2012) necessitates the field to reconsider the role of UTAs. The synthesized and integrated literature and recent results on best practices for utilizing small groups in the leadership classroom serve to maximize the role of UTAs by matching their tasks to signature pedagogies in leadership education. Scholarly advancements in the utilization of UTAs in leadership education would benefit from examining UTAs’ perception of learning by comparing types of institutions and methods of implementation. The integrated themes and literature presented in this paper also serve as direct practitioner recommendations related to (1) intentionally matching UTAs to pedagogical approach so UTAs have an active role in enhancing student development, (2) purposefully designing small group experiences and processes to ensure that discussion-based pedagogies in large and small group contexts meet their intended learning objectives, and (3) providing structured and reflective UTA training experiences to position UTAs for maximum positive influence on student learning outcomes. Leadership education is a fertile environment for challenging historical higher education practices of using UTAs purely for grading and course logistics management. Maximizing the role of UTAs by matching their tasks and training to support signature pedagogies affords leadership education the opportunity to inspire improved practices in teaching and learning broadly within higher education environments.

Figures

Figure 1

UTA training objectives and agenda

Figure 2

Table of contents for UTA handbook

Figure 3

Example facilitation guide: hazards of change

Figure 4

UTA evaluation rubric