MIAMI UNIVERSITY

The Graduate School

Certificate for Approving the Dissertation

We hereby approve the Dissertation

of

Kirk S. Robinson

Candidate for the Degree:

Doctor of Philosophy

_________________________________________________

Director

Mahauganee D. Shaw

_________________________________________________

Reader

Elisa S. Abes

_________________________________________________

Reader

Kathleen M. Goodman

________________________________________________

Reader

David Pérez II

_________________________________________________

Graduate School Representative

James S. Bielo

ABSTRACT

HOW GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS EXPERIENCE TEACHING

PREPARATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION: A SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST

STUDY

by Kirk S. Robinson

Literature suggests many graduate students receive inadequate, little, or no formal

preparation for teaching in higher education. Most extant research on this topic shows

preparation has positive outcomes for graduate students, yet few studies examine the

process of graduate students’ teaching preparation, which could lend important insights

that yield better preparation. This study addresses this process, inquiring into how

graduate students experience teaching preparation, and how interactions with peers and

an instructor shape preparation, in a one-credit hour graduate pedagogy seminar.

Situating graduate students taking the seminar as a collegiate subculture called

prospective college teachers (PCTs), this 15-month study employed an ethnographic

methodology grounded in an interpretivist paradigm. A symbolic interactionist theoretical

perspective and framework guided approaches to both data collection and analysis. Data

collection yielded fieldnotes from 21 seminar sessions, 18 interviews between seven

graduate students (and the seminar instructor) hailing from various academic disciplines,

and documents for review.

Results showed the 60-minute seminar contained three sections: part one, transitional

periods, and part two. Through interactions with peers and the instructor, PCTs generally

experienced part one as stable, predictable, and transactional, as it primarily featured

instructor lectures and notetaking by PCTs. Transitional periods, short periods of time

bridging the gap between parts one and two, were less predictable and varied in terms of

eventfulness. Regardless, PCTs’ peer interactions in transitional periods were usually

brief or planned by the instructor, making interactions somewhat rigid and scripted.

PCTs’ interactions with the instructor mostly related to adhering to the instructor’s

requests, creating a general PCT experience of compliance. In part two, PCTs had more

opportunities for in-depth interactions with peers and the instructor around activities

applying teaching knowledge. Thus, PCTs in part two experienced more opportunities to

learn from peers and their instructor.

Studying interactions between PCTs and the instructor yielded three general themes

lending insight into PCTs’ seminar experiences: the instructor’s management of the

seminar shaped PCTs’ behavior in it, there were tensions between the instructor and

PCTs due to the instructor’s management style, and there were specific conditions in the

seminar that could foster learning in PCTs. From the general results, analysis, and

themes, implications for practice included seminar outcomes devoted to deep learning

about teaching in addition to skills-based training, expansion of the 60-minute seminar

time frame to two hours to facilitate more opportunities for learning-rich dialogues, and

co-creation of the seminar between PCTs and the instructor.

HOW GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS EXPERIENCE TEACHING

PREPARATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION: A SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST

STUDY

A DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

Miami University in partial

fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Educational Leadership

by

Kirk S. Robinson

The Graduate School

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

2017

Dissertation Director: Dr. Mahauganee D. Shaw

©

Kirk S. Robinson

2017

iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii

Dedication .................................................................................................................................... viii

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ix

Chapter One: An Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1

Context for My Story .................................................................................................................. 1

The Problem of Preparation ........................................................................................................ 3

Purpose of this Study and Research Questions ........................................................................... 5

Introduction to Research Setting, Framework, and Methodology .............................................. 6

Delimitations and Definitions ..................................................................................................... 7

Implications and Significance ................................................................................................... 10

Chapter Two: Review of Literature .............................................................................................. 12

Part One: Graduate Students’ Formal Teaching Preparation .................................................... 12

Programs for Formal Preparation.............................................................................................. 14

Courses .................................................................................................................................. 14

Departmental Programs ........................................................................................................ 16

Centralized Programming ..................................................................................................... 17

Summary: Programs for Formal Preparation ........................................................................ 19

Peer and Instructor Interactions ................................................................................................ 21

Summary: Peer and Instructor Interactions........................................................................... 23

Part Two: Symbolic Interactionism – A Theoretical Framework ............................................. 24

Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism ..................................................................................... 25

Additional Perspectives on Symbolic Interactionism ........................................................... 26

A Symbolic Interactionist Theoretical Framework ............................................................... 27

Summary: Chapter Two ............................................................................................................ 28

Chapter Three: Study Design ........................................................................................................ 31

Paradigmatic Worldview and Theoretical Perspective ............................................................. 31

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 32

Culture and Subculture ......................................................................................................... 33

Purpose of Study and Research Questions ................................................................................ 35

Institutional Context: Midwestern State University ................................................................. 36

The Research Setting and PCTs ................................................................................................ 38

The Graduate Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP) ....................................................... 38

iv

The Certificate in Collegiate Instruction............................................................................... 39

TEAC 530 – Introduction to Collegiate Instruction ............................................................. 40

Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 45

Participant-Observation ........................................................................................................ 45

Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 46

Document Collection ............................................................................................................ 48

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 48

Research Quality ....................................................................................................................... 50

Researcher Positionalities ..................................................................................................... 53

Ethical Considerations and Study Limitations ...................................................................... 56

Study Limitations .................................................................................................................. 58

Chapter Four: Describing TEAC 530 ........................................................................................... 60

Section One: The General Structure of TEAC 530 .................................................................. 60

Sessions Outside of the General Structure of TEAC 530 ..................................................... 61

Section Two: Vignettes Describing TEAC 530 ........................................................................ 62

Vignette 1: An Appetizing Entrée into TEAC 530 ............................................................... 63

Vignette 2: Digesting Possible Challenges in Collegiate Teaching...................................... 65

Vignette 3: A Comedy Dinner Show .................................................................................... 68

Vignette 4: A Working Lunch .............................................................................................. 70

Chapter Four: Summary ........................................................................................................ 76

Chapter Five: Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 77

Section One: How do PCTs Experience TEAC 530? ............................................................... 78

How PCTs Experience Part One of TEAC 530 .................................................................... 78

How PCTs Experience the Transitional Periods of TEAC 530 ............................................ 81

How PCTs Experience Part Two of TEAC 530 ................................................................... 86

Summary: Section One ......................................................................................................... 89

Section Two: How do Peer-to-Peer Interactions Shape PCTs’ Experiences in TEAC 530? .... 90

Peer-to-Peer Interactions in Part One of TEAC 530 ............................................................. 90

Peer-to-Peer Interactions in the Transitional Periods of TEAC 530 ..................................... 96

Peer-to-Peer Interactions in Part Two of TEAC 530 .......................................................... 100

Summary: Section Two....................................................................................................... 106

Section Three: How do Interactions Between PCTs and the Instructor Shape PCTs’

Experiences in TEAC 530? ..................................................................................................... 108

PCT and Instructor Interactions in Part One of TEAC 530 ................................................ 109

PCT and Instructor Interactions in the Transitional Periods of TEAC 530 ........................ 113

v

PCT and Instructor Interactions in Part Two of TEAC 530 ............................................... 118

Summary: Section Three..................................................................................................... 126

Chapter Five Summary, Themes, and Conclusion.................................................................. 129

Section One ......................................................................................................................... 130

Section Two ........................................................................................................................ 131

Section Three ...................................................................................................................... 132

Themes Derived from Interactions and Conclusion ........................................................... 133

Chapter Six: Discussion and Implications .................................................................................. 137

Review of the Context of TEAC 530 ...................................................................................... 137

Connecting the Themes, Results, and Analysis to the Context of TEAC 530........................ 140

Evaluating TEAC 530 ............................................................................................................. 143

The First and Second (or Second and First) Stated Outcomes ........................................... 143

The Third and Fourth Outcome .......................................................................................... 147

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 149

Implications for Research and Practice ................................................................................... 152

Connections to Literature and Future Research .................................................................. 152

Implications for Practice ..................................................................................................... 157

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 159

References ................................................................................................................................... 163

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 172

vi

List of Tables

Table 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 46

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1……………………………………………………………………………………...…42

Figure 2……………………………………………………………………………………...…62

viii

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to the life and memory of Fred Preziosi.

ix

Acknowledgements

First, thank you Mahauganee D. Shaw, my dissertation advisor. Throughout this process

you provided me unwavering support, intellectually stimulating feedback, grace, and patience.

Without your guidance, I would not have gotten this over the finish-line (especially in those final

weeks!). I was lucky to be your advisee.

To my committee, David Pérez II, Elisa Abes, Kathy Goodman, and James Bielo, thank

you for your flexibility, thought-provoking comments, and general kindness. I appreciate your

time and commitment to my work and growth as a scholar. I would also like to thank Brittany

Aronson and Peter Magolda, who served as peer debriefers. Your feedback made this work

better. Any errors, oversights, and flaws in this work are my own.

To my dissertation participants, Dr. Brown, Genevieve, Lantern, Sidney, Dolores, Todd,

Ella, London, Quinn, Serena, Marie, Julie, and Geoffrey, thank you for allowing me to interview

and observe you in TEAC 530. Your teaching preparation stories and experiences are invaluable,

and my hope is to honor and utilize them to inform the scholarship and practice of graduate

teaching assistant preparation. I am, and the field of educational development are, deeply

indebted to all of you.

To my teachers throughout coursework, Mahauganee, Elisa, Kathy, Peter, Stephen

Quaye, Lisa Weems, Kathleen Knight-Abowitz, and Marcia Baxter Magolda, thank you for

sharing your experiences, wisdom, and knowledge in the classroom. Your teaching made me a

better thinker, scholar, and human being. Teaching can touch people’s lives in beautiful ways,

and your teaching unequivocally did so in mine. Similarly, Peter, Kathy, and Tanya Willard, it

was such a joy to co-teach with you all…especially that Cultures class, Tanya! Lastly, thank you

Rose Marie Ward for your advice and compassion.

To the students I taught as a graduate student, thank you. I learned so much from you all.

Similarly, you challenged me to be a better instructor. I hope you learned from me.

To my cohort mates, Alandis Johnson, Jessica Gunzburger, Erik Sorenson, Tanya, and

Jesse Weasner, thank you. It was a thrill to “grow-up” with you, my academic siblings. No

matter where we end up or what we do, we’ll always be connected by this experience together.

To the people who made my SAHE experience extra wonderful, Cindie Ulreich, Virginia

Phelps, and Judy Rodgers, thank you for your kindness, fun chats, and help when I needed it. All

x

three of you are inextricably tied to my happy memories at Miami. Also, thank you Z Nicolazzo

and Michael Denton for making me feel so welcome upon first arriving.

To my mentors who helped get me to Miami (and helped me stay), Samuel Mikhail, Scott

Waring, Karen Boyd, and Tony Cawthon, thank you for preparing me for this experience and

nurturing my growth throughout it. Being able to call you my mentors and friends is one of the

great privileges of my life. Also, a special thank you to Aubrey Jewett, Bernadette Jungblut,

Randy Hewitt, Annabelle Conroy, Harvey Arnold, and Kurt Young. All of you are spectacular

teachers and human beings.

To the friends I made during this journey, Ben Selznick, Marc Lo, Ethan Youngerman,

Danny Mamlok, Chris Taylor, Z, Michael, Wilson Okello, Aeriel Ashlee, Kyle Ashlee, Mika

Karkari, Dave Sheehan, Tory Lowe, Gretchen Dietz, Mia Steinberg, and Angie Cook, thank you.

In ways too many to list or count, each one of you made my time as a graduate student special.

All of you are brilliant, unique, and lovely.

To the personnel in Miami University’s Student Counseling Services, thank you. The

greatest battles of my life have been against persistent anxiety and depression. Thank you for

being the cavalry when these battles became difficult.

To my long tenured friends, Peter Gardner, Manser Kierstead, and Erin Bogart, thank you

for sticking with me as I moved to Ohio to pursue this degree. Some of my fondest memories of

this process were the breaks from it, when I could hang with each of you (Peter in Florida, Erin

in Ohio, and Manser in Florida/Europe/Colorado). Love you all and can’t wait to see you again

soon. Special thanks as well to Terrance Hedrick, who put up with me as a roommate for a year,

and Patricia Sy, who put up with me as a long-distance partner in my initial years in this

program. I am indebted to you both for your support. Lastly, thank you Holly Pinhiero for our

talks about the writing process and graduate student life in general. You’re going to defend soon

my friend!!

To the places where I worked, Kofenya and True West, thank you. Thank you for

keeping me energized with your delicious food and coffee. Special thanks to Tejava Premium

Black Tea as well (please let me know if you’re hiring…).

On a more serious note, to my partner, Jess, thank you. “Thank you,” of course, really

fails to capture how grateful I am to you. You saw me during my best moments and at my

absolute worst moments during this process. Regardless of my disposition, you always told me,

xi

“You can do it, I believe in you.” Well, I did it, and in large part it was because you believed in

me. I love you and can’t wait for what our future together holds! Also, thanks to Willow,

Jessica’s beautiful and loving cat. Willow kept me company during those late nights writing;

such a wonderful companion.

To my father, Mark, my sister, Amanda, and my mother, Denise. All of you were

incredibly supportive and understanding as I embarked on this journey. Thank you. Dad,

whenever we spoke or saw each other you always asked me how things were going at school and

made time to listen. Amanda, like Dad, you always generously listened to my successes or

failures…hoping now that this is over we can spend some more time together. And Mom. You

were always there for me, especially when things got tough (and they did, multiple times). Thank

you. And I’m sorry for being so cranky during my proposal writing…that was an especially

tough time. Also, thank you for helping with editing. Dad, Amanda, Mom, I love you all so

much. Lastly, Chuck, thank you for your kindness.

I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the extended Robinson family: Aunt Sharon, Uncle

Matt, and my cousins: Steven, Jeremy, Mindy, and Philip. I would also be remiss if I didn’t

honor the memories of those no longer with us: James Taskalos, Grandpa Carl, Grandma Helen,

Uncle Michael, Great-Uncle José, Grandma Delphine, and Grandpa Fred. I love and miss you all

dearly. In particular, Fred Preziosi, to whom I dedicate this dissertation, I miss you. Thank you

for being one of my first intellectual partners. I think about the love and generosity of you and

Grandma Del every day.

1

Chapter One: An Introduction

The sun peers through the vertical blinds covering my window. I notice the light and turn

over in my bed. After lying awake for a few moments, I sit up and wipe the sleep from my eyes.

I scoot over to the edge of the bed and dangle my legs over the floor. Before making my way to

the bathroom, I decide it is best to allow myself to wake up a little more. As my foot touches the

tile floor, I immediately pull it back. Freezing. Even though it is Florida, the winters still

occasionally get chilly. The temperature in the house sometimes drops without it being

noticeable until skin meets tile. I scamper on my tiptoes to the bathroom to brush my teeth and

get started with the day. With my toothbrush in hand, I squeeze the last remaining bit of

toothpaste from the tube onto the bristles. I open my mouth and begin this rather mindless daily

activity. After about a minute, I decide my teeth are adequately clean, and I prepare to rinse. As

part of the routine to the conclusion of this activity, I often smile at the mirror to admire my hard

work. This time is no different, and I smile at the mirror as if it is a camera and I am on the red

carpet at a Hollywood film premiere. However, what I see in the mirror quickly wipes the smile

off my face. Now staring back at me is a furrowed brow. I open my mouth again and push my

body closer to the mirror. I zero in on my two front teeth. What used to be two relatively straight

looking teeth now seem askew. My right front tooth has a small chip in it. I pull back from the

mirror, lean with my back against the open bathroom door, and fold my arms. How did I not

notice this before? I start to mentally make a list of the possible reasons for how this unsightly

chip came to be. As I stand there, an unpleasant thought pops into my head. This thought

connects to other thoughts: the strange numb feeling in my jaw; the clicking sounds I hear before

waking up; and finally, the anxiety over planning to teach in spring. I am grinding my teeth at

night! Worse, I think I am grinding them in anticipation of planning and teaching my first

college courses1.

Context for My Story

The above narrative is my way of introducing readers of this work to how I came to this

topic. As a qualitative researcher, I want readers to understand my possible subjectivities to this

research. Upon enrolling as a Ph.D. student at Midwestern State University, I knew one of my

1 An excerpt of this story is from “Avoid the Dentist! Strategies and Resources for Graduate Students Preparing to

Teach,” by K. S. Robinson, 2016, September [Web log]. Retrieved from

https://ashegrads.wordpress.com/blog/september-2016-blog-post/.

2

responsibilities for my assistantship would be teaching graduate courses in my higher education

and student affairs program. Even though at the time I had prior experience with both planning to

teach and teaching, those experiences were from several years ago and from a much different

context, specifically, the middle school Social Studies context. Before transitioning into my first

job as a student affairs practitioner, I was a middle school Social Studies teacher with a master’s

degree in secondary Social Science Education. Although some of the knowledge gained from

those experiences was transferable to higher education, the utility of that knowledge felt limited

when applying it toward my first teaching assignment: two sections of a graduate course on

student affairs professional development. Shortly after receiving this assignment, which was for

the spring semester of my first year in the program, I learned about the graduate Certificate in

Collegiate Instruction offered by Midwestern State University’s Teaching and Learning Center

(TLC). The Certificate required completion of three seminars related to teaching and learning in

college. Graduate students from multiple academic disciplines take the seminars together as a

group. Once I learned of my eligibility to take these seminars during the same semester I was to

teach my first courses, I sought to enroll. However, after reviewing the totality of my schedule

for that semester, I concluded it would be too much work.

As such, I proceeded to prepare for my two courses on my own as best I could. I spent

the fall semester before my teaching assignment observing a graduate course similar to the one I

would eventually teach. I took copious notes during my observations and spent time discussing

ideas and strategies with the instructor. To supplement my observations, I sought out and spoke

to other Ph.D. students and faculty who previously taught the same course (Robinson, 2016). I

also engaged in supportive conversations with my faculty supervisor about possible approaches.

Nevertheless, even after all of my preparation efforts, I felt uneasy. My preparation felt

disjointed and inconsistent. The experience of preparing in this manner made me feel like I was

walking at night down a dark road with a flickering flashlight. It was tough to see what was in

front of me. The confidence I felt as a middle school Social Studies teacher was gone as I

prepared to be an instructor in higher education. I pondered many questions, such as could I

facilitate graduate-level discussions about complicated readings? Would I be able to create

sufficiently challenging assignments? Could I help students connect the course content to their

practice as future student affairs practitioners? Would students respect me as their instructor? If

only my schedule allowed me to take the TLC seminars. Enrollment in just one seminar would

3

have enabled me to set aside time to work through my course preparation with a group of peers

going through an experience similar to mine. In a sense, taking a seminar would have been akin

to gaining admission into a distinctive social group, a subculture of students who share a similar

identity (i.e., the graduate student identity) and a similar experience (i.e., preparing to teach at

the collegiate level) that is unique relative to our wider campus culture. Gaining entry into this

subculture would give me colleagues with whom to talk through the preparation process and

make sense of it.

Heading into the Winter Break I still had a great deal of work to do, especially on the

syllabus for the course. It was the second official day of Winter Break when the story opening

this chapter transpired. I think the physical reaction of my teeth grinding was associated with my

uneasiness. My uneasiness was associated with my feelings of being underprepared.

The Problem of Preparation

Though a substantial number of graduate students teach in higher education settings, the

literature suggests many do not receive formal preparation for this kind of work. Formal

preparation constitutes coursework or seminars about teaching in collegiate settings from

individual academic departments or centralized university-wide programming (BrckaLorenz,

2008). This lack of formal teaching preparation in higher education settings is pervasive within

universities and graduate programs. As part of the year 2000 National Doctoral Program Survey,

Fagen and Suedkamp Wells (2004) collected data from over 32,000 doctoral students

representing over 5,000 doctoral programs at nearly 4,000 institutions across the United States

and Canada. Regarding teaching, the authors found 45% of respondents felt they did not receive

the training and preparation necessary to assume the duty of teaching and 49% felt they lacked

the supervision necessary to enhance their teaching. In some cases, students reported engaging in

teaching roles with no preparation or supervision (Fagen & Suedkamp Wells, 2004). Another

commonly reported scenario was graduate students serving as an assistant to a professor for a

class, but never teaching their own course autonomously before transitioning into a faculty

position, leaving them feeling underprepared once called to be a primary instructor (Wulff &

Austin, 2004a). Graduate faculty and academic administrators also recognize graduate students’

lack of formal teaching preparation, as these personnel across a variety of institutions and

departments are skeptical that future faculty members will be able to successfully handle

4

collegiate teaching responsibilities once they transition into that role (Nyquist, Woodford, &

Rogers, 2004).

Across the landscape of graduate education, there is awareness of graduate students’ lack

of formal teaching preparation. This lack of preparation is an unsettling prospect considering the

significant number of undergraduates, particularly first- and second-year students, who receive

instruction from graduate students (Marincovich, Prostko, & Stout, 1998). Furthermore, graduate

students comprise the future faculty of colleges and universities, making their teaching

preparation vital (Wulff & Austin, 2004b). Greater understanding of graduate students’ formal

teaching preparation is, therefore, essential. Research shows a lack of preparation can have a

negative impact on graduate students’ self-efficacy toward teaching (i.e., the extent to which they

believe they can be successful teaching in higher education settings; Prieto, Yamokosi, &

Meyers, 2007). Conversely, graduate students’ participation in formal preparation increases their

self-efficacy (Boman, 2013; Meyers, Livingston Lansu, Hundal, Lekkos, & Prieto 2007; Prieto

& Meyers, 1999; Taylor, Schönwetter, Ellis, & Roberts, 2008; Young & Bippus, 2008). Peer

interactions, particularly peer mentoring, yields positive outcomes for graduate students in

formal teaching preparation settings. Research shows such mentoring in settings like preparation

seminars and workshops increases graduate students’ satisfaction with their preparation

(Lockwood, Miller, & Cromie, 2014) and lessens their anxiety toward teaching (Williams,

1991). Similarly, sustained interactions yielding greater personalized attention from preparation

instructors led graduate students to feel supported in their teaching preparation (Marbach-Ad,

Shields, Kent, Higgins, & Thompson, 2010) and improved graduate students’ teaching

performance (Robinson, 2000).

Overall, research on graduate students’ formal preparation for teaching in higher

education settings shows preparation of this nature has positive outcomes for these students.

However, there are aspects of graduate students’ formal preparation that are not yet well

developed in the extant literature. For example, current research emphasizes the outcomes of

graduate students’ preparation far more than their experiences during preparation. In other

words, the literature emphasizes the product of graduate students’ preparation, not the process.

Research on peer-to-peer interactions and student-to-instructor interactions in formal preparation

settings shows such interactions have positive outcomes, but this research says little about how

nuanced interactions shape students’ experiences during their teaching preparation. The literature

5

employs numerous methodological approaches to answer questions about formal graduate

student teacher preparation (i.e., quantitative, experimental); however, seldom utilized are

ethnographic approaches that situate graduate students who enroll in formal seminars and

workshops as a subculture sharing unique experiences, dispositions, and practices. Such an

ethnographic approach privileges participant-observation research methods and thus provides a

distinctive take on how these students experience their preparation.

In sum, implementing an ethnographic approach to generate understandings of (a) the

process of graduate students’ formal teaching preparation, (b) the role of peer-to-peer

interactions, and (c) the role of student-to-instructor interactions in preparation, can provide new

and important insights into graduate students’ preparation experiences. Using these insights,

educators can adjust and improve formal preparation experiences to help graduate students feel

more ready and comfortable teaching.

Purpose of this Study and Research Questions

Given the aforementioned gaps in the literature, the chief purpose of this ethnographic

study is to explore how Midwestern State University2 graduate students experience formal

teaching preparation for higher education. In general, the term formal preparation refers to

students’ engagement in coursework or seminars about teaching in collegiate settings from

academic departments or centralized university-wide programming (BrckaLorenz, 2008). This

study specifically emphasizes graduate students’ formal preparation in the latter, a one-credit

hour introductory seminar offered as part of two centralized university-wide teaching preparation

programs. Connected to the chief purpose of this study is to explore how peer-to-peer

interactions and student-to-instructor interactions in the seminar shape students’ preparation.

Overall, exploration of these matters is necessary to develop greater understandings of the

experiences and needs of graduate students preparing to teach. In depth, nuanced study with

graduate students as they experience the preparation seminar can unveil greater knowledge of the

process of formal preparation, which in turn can generate stronger understandings of approaches

that help graduate students feel ready to excel in their teaching roles.

2 The name of the institution and all of its offices and programs are pseudonyms. The names of all participants are

pseudonyms.

6

Overall, the following research questions guide this study:

1. How do Midwestern State University prospective college teachers (PCTs) experience

formal teaching preparation for higher education in TEAC 530, a collegiate teaching

preparation seminar?

2. How do peer-to-peer interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC 530?

3. How do interactions between PCTs and the instructor shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC

530?

Introduction to Research Setting, Framework, and Methodology

The research setting for this study is TEAC 530 – Introduction to Collegiate Instruction, a

one-credit hour interdisciplinary seminar. Midwestern State University offers two sections of

TEAC 530 in both the fall and spring semesters. There are six sessions of TEAC 530 per

semester; each session lasts for one hour and includes a free meal for participants (Brown,

2015a). The seminar fulfills requirements for two centralized, university-wide teaching

preparation programs for graduate students: the Certificate in Collegiate Instruction and the

Graduate Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP). The Midwestern State University TLC houses

both programs. The Certificate is a 12 credit-hour program designed to facilitate the development

of graduate students’ teaching. To complete the Certificate, students take three seminars (TEAC

530, TEAC 531, and TEAC 532), take an additional course of their choosing related to teaching

in higher education, and complete one of the following:

• a discipline-specific course on college instruction;

• an independent study project related to college teaching in their discipline with a faculty

mentor; or

• a research mentoring program with an undergraduate student (Midwestern State

University Graduate School, n.d.).

All Certificate participants must select a faculty mentor with whom they co-construct their plan

of study for the Certificate (Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center, 2015a).

The GIIP is a condensed version of the Certificate in Collegiate Instruction and contains two

tracks: Gold and Silver. Participation in the Gold Track (the Silver Track is not within the scope

of this study) requires attending a special opening event, eight university-wide seminars related

to teaching and learning within the time-period of one semester, and a special closing event

7

(Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center, 2015b). Completion of the Gold

Track has an additional requirement that students complete TEAC 530.

Given the focus this study places on how peers within TEAC 530 interact with each other

and interact with their instructor, this study adheres to a symbolic interactionist theoretical

perspective and framework. Symbolic interactionism is a micro-sociological theory emphasizing

how individuals interact with each other through language, actions, and gestures. The theory

holds that how individuals interpret these social interactions can inform their behaviors, which in

turn can shed light on how they make sense of phenomena (Charon, 1992). In this study, the

phenomenon under study is how PCTs experience their preparation to teach at the collegiate

level.

Ethnography, which is a qualitative methodology that describes and interprets a culture or

subculture in writing (Van Maanen, 2011), is the methodological approach for this study. It is a

suitable approach since the graduate students enrolled in formal preparation seminars constitute a

subculture, a specific “community that exist[s] within a university, such as a student

organization, members of a major, or an ethnic minority group” (Park, 2013, p. 19). Students in

the seminars, referred to as prospective college teachers (PCTs), are a subculture of graduate

students who teach, or who show interest in teaching, at Midwestern State University. It is

important to note that some PCTs are already collegiate instructors or TAs, but all of them are

graduate students. They are prospective college teachers in the sense that they will one day be

collegiate instructors who are no longer in graduate school. PCTs are a subculture of graduate

students for several reasons: (a) PCTs voluntarily enroll in TEAC 530, which (b) puts them

together with graduate students who share a similar identity (i.e., the graduate student identity)

and a similar experience (i.e., preparing to teach at the collegiate level) with each other; (c) by

virtue of their enrollment and participation in the seminar, graduate students develop key

characteristics of a subculture such as unique experiences, dispositions, and practices that

distinguish them from other graduate students on campus. An ethnographic methodological

approach enables thick description and interpretation of how members of this subculture make

sense of their preparation experiences.

Delimitations and Definitions

To convey the parameters of this study, it is necessary to make explicit certain

delimitations. In terms of the focus of this study, it strictly emphasized the experiences of PCTs

8

enrolled in TEAC 530. Other settings for teaching preparation on campus, such as discipline-

specific courses or seminars housed in academic departments, only draw upon graduate students

from within those respective departments. Furthermore, department-specific courses or seminars

are more likely to be limited only to graduate students serving as departmental teaching

assistants (TAs). Conversely, TEAC 530 is university-wide and open to all graduate students,

whether they were departmental TAs or graduate students who simply have interest in collegiate

teaching but who do not hold the TA title. As such, emphasis on TEAC 530 offered through

centralized programs such as the Certificate and GIIP, instead of courses in specific departments,

is purposeful. How PCTs experience a seminar within university-wide programs can have

implications for how Midwestern State University, and potentially other universities, plan and

implement such programming for teaching preparation for all graduate students from numerous

academic disciplines on a given campus.

Emphasis on peer-to-peer interactions was due to what the literature conveyed (or did not

convey) about peer-to-peer interactions in graduate student teaching preparation. Regarding such

literature, much of it focused on the benefits of peer mentoring (Lockwood et al., 2014;

Williams, 1991), but less on how nuanced peer-to-peer interactions specifically shaped graduate

students’ preparation. Close attention to peer-to-peer interactions in this study attempted to fill

this gap in the literature. Emphasis on student-to-instructor interactions arose due to what the

initial pilot data for this study showed regarding student-to-instructor interactions in TEAC 530.

Initial observations revealed the seminar to be dialogue-based, with numerous social interactions

between peers and the instructor. Given the frequency of these types of social interactions in the

seminar, describing and interpreting the significance of them for PCTs’ teaching preparation was

necessary.

In addition to highlighting delimitations, it is necessary to define commonly used, and

potentially confusing, terms and acronyms that appear throughout this dissertation. They are as

follows:

• Autonomous Teacher or Teaching Autonomously: A graduate student who is completely

responsible for all aspects of a class; this includes, but is not limited to, planning the

class, teaching the class, and grading students’ work.

• Centralized Programming: Programs intended to assist in preparing any graduate student

on a particular campus, regardless of academic discipline, to teach. Such programs are

9

usually housed in units (e.g., faculty development offices or university teaching and

learning centers) that are not affiliated with any particular academic department (Mintz,

1998); programs initiated by the Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning

Center (TLC), such as the Graduate Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP) and

Certificate in Collegiate Instruction, are examples of centralized programming.

• Departmental Programming: Programs or coursework which emphasize teaching

preparation for graduate students within specific academic disciplines (Ronkowski,

1998).

• Formal Preparation: Engaging in coursework or seminars about teaching in collegiate

settings from academic departments or centralized university-wide programming as part

of one’s preparation (BrckaLorenz, 2008).

• Prospective College Teacher (PCT): A prospective college teacher (PCT) is a

Midwestern State University graduate student enrolled in TEAC 530 – Introduction to

Collegiate Instruction. By virtue of their enrollment, PCTs are either interested in

performing, or obligated to perform (e.g., as part of an assistantship), teaching duties in

some form at the collegiate level. Therefore, PCTs can be TAs and hold the TA title, but

they can also be graduate students who are simply just interested in teaching.

• Subculture: A subculture is a specific “community that exist[s] within a university, such

as a student organization, members of a major, or an ethnic minority group” (Park, 2013,

p. 19); PCTs enrolled in TEAC 530 are a subculture, as they share a similar identity (i.e.,

the graduate student identity) and a similar experience (i.e., preparing to teach) with each

other. PCTs’ participation in TEAC 530 exposes them to unique experiences that

distinguish them from other, similar groups on campus.

• Teaching Assistant (TA): An umbrella term that encompasses several different functions

in which graduate students serve related to teaching activities; Marincovich, Prostko, and

Stout (1998) describe the TA as one who, “In return for tuition reimbursement and a

modest stipend, …sets up labs or computer workstations, leads a discussion section as

part of a large lecture course, or designs and teaches courses, often unsupervised” (p.

xvii); when referring to TAs throughout this document, every effort is made to specify

their activities as much as possible.

10

• Teaching and Learning Center (TLC): Midwestern State University’s Teaching and

Learning Center. The Center houses the Certificate in Collegiate Instruction, Graduate

Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP), and the seminars (one of which is TEAC 530)

designed to formally prepare PCTs to teach.

Implications and Significance

This study’s inquiry into PCTs’ teaching preparation in TEAC 530, particularly into the

process rather than the product of their preparation, and interactions between PCTs’ peers and

the instructor, yielded notable findings regarding how PCTs experienced their preparation. These

findings have implications for practice, contributing to the discourse on graduate student

teaching assistant development. For instance, the instructor’s (Dr. Brown) management of TEAC

530 significantly shaped PCTs’ behavior in the seminar. Specifically, his management of the

seminar created conditions in which he was the most active social actor, leaving PCTs to be

more passive. This is significant because it could shape PCTs’ investment in their own learning

within the seminar. A possible practice that addresses this is conscious effort to involve PCTs in

more active learning opportunities in class.

There are also implications for how an instructor’s classroom management style impacts

student engagement in the classroom setting. In this study, the instructor’s management of the

seminar created tensions between him and PCTs. Specifically, sometimes PCTs pushed back

against the instructor’s management through subtle forms of resistance like socializing with

peers or making jokes when they were supposed to be working instead. In response, Dr. Brown

would take subtle steps to reign in PCTs’ behavior. These exchanges illustrated struggles for

control over the class. A possible practice to alleviate this struggle is framing the seminar such

that PCTs and the instructor equally share control of class.

Finally, this study holds implications for the conditions that foster learning in PCTs.

Particularly, when class conversations that were obviously salient to PCTs’ personal and

professional interests occurred in class, PCTs exhibited engaged body language, signaling their

interest in this topic and their desire to learn more about it. Extended dialogues between peers

and the instructor also facilitated learning because the dialogues exposed PCTs to the

perspectives of their peers and their experienced instructor. This finding is significant because it

provides relatively clear guidelines for how to inspire learning in PCTs. Possible implications for

11

practice include co-construction of course topics to accommodate PCTs’ interests and greater

emphasis on dialogues between peers and with the instructor.

Overall, the graduate student TAs of today constitute the future faculty of tomorrow.

How future faculty members prepare for the act of teaching has implications for the kind of

classroom instruction that future generation of college students will receive. Graduate students,

and ultimately their future students, benefit from greater understandings of the graduate teaching

preparation process. The results, significance, and implications for practice generated by this

study aim to augment these understandings.

12

Chapter Two: Review of Literature

This chapter divides into two parts—the first focuses on the literature that informs the

topic of this study and the second focuses on the study’s theoretical framework. Part one begins

by comprehensively reviewing the formal teaching preparation of graduate students, starting with

a brief historical overview of this practice. It then segues into discussion of formal preparation

courses. Next, there is an overview of the different types of programs for formal graduate student

teaching preparation (i.e., departmental and centralized), with special attention to certificates in

collegiate instruction given how preparation seminars are commonly part of such programs.

Included in the discussion of departmental, centralized, and certificate programs are the

outcomes and impact these programs have on graduate students preparing to teach. Discussion of

formal preparation programs transitions into the nature of interactions between TA peers and

between TAs and their instructors, primarily within formal teaching preparation settings. Part

two introduces symbolic interactionism, reviews scholars’ conceptualizations of this framework,

and explains its use for this study as a theoretical framework.

Part One: Graduate Students’ Formal Teaching Preparation

Formal preparation for teaching in higher education has an important impact on graduate

students, especially regarding their teaching skills, self-confidence in their teaching, and general

communication with their students. For example, Roach (1998) determined TAs from multiple

academic disciplines with greater preparation displayed high levels of teaching skill and

confidence while experiencing low levels of communication anxiety in the classroom. The

connection between preparation and communication anxiety in TAs is noteworthy, especially in

light of subsequent research by Roach (1999), which conveyed that TAs who exhibited anxiety

communicating in the classroom were less likely to use communication strategies that get

students to follow instructions. High communication anxiety in TAs also led students to perceive

their TAs as having less power and authority in the classroom. Similarly, the absence of any

formal preparation or supervision for TAs from multiple fields of study connected with low

levels of self-efficacy for teaching (Prieto et al., 2007). In sum, having high levels of formal

teaching preparation yields better outcomes for graduate students’ overall teaching, confidence in

teaching, and general communication with students in the classroom.

Achieving these teaching outcomes, until recently, was a challenging task for graduate

students due to a lack of institutional infrastructure geared toward formal graduate student

13

teaching preparation (Tice, Gaff, & Pruitt-Logan, 1998). In fact, formal teaching for graduate

students in higher education settings is, in the context of the history of higher education, a

relatively new phenomenon. Chism (1998) views the evolution of preparing graduate students to

teach in four phases, naming the phases in chronological order as: “‘Nothing to Say,’ ‘Private

Conversations,’ ‘Can We Talk?,’ and ‘Extending the Conversation.’” (p. 1). The Nothing to Say

phase extended from when teaching assistants and graduate student teachers first appeared in

higher education, possibly as early as the 18th century at Yale University, until the 1960s. Little

discussion about, or action toward, preparing graduate students to teach took place during this

period (Chism, 1998). Private Conversations occurred from the 1960s until the mid-1980s.

During this time, colleges and universities began assigning significant numbers of graduate

students to teach collegiate classes autonomously. This increase in graduate students teaching

raised awareness, questions, and concerns about their preparedness to be successful in this role

and caused institutions to respond (Chism, 1998). From the late 1980s into the early 1990s, in the

Can We Talk? phase,

large institutions came together to publicly talk about a situation that they had previously

treated cautiously: the fact that TAs were carrying a large part of the undergraduate load

and that efforts to prepare these graduate students to teach were in their infancy. (p. 4)

This multi-institutional dialogue turned into action, as universities and academic departments

began to create TA development programs at a rapid pace. In 1991, over 80% of all university-

wide TA development programs were less than a decade old, and close to 60% were between one

and four years old (Tice et al., 1998).

Attention to the issue of graduate student teaching preparation increased further in the

Extending the Conversation phase (from the mid-1990s onward). For example, the national TA

development conference in 1993 saw unprecedented collaboration between TA development

leaders and professional associations from academic disciplines such as Chemistry, Sociology,

Speech, English, and Mathematics. These collaborations centered on improving graduate

students’ teaching preparation in these disciplines (Chism, 1998). This phase also produced a

scholarly outlet dedicated exclusively to TAs: The Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant

Development. Beginning in 1993, this journal focused on scholarship regarding how TAs

prepared for their duties during graduate school and beyond. The journal discontinued in 2003,

transitioning into an edited book series publishing works on broader populations such as

14

graduate and professional students (New Forums Press, 2015). Though this book series

discontinued at the end of 2015 (D. Dollar, personal communication, December 29, 2016),

scholarly outlets focusing on higher education and collegiate teaching regularly publish works

featuring graduate TAs, sometimes devoting special issues solely on this population.

Specifically, the Journal on Excellence in College Teaching featured a double-issue on preparing

future faculty in 2006 and the Canadian Journal of Higher Education recently, in 2015,

published an entire issue on quality enhancement of graduate TA preparation. Overall, graduate

students’ formal preparation for teaching is still a relatively new development in higher

education. Nevertheless, the last 30 years have witnessed strong efforts to create better

preparation for graduate students’ teaching and better understanding of the nature of their

preparation. During those few decades, several firmly established programs for formal teaching

preparation for graduate students came into being. The next section reviews these programs, the

outcomes they yield for students, and the implications these outcomes have for students’

preparation.

Programs for Formal Preparation

There are two common types of formal teaching preparation programs for graduate

students: departmental programs and centralized programs. However, before detailed explanation

of them, it is important to note that courses (or seminars) on graduate student preparation are the

building blocks for both. Departmental and centralized programs both include courses intended

to prepare graduate students for tasks associated with teaching. As such, it is necessary to

understand preparation courses more thoroughly.

Courses

Two major studies about courses by Schönwetter, Ellis, Taylor, and Koop (2008) and

Chandler (2011) stand out in the literature on this topic. In the former, the authors conducted a

comprehensive study examining 155 courses on graduate student preparation for college and

university teaching at institutions in both Canada and the United States between 2002 and 2004.

The primary goal of their exploratory study was to gather nuanced information about these

courses. To collect data, the authors accessed course outlines available from the websites of

institutions (Schönwetter, Ellis, Taylor, & Koop, 2008). Chandler (2011), investigating

programming for the professional development of doctoral students preparing to be college

15

instructors, collected survey data containing information on pedagogy courses for graduate

students from 31 high and very high research activity universities.

In terms of general findings, both studies found preparation courses located within

centralized units and programs (i.e., teaching certificate programs, graduate schools, teaching

centers, faculty preparation programs, and teaching assistant programs) and specific

departmental master’s and doctoral programs (Chandler, 2011; Schönwetter et al., 2008).

Schönwetter et al. noted that readings, discussions, written assignments, student presentations,

and reflective writing were the most common types of assignments in courses. Among these, the

most frequently utilized were reading assignments, as 106 (68.3% of the sample of 155) of the

sampled courses implemented them. Regarding other types, 69 (44.5%) courses used written

reflections, 61 (39.3%) in-class presentations or teaching, 60 (38.7%) attendance/class

participation grades, and 51 (32.9%) used teaching philosophies (Schönwetter et al., 2008).

Chandler (2011) explored course grading and reported that courses in centralized

programs used pass/fail grading slightly more than letter grading; courses in departmental

programs used both methods with the same frequency. By topic, centralized courses emphasized

assessment and course design the most and learning and ethics the least. Departmental courses

focused most on micro-teaching, assessment, and technology and the least on diversity and

ethics. Finally, Chandler (2011) pointed out, “the courses on teaching preparation offered by

teaching centers and graduate schools reported more consistent attention to relatively advanced

pedagogical skills, i.e., ‘goal setting’ and ‘course design,’ than did similar courses offered by

departments” (p. 76). Thus, in working with the survey data, Chandler found that courses housed

in centralized units and programs embraced more sophisticated topics related to pedagogy than

courses housed in academic departments.

Overall, findings from both studies serve as a snapshot of the institutional locations,

assignment types, grading methods, and topics of formal teaching preparation courses for

graduate students. Of particular note are the locations of these courses; all locations were in

either formal departmental or centralized units/programs. This finding further underscores the

importance of the course to formal preparation. Additionally, the above research highlighted

differences between courses in departmental and centralized units/programs, touching

specifically on grading methods and course topics. In that same vein, it appears courses housed

16

in centralized entities could provide graduate students with more advanced pedagogy preparation

compared to courses housed in academic departments.

Departmental Programs

Departmental programs, as the name suggests, emphasize teaching preparation for

graduate students within specific academic disciplines. Ronkowski (1998) explains further:

“Long before there were formal or identifiable TA training and development programs, faculty

mentored and modeled for their graduate students the role of university teacher as well as that of

researcher” (p. 41). Over time, such mentoring and modeling for university teaching formalized

into courses and seminars varying based on academic discipline. For example, research

examining departmental preparation programs showed such courses in Biology and other

physical sciences prepared students to teach in laboratory settings and thus set aside class time to

review laboratory safety. In contrast, preparation for teaching English did not include laboratory

training, but was generally longer and more intensive because the expectation in this discipline

was graduate students would have greater autonomy over classes and thus more teaching

responsibilities (Ronkowski, 1998).

Although the foci of departmental preparation programs can differ based on discipline,

they sometimes produce similar outcomes for students. A seemingly frequent outcome of

departmental programs is increased self-efficacy (i.e., the extent to which one believes they can

be successful at a given task). Young and Bippus (2008) and Meyers, Livingston Lansu, Hundal,

Lekkos, and Prieto (2007) identified increases in overall self-efficacy toward teaching for

Communications TAs and Psychology TAs, respectively, after these TAs completed their

respective departmental preparation programs. More specifically, both studies showed TAs from

their respective disciplines experienced increases in self-efficacy with regard to implementing

different teaching methods and facilitating greater inclusivity in their classrooms. Related to self-

efficacy is graduate students’ anxiety over teaching. Studies by Williams (1991) and Pelton

(2014) highlighted links between engagement in department specific formal teaching preparation

programs and decreases in graduate students’ teaching anxiety. Williams (1991) discovered

English TAs who participated in a week-long departmental workshop and 16-week preparation

course felt less anxious about teaching than English TAs who did not participate in the workshop

and course. Pelton (2014) reported Sociology TAs felt less anxious about teaching and more

17

confident in their teaching abilities after completion of a semester-long formal preparation

seminar within their Sociology department.

Overall, although natural differences exist between academic disciplines, there is some

evidence formal teaching preparation in different academic departments generate similar

outcomes in graduate students. This appears to be true with regard to graduate students’ levels of

self-efficacy and anxiety related to teaching. These are notable outcomes because students’

levels of self-efficacy and anxiety related to teaching can have implications for their teaching

performance. Related to departmental programming is centralized programming. The latter is of

high relevance to this study given its focus on a centralized preparation seminar. What follows is

an overview of centralized programming and the outcomes they yield in graduate students

preparing to teach. This overview also contains a separate section dedicated to collegiate

teaching certