Whose voice is it anyway: Delivery and Development, what’s the difference and why does it matter?

by Rachel Hunt, School of Geographical and Earth Sciences and Victoria Smillie, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow

This blog post came about as a result of a postgraduate teaching session at RGS 2015. There, and now here, we have sought to share our views about the importance of the role of the GTA within courses which they help to run.

Those academics engaging with the problem of the GTA recognize that from the GTA perspective there are many positives to our awkward role within the department. Not only does this work boost our wages, communication skills and employability’s (so they tell us), but more importantly provides a much needed break from the solitude that the PHD can bring.

However, Despite advances in the appreciation of postgraduate efforts, and the acknowledgement that GTA’s make up a significant part of the undergraduate teaching team in most universities, the picture is not of universal progress and Linehan’s (1996:107) comments regarding the ‘low grumbling murmur’ of postgraduates continue today. Indeed we can see papers by Linehan (1996), Muzaka (2009), and Park and Ramos (2002), among many others who lament the underpaid, undervalued and under recognised work that many GTA’s undertake.

Many authors report on the specific role of the GTA in shaping courses arguing that we GTA’s should have a role to play in course construction. Yet we are left wondering where to find the time to continually provide and update the courses on top of our phd work, our requirements to publish, to do out reach work, to attend, organize and speak at conferences. The pulls on a researchers time are endless.  As such it is not only diligence above and beyond the call of duty (or scope of payment) which is often expected in terms of GTA involvement, but we would argue that ‘we’ as a cohort are not given the full experience of this ‘apprenticeship’ to use Beesley’s (1979) term.

Despite this, very few authors provide an insight into the messy, in-between status of the GTA, nor really provide any helpful guidance as to how we might redress the balance between wanting to impact upon the courses upon which we tutor, demonstrate or lead, and keeping to our 3 (erm, 4 in our case) year deadline.

Therefore, our aim at RGS and within this blog is not only to voice some opinions from those GTA’s working within the university of Glasgow but also to discuss our own experience of creating a new level one introductory lab. In doing so we aim to make the argument for, and present one example of, the way in which PhD teaching assistants can be given a voice through involvement in the development of teaching materials. Through this we aim to ask questions of delivery and development, focusing on those questions voiced in our title, what’s the difference and why does it matter.

Now, lets hear from 5 of our fellow GTA’s at the university of Glasgow. (available here)

The views expressed here corroborate those within the literature recognizing both the positives and the negatives. Unlike many other departments however we often do have input into our courses. Working as part of the level 1/2 team we receive detailed outlines for each tutorial but these outlines also give points at which we can depart from the written word should our own experiences as researchers be more relevant.

Further to this a team of three GTAs (of which we are two), were given the opportunity to redesign course material for the level 1 introductory lab class, paid of course, giving us an undeniably invaluable opportunity for our voices to be heard. The offer for this opportunity was put out to all of the GTA’s in our department to work in groups to change any one part of the level 1 or 2 course. This amounted to any lab, tutorial or lecture. We were lucky enough to be chosen with our proposal to change a slow and dreary lab which had existed since many of the group were undergraduates.

And with this we created Disaster Island and a two hour task to save the lives and economy of those living on this hazardous place. The lab takes the form of a real time game where students are put in teams, and set to complete a number of hazard based choices. They are given money, people counters, press examples, and maps to aid these decisions.

This lab aims to encourage students to get to know to each other, get used to the lab environment and appreciate the unique qualities of geography in it’s ability to incorporate human and physical elements.

The process of creating this lab was an enjoyable one. As the images below show, the process started with blue sky thinking, and was gradually narrowed down to include reality or at least a more realistic approach to creating lab materials. We learnt about the practicalities of creating teaching materials, the timescales involved and how to incorporate such work into an existing course, complimenting what was already involved in the level one course while also bringing in brand new material  and with that adding our voice. This was about a new tactile experience, which deviated from the traditional academic process of knowledge exchange, in our department at least.

