*This paper was written collaboratively and order of authorship is not a reflection of contribution.
Online delivery systems are increasingly being used as adjuncts to on-campus and traditional print-based distance courses, and as a means to offer courses wholly over the Internet. Teaching online is relatively new to the academic field. Current, literature exists for administrators, course designers, faculty members and students. Interestingly, one area appears to be incomplete, that is, information gathered specifically to meet the needs of the virtual teaching assistant. Any available information on this group primarily stems from case studies, suggested tips, and personal anecdotes. The question, then, is how do virtual teaching assistants learn the expertise needed to become online facilitators?
In the absence of well-documented information, we relied upon certain common sense expectations about virtual teaching assistants. These were based on experiences in traditional classroom environments, tutor-marking and anecdotal comments. For example, w e assumed that they had training prior to their teaching online, and that they were prepared both pedagogically and technically for the online experience. We believed that familiarity with the technology to be used and prior traditional teaching assistant experience would affect good online teaching practices. Finally, we anticipated that teaching assistants' attitudes toward teaching online, and toward technology, would play a critical role in how well they taught. To give substance to these ideas, we asked online teaching assistants a series of experience-based questions. The virtual teaching assistants we interviewed are the Simon Fraser University pioneers in this area, so we asked them to provide us suggestions and strategies derived from their e xperiences.
Methodology
For this study, we asked virtual teaching assistants to respond to a series of demographic and open-ended experience-based questions. Virtual teaching assistants were defined as those individuals who had not designed the course, were graduate students, were working under the supervision of a faculty member, and had taught at least half of their course in an online environment.
Participants were initially contacted by phone and then completed the interview questions through e-mail. The questions covered attitudinal transformation from the initial stages of working online through to the final stages of the course. The questions highlighted participants familiarity with the types of technology required and the time spent online. Of particular interest was how the teaching assistant organized the volume of responses received and how they provided substantive feedback to students. Further, we asked if they had advice for others and if they would do anything differently after their online experience. In the interests of confidentiality we have assigned names to the participants and have not identified or described the courses they taught.
Demographics
Due to the limited number of courses that are currently online, our sample size is relatively small (5 participants). Three male teaching assistants currently completing their Masters Degree, Robert, Paul and Andrew, and two female students, Pam, completing her Masters, and Nina, completing her Doctorate, participated in this study. The teaching assistants were from various faculties including, Applied Sciences, Business Administration, and Education. Their ages ranged from 24 to 41 years. Prior to teaching online, Andrew and Nina had worked with technology for six to ten years, and Robert, Paul, and Pam had worked with technology for over ten years. On an average day, Paul spends 6-10 hours online, Robert, Nina, and Pam spend 2-5 hours online, and Andrew spends normally spends less than an hour online.
Robert, Pam, and Nina have been working as teaching assistants in the online environment for 2 to 5 courses and have tutor-marked for 2-5 courses (tutor-markers are teaching assistants in a traditional distance education print-based course). Andrew and Paul have been teaching assistants for one course online, Andrew had tutor-marked one course, and Paul had never tutor-marked. Robert has been a teaching assistant in the traditional classroom (seminar-based) for over 10 courses, Nina, Paul and Pam for 2-5 courses, and Andrew has never been a teaching assistant in the traditional classroom.
All five participants have access to a computer at home, school, and work. Three of the virtual teaching assistants requested the assignments and two were asked by the faculty supervisor.
Open-Ended Experience-Based Questions
For the following, the responses to the open-ended experience-based questions are presented in the teaching assistants' original words, with some editing on our part, and are presented in tabular format to allow for comparisons between the responses of all five participants. The eleven questions ranged from attitudes towards teaching online, key issues of instructional practices, technological support, problem solving and reflecting on the overall online experience.
Question One:
Prior to actually teaching online, what did you think being a teaching assistant online would be like? Did your attitude change during your experience? If so, describe how your attitude changed and what led to the changes.
| Teaching Assistant | Prior Attitude | Change Variables | Post Attitude |
| Robert | - fun, cool, romantic - impersonal | - recognized potential for enhanced communication with others | - transition from fun and games to deeper respect for the medium as a powerful communication tool - still impersonal |
| Nina | - concerned it would be impersonal | -found it to be intensely interpersonal - far more demanding than face-to-face or traditional distance education | - extreme involvement |
| Paul | - easy to teach - encourage students' interaction with course materials | - heavy message traffic in course and non-course related conferences - very time consuming to read and respond - course design complicated student involvement | - overwhelming - intense involvement - recognized need for well-thought out course design |
| Andrew | -would be a big pain in the ass | - having to contend with unrelated issues - technology needs to improve (growing pains) | - was a big pain in the ass -wouldn't do it again right now - might be better in a few years |
| Pam | - same as face-to-face but more convenient with regard to time/place independence - teaching is teaching no matter the delivery system used - computers are a major tool in the teacher's tool box | - graduated experiences starting with Kermit, to using Eudora and NuPop on e-mail, to using the First Class conferencing system | -same except added appreciation for the power of the com
puting tool to enhance learning -exciting, mind-boggling |
With the exception of Andrew, the virtual teaching assistants' experienced either a dramatic shift in attitude or a deepening appreciation for the potential of the online medium. Andrew, however, did concede that improved technology should make a positive difference in the future. These virtual teaching assistant's experienced computer mediated communication as a powerful communication tool, and being online intensely interactive. Technological complications, however, interposed an intrusive nuisance factor into the teaching experience. Pam did note that online teaching became easier with improvements in the technology she used over three course offerings thereby giving weight to Andrew's prediction.
Question Two
What technology was required for your course? Were you familiar with it prior to the start of the course? If not, what steps did you take to become knowledgeable about the technology?
| Teaching Assistant | Required Technology | Familiar with Technology | Training, if needed |
| Robert | 1. PARTI, text-only 2. computer and 300 band modem | 1. somewhat 2. yes | - learned to use UNIX commands on own - used computer handouts to learn more - asked knowledgeable people - used USENET newsgroups for online portions of the class |
| Nina | 1. MAC 180 powerbook and high speed modem 2. First Class Systems (Soft Arc) | 1. yes 2. no | -an afternoon orientation, more technical than pedagogical - meeting with course supervisor and two lab staff - learned by using First Class, found it user friendly |
| Paul | 1. Virtual-U toolset 2. Standard Web Browser | 1. yes 2. yes | - none - was already a Virtual-U researcher |
| Andrew | 1. computer and modem 2. First Class Systems 3. Slip connection to the Web 4. Standard Web browser | 1. yes 2. no 3. yes 4. yes | -First Class user friendly - no training needed |
| Pam | 1. computer and modem (Kermit) 2. UNIX dial-up 3. Eudora (MAC) and NuPop (PC) 4. First Class Systems | 1. No
2. No 4. No | - asked for a tutorial - spent many hours in computing services and technology lab for help with self-training - worked with technology lab staff - First Class was easy and user friendly |
Paul was familiar with the technology required and Andrew had only to learn First Class Systems, which was easy. Robert needed to learn UNIX commands, but was otherwise okay. Nina was fine with a MAC and also found First Class Systems easy to use. Pam was the real novice of the group and it is evident that she was a real "self-starter." She took the time needed to thoroughly familiarize herself with the technology.
Question Three:
In your opinion, were most, few, or all of your students knowledgeable about the technology? How did you facilitate those students who were having difficulties with the technology?
| Teaching Assistant | Students are experienced | Students are inexperienced | Student Help Provided |
| Robert | one or two in course | majority of students | - in face-to-face sessions - in tutorial portions of class - relied on computing services as a support provider |
| Nina | one in course | majority of students | - distance education support |
| Paul | majority of students | one or two in course | - in class Virtual-U training sessions - already familiar with Web and HTML coding - offered extra tutorials for those few who needed them - created a HTML guide |
| Andrew | majority of students | one or two in course | - used problem-solving through: e-mail, then phone, then face-to-face, if needed |
| Pam | one or two in course | majority of students | - offered telephone support |
For the three male virtual teaching assistants, the majority of students were familiar with the technology they were required to use. In the case of Nina and Pam, however, both they and their students were the least familiar with it. Nina relied on external support services and Pam mastered the medium in order to provide support to students and herself.
Question Four:
Did you have adequate technological support from the faculty member, or the technology lab? If not, how could this support be improved?
| Teaching Assistant | Peers | Faculty Member | Technology Lab | Central Computing Services | Support could be improved by.... |
| Robert | yes | yes | N/A | yes | - not needed |
| Nina | yes | - giving lab person more time to provide support and monitor the system | |||
| Paul | N/A | - not needed | |||
| Andrew | yes | yes | - technology lab team need to be more flexible consultants with course design but technical support was excellent | ||
| Pam | yes | yes | - when started online there was no support but by third course technology lab had a full support team available |
Robert and Paul did not need external technical support. Andrew and Pam considered the lab support to be very good. Nina, having taught online prior to the availability of full support found the experience frustrating. This highlights the importance of good support as a critical variable to making the online experience a positive one.
Question Five:
How much time did you spend teaching online?
| Teaching Assistant | Teaching Time Allotment -- Within | Teaching Time Allotment -- Under | Teaching Time Allotment -- Over | Comments |
| Robert | x | - logged on to Paul, respond, and moderate twice a week - approximately 15 hours a week | ||
| Nina | x | - 105 hours online - 210 for whole course (13 weeks) | ||
| Paul | x | - 8-10 hours weekly for reading, responding, evaluating | ||
| Andrew | x | - 10 hours at peak times - 7 hours at slow times - marked and gave feedback online | ||
| Pam | x | - tutored, marked and provided technical support for 30-40 hours a week throughout |
Each of the virtual teaching assistant's were allotted approximately 15 hours of teaching time over a period of thirteen weeks (the hours varied according to enrollment). Of the five, only Robert remained within the time allotment. Paul and Andrew were under, but they did not do the extensive conferencing that Nina and Pam were required to do. For Robert's course, one-half of the time was allotted to online teaching.
Question Six:
How did you organize providing online feedback to your students? How would you characterize the volume of responses from students (for example, too little, manageable, too much). If too little or too much, how did you deal with this situation? How did this compare to your prior traditional teaching assistant or tutoring experience?
| Teaching Assistant | Online Volume | Feedback Management | Compared to Face-to-Face teaching assistantship and Tutor-Marking |
| Robert | - manageable | - set guidelines and boundaries for message length and adhered to them | - set guidelines and boundaries that are similar to face-to-face classes - students who complained about the lack of feedback were asked to compare amount of online feedback to face-to-face classes, this ended complaints |
| Nina | - excessive -overwhelmin g | -responded to individual students on dozens of tasks and ten formal writing assignments per student - monitored student peer responses as feedback is cumulative with each response | - online students expect immediate feedback - face-to-face or traditional distance education students expect delays in responses |
| Paul | - minimal | - feedback constrained by how teaching assistant was expected to participate online (faculty decision) | - face-to-face interaction in this course was significantly higher in relation to online Marki
ng and tutoring projects - many students interacted within the physical lab itself; this co-presence of students discouraged them from online interactions as they could talk amongst themselves - the students posted messages anyway as they were graded on online participation |
| Andrew | - great - almost too much at times | - stuck religiously to a schedule - students knew when to expect a reply - gave examples of acceptable message length | - has not taught face-to-face or tutor-marked |
| Pam | - tons | - group problem solving instead of individual responses -organized everything by title (incoming messages), this ensured a definite flow and nothing was ever lost or hard to find | - face-to-face - problem is that the quickest and not necessarily the brightest get the floor, also bores and chronic compl
ainers get things off track - in online courses - have more control and it requires thought and understanding before responding - can choose what to debrief class on and can re-read responses * I like online work better; I give better quality feedback and have to be more accountable - face-to-face can be demanding and draining in other ways and online work requires more time and better teaching skills |
Both, Robert and Paul found message volume to be manageable. In these two cases however, Robert's time online was for half the course and Paul's was restricted to face-to-face and online constraints imposed by the instructor. Nina, Andrew, and Pam were required to field comparatively greater volumes of online responses. Each used a different style of management. Andrew (and Bob) set boundaries, schedules, and guidelines and tolerated no deviation from them. Nina took on the difficult task of trying to personally respond to as many messages as possible. Pam set a precedent for group problem-solving online, thereby allowing herself the freedom to moderate groups rather than respond to individuals. Pam also labeled and organized incoming messages such that they were easy to locate and track both for herself and for the students.
In comparing online and traditional teaching methods, several key differences emerged. First, in the face-to-face and tutor-marked experience, students expected delayed feedback, but online the student's expected immediate feedback. Second, the level of interaction was tied to graded participation in traditional teaching methods. In online courses this also emerged, but the amount of interaction was reported to be significantly higher. Third, in traditional courses the opportunity to go off-topic or for verbal, boring or more aggressive students to dominate is common, whereas in the online situation written responses are both public and permanent. Thus, these responses required more care, thoughtfulness and understanding before messages were posted . Fourth, in the traditional classroom the teaching assistant would respond to incidents as they arise, but the virtual teaching assistant can choose what to respond to and what to ignore. It is also possible to re-read messages and organize responses. Finally, in the traditional classroom feedback is restricted, however in an online course feedback is far less restricted and of higher quality.
Question Seven:
Did you have students work collaboratively in groups? If yes, how were students assigned to groups?
| Teaching Assistant | Worked collaboratively | Did not work collaboratively | If Yes, how was it organized? |
| Robert | x | - students told to pick own groups - stragglers were assigned to groups | |
| Nina | x | - students worked in dyads and groups of 3 or 4 -grouped according to first assignment responses and similarities in styles or ability - later tried to mix the groups and change them around for assignments - for final stages tried to match students by responses styles that created a common link | |
| Paul | x | - groups were randomly assigned at the beginning of the online period and did not change throughout - collaboration was minimal and largely a discussion format | |
| Andrew | x | - not applicable | |
| Pam | x | - at first, tried many ways - randomly, alphabetically, by region, by who got online first; - later, by personality dynamics, interests, aptitude, hardworking, minimal participation |
Robert, Nina, and Andrew had students working collaboratively, whereas Paul and Pam had students work in non-collaborative groups. Both Robert and Paul assigned students to groups from the first day and these group structures did not vary throughout the course. Nina and Pam both tried different ways to facilitate groupings. They tried a variety of techniques, including random assignment and by similar interests.
Question Eight:
Did you provide any information to students on how to participate online or was this information already available in the course materials? (This would include, for example, rules for interacting, or guidelines about mutual respect and online etiquette .)
| Teaching Assistant | Provided by Teaching Assistant | From Course Materials | Problem Resolutions |
| Robert | - covered expectations, guidelines and netiquette | - if there were problems teaching assistant would investigate further - no problems with disagreements or offensive comments because everyone felt equally vulnerable | |
| Nina | - provided in course materials - laid out extremely clearly by instructor | - rarely occurred but students would contact teaching assistant if hurt feelings occurred (privately) - students seemed to be able to work things out - would wait a day or two to see if things settled down | |
| Paul | - some instruction provided but information well-known in advance of course | ||
| Andrew | - workshop on how to interact online, first week of class | - didn't care what comments a student made as long as they did not offend people - had only one incident and personally called those involved | |
| Pam | - gave information by examples, guidelines about mutual respect and netiquette | - in course materials | - reiterated the guidelines in the text, judge the work, not the person - helped to work through issues in text by phone -did not group together again students who were having difficulty with each other |
Robert, Paul, Andrew and Pam provided direct online guidance to their students regarding interaction. Nina primarily, but not exclusively, relied on the course materials to provide information to her students. All of the virtual teaching assistants reported having minimal problems in this area. When problems did arise, they settled them by a telephone call. Also both Pam and Nina found ways to reorganize student groupings if needed.
Question Nine:
Had you met your class face-to-face prior to or during the course? If yes, in what context, and how do you think this affected your interactions online?
| Teaching Assistant | Yes | No | If yes, in what context | How did meeting class affect online interactions? |
| Robert | x | - not given | - made it easy to set rules and guidelines, and to provide technical support - facilitated developing a strong sense of the group regarding working and struggling with e-mail content | |
| Nina | x | - by special arrangement | - meeting people seemed almost anti-climatic -we liked the freedom of not judging folks by their appearance - online some subjects used First Class as therapy -- students interacted maturely, professionally and with humor | |
| Paul | x | - my role in online interactions was largely background and support - participation would have been significantly less if this had been solely an online course | ||
| Andrew | x | - biggest help for online interaction - most people like to be social - online should not be a replacement for university life | ||
| Pam | x | - met afterwards - they didn't look like what I had expected - imagined them in idealistic terms and interacted accordingly - wonder if I would have treated them the same if face-to-face |
Robert, Paul, and Andrew met their classes first before going online. In contrast, Pam and Nina met their students upon the completion of their courses. The face-to-face meetings had the advantage of easing students into the technology, and facilitating group interaction. Pam and Nina, on the other hand, pointed to the advantages of online contact only. For example, judgments of students and interactions with them were shaped by the work and not by appearance. In both their cases, meeting students after the fact was "anti-climactic".
Question Ten:
Were issues relating to confidentiality in an online environment a concern for yourself or your students?
| Teaching Assistant | Yes | No | How did you deal with it? |
| Robert | x | - students considered online activity to be "public" so were professional and courteous | |
| Nina | x | - a huge problem for some students - relevant and most critical issue with regard to online education - issues were raised by students both within the course about external access to the course - technology is very transparent - could lead to serious legal issues | |
| Paul | x | - a contentious issue regarding use of Virtual-U transcripts but largely blown out of proportion because it was not dealt with early and effectively - teaching assistant tried to explain nature and seriousness of the issue as it was developing (to faculty member) -consulted students regarding how to appropriately deal with these issues (regarding raising complaints and/or removing their consent to participate) | |
| Andrew | x | - no problems | |
| Pam | x | - no problems |
Three virtual teaching assistants reported that confidentiality issues did not arise and students were professional and courteous. Where this was a problem, individual students were not the cause for concern. Breaches of confidentiality came from external sources and were of great concern to some students. It is apparant that the virtual teaching assistants want the issue of confidentiality dealt with clearly and within ethical guidelines prior to the start of the course.
Our Assumptions Revisited
Earlier, we stated assumptions that were based on common sense. What we found however, was quite different. Our first assumption was that virtual teaching assistants had training prior to teaching online. Although, several of the virtual teaching assistants were familiar with the technology, none of them had received prior formal training before the onset of their course. Basically, they were on their own. Our second assumption, was that these virtual teaching assistants were prepared, both pedagogically and technically, for the online experience. Again, this assumption was incorrect: they learned literally by doing and were not formally prepared for their experience. The third assumption was that we believed that familiarity with the technology to be used and prior traditional teaching assistant experience or tutor-marking would affect good online teaching practices. We found, however, that all five of the virtual teaching assistants were highly successful online teachers, regardless of their prior virtual teaching experience or their familiarity with the technology. Finally, we assumed that the virtual teaching assistants' attitudes towards teaching online, and toward technology, would play a critical role in their perceptions of the online experience before and after teaching. This assumption was correct, as we found that attitude did play a role with personal satisfaction to online teaching. In fact, with four of the virtual teaching assistants, their online teaching experiences created a deeper appreciation and enthusiasm towards the potential for learning and teaching online. The fifth virtual teaching assistant would prefer to defer enthusiasm until the technology improves.
These five virtual teaching assistants are pioneers in the expanding field of online education. In the preceding questions they stressed the importance of providing future virtual teaching assistants with proper training in both the technical and pedagogical aspects of the courses they are expected to teach online. As they are the experts, we asked them to respond to two questions, first, would they do anything differently, and second, do they have advice for others. Below is a summary, of their suggestions.
Doing it Differently:
€ have students experiment more on the web so they aren't afraid of the technology
€ set-up more interactive peer-related contact from the beginning
€ set out more realistic guidelines relating to the issue of confidentiality
€ ensure that good technical support is in place
€ use time-management strategies for online teaching and feedback
€ campaign for more resources; e.g., improved access, adequate
equipment, and technical support
Advice for others:
€ remember it takes time to develop a teaching style online
€ relax and have fun learning about the new experience
€ use the web once or twice a week purely for fun, that way you can become comfortable with the technology
€ make sure you know what you are getting into, expect to work harder than with any other course, so be sure to log your hours
€ try not to feel that you have to respond to every comment
€ the most important role you will have is as a cheerleader and motivator, as people tend to get very unmotivated in an online environment
€ keep track of any difficulties with the technology or course design
€ learn how to work effectively with students who are anxious about online learning and listen to and diffuse any concerns about the online learning process.
€ be prepared
€ be very familiar with course content and with the expectations of the faculty supervisor --ensure that he/she is aware of what's going on online and press to immediately make changes when necessary.
Finally, we would like to give the last word to Andrew, and we quote,
"Make sure you are a people person and not a computer person, so you will
always look for ways to place a warm human element in the cold impersonal
cyberworld".
References
Hawkins, J. (1996). Supporting teachers in changing roles. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Koschmann, T.D., Myers, A.C., Feltovich, P.J., & Barrows, H.S. (1994).
using technology to assist in realizing effective learning and
instruction: A principled approach to the use of computers in
collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning S ciences,
3(3), 227-264.
Morrison, D., & Lauzon, A.C. (1992). Reflections on some technical issues
of "connecting" learners in online education. Research in Distance
Education, 6-9.
COPYRIGHT
Denise Stockley and Vivian Rossner© 1996. The authors assign to the
University of New Brunswick and other
educational and non-profit institutions a non exclusive license to use
this document for personal use
and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full
and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a
non-exclusive license to the University of New Brunswick to publish this
document in full on the World Wide Web and on CD-ROM and in printed form
with the conference papers, and for the document to be published on mirrors
on the World Wide Web. Any other usage is prohibited without the express
permission of the
authors.
N.A.WEB 96 - The Second International North America World Wide Web Conference http://www.unb.ca/web/wwwdev/ University of New Brunswick.