We would therefore encourage other university teachers to provide these opportunities within their own institutions, not only for the students, but for the GTA’s themselves. Opportunities such as the one described remain few and far between. It simply would not be economical for universities to offer these opportunities to all willing GTA’s within the department, nor practical to fully redesign courses each year in order to provide these chances.  But this represents an important way to recognize and respect the knowledge, enthusiasm and skills held within the GTA cohort. It is key for us to stress that our immediate, and award winning, teaching team do make us feel like we have a voice, and are not just a face of the department.  However, it is still fair to say that department wide recognition of the teaching team as a whole sadly appears to be generally undervalued. In order to establish a significant role for the GTA within departments it is important to provide opportunities and support for the development of those courses on which we are trusted to teach, a trust we do not take lightly.

What we are talking about with regards to our experience in the development of materials is not the finished article, not by any means, the involvement of the GTA voice could, for sure, be taken further.  Rather our suggestion is a movement towards increased appreciation, rising satisfaction, improved deployment and ultimately better departments which properly equip us for the profession in which we have made our first steps. We worry that failing to do so will continue to allow dissatisfaction to roam like monsters on maps of old. (Linehan 1996:107)

References:

Linehan D., (1996) ‘Arena symposium: teaching assistants’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, Vol. 20. pp. 107-117.

Mazaka V., (2009) ‘The niche of Graduate Teaching Assistants (GRAs): perceptions and reflections’, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 14, pp.1-12.

Park C., Ramos M., (2002) ‘The Donkey in the Department? Insights into the Graduate Teaching Assistant (GTA) experience in the UK’, Journal of Graduate Education, Vol. 3, pp. 47-53.

 

Advertisement

The ‘Geography and Environment Undergraduate Research Assistantship’ – could it work for you?

By Fiona Tweed (Staffordshire University)

The inspiration

Some years ago, I was contacted by an undergraduate from Germany who had heard about my glacial research and wanted to work with me as part of her ‘Research Placement Semester.’ Not having heard of this sort of initiative, I agreed and a productive five months followed in which the student effectively became my research assistant and we managed to complete a number of research tasks that would otherwise have waited for some of my (increasingly rare) ‘spare time’. Struck by how useful the experience was, I designed a Research Assistantship module to fit into our modular structure; I share that experience here as it has worked well for Geography at Staffordshire University over the past few years and others are now using it as a model.

The module

The Geography and Environment Research Assistantship offers students the opportunity to work as a co-learner on a research project, supervised by a member of staff. The Research Assistantship is essentially a research-engaged form of learning and teaching (e.g. Jenkins, 2000; Griffiths 2004; Healey, 2005); it gives students with the aptitude for independent research an opportunity to gain and apply skills associated with the execution of a research project. The project is expected to be centred on a problem or issue that can be examined through fieldwork and/or by library/archival investigation or by the analysis and/or presentation of data that has already been collected. The purpose of the module is not only to increase understanding of the particular research topic, but also to offer students some wider insights into the process of academic research. The module is particularly suitable for those wanting to go on to do postgraduate research or consultancy and addresses a number of graduate attributes and employability goals.

Fitting it into the modular framework

The research assistantship was developed as a final year 15-credit Geography option module. It was designed to be flexible, functioning as a more intensive single-semester module (12 weeks) or as an activity that could run over two semesters, providing that the work contained within it totalled 150 hours. Assessment for the research assistantship is by means of a 30-minute oral presentation to discuss key findings of the project work and a reflective report, including a work diary. The presentation constitutes 30% of the marks for the module; the reflective report is worth 70% of the module marks and has a 1750-word limit. We are currently tinkering with the weightings and word limit on the basis of recent student feedback.

Selecting appropriate students

Projects are advertised at the start of the academic year and potential student applicants are invited to tender an appropriate curriculum vitae and a covering letter. Checking applicants’ skills and aptitudes against the criteria for each assistantship is a key part of the selection process, as it would be for employment. Interviews for the individual assistantships are scheduled if decisions cannot be made on the basis of the written application. Students are counselled about this process when making module choices, as are any students who are unsuccessful in their applications. Staffordshire University has an equality policy to which the selection process for the research assistantship is subject. Successful applicants transfer from one of their options modules to the Research Assistantship within the first two weeks of teaching.

Student, staff and client experiences

We made the Research Assistantship available as a final year Geography option module and have recruited 3-7 students each year. To-date, we have had 38 research assistantship students who have been engaged in a wide range of research assistantships working with members of staff in Geography and more widely in the University, as well as with external clients. Student feedback has been consistently outstanding; the module: “was a brilliant opportunity”, “gave me a chance to thrive in the academic environment”, “has allowed me to grow”, “was a great and rewarding experience” and “gave more freedom and independence to make the work my own”. Several students also remarked that being a research assistant had boosted their confidence, that they had enjoyed practicing professionalism and that they welcomed the sense of responsibility that the experience had given them. Staff members said that working alongside a student research assistant was rewarding and gave them a chance to reinvigorate their research. Staff have worked with a research assistant and used the research as a springboard from which to develop grant applications, commenting: “Research assistants performed vital tasks that would have been very difficult for me to find time for otherwise. It goes to show how effective undergraduate students can be in assisting staff to do research.” Several staff have particularly enjoyed the opportunity to engage in research in conjunction with the students, i.e. the ‘co-learning experience’ (see Le Heron et al., 2006). External clients comments centred on the reciprocal nature of the work, the usefulness of being able to “tap into student knowledge” and the fact that the assistantships “help the client to conduct research in an environment where resources are scarce”.

So, what are the challenges?

If there are any cautions, they concern i) selecting the right student for the nature of the work that needs to be undertaken; ii) keeping a firm eye on progress; iii) careful monitoring and planning to ensure that students have clearly defined tasks and outputs; and iv) realistic expectations on behalf of all parties. Feedback from external clients also underscores the need for effective time management on behalf of the client as well as the student and “the need for the client to be sensitive to the student’s array of work for other modules”.

Enhancing graduate employability

Employment has been secured as a direct result of assistantships; for example, a student working on sustainable building materials went on to work for the firm for which he had done research and another research assistant took a job with the council with whom they had worked. Several graduates who did assistantships are now establishing ‘second generation’ research assistantship relationships with us as external clients. The module has given students the opportunity to gain advanced understanding of the intellectual and methodological basis of a particular research question, to acquire research skills and to be part of a co-learning environment.

Spreading the word

I have written up the development of the module as a research paper (Tweed and Boast, 2011) which has recently been selected for inclusion in a Special Interest volume ‘Pedagogic Research in Geography Higher Education‘, to be published by Routledge in November 2015. I have also disseminated the experience of designing and running the Research Assistantship at staff development workshops and at national events. At Staffordshire University, the student research assistantship model has been adopted by Biological Sciences who are using it on their Masters awards; it has also been adopted by undergraduate Psychology who are using it at second year undergraduate level. I have received a number of requests to share the experience of implementing this module with academic staff from other HEIs; if you’re interested, please get in touch. If you are running a similar module I would also welcome exchange of experience and ideas. For more information on the design and development of the module, please see Tweed and Boast (2011).

 

References

• Healey, M. 2005. Linking Research and Teaching to Benefit Student Learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 29, 183-201.
• Griffiths, R. 2004. Knowledge production and the research-teaching nexus: the case of the built environment disciplines. Studies in Higher Education 29, 709-726.
• Jenkins, A. 2000. The relationship between teaching and research: where does geography stand and deliver? Journal of Geography in Higher Education 24, 325-351.
• Le Heron, R., Baker, R., and McEwen, L. 2006. Co-learning: Re-linking Research and Teaching in Geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 30, 77-87.
• Tweed, F. and Boast, R. 2011. Reviewing the ‘Research Placement’ as a means of enhancing student learning and expanding research capacity. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 35, 599-615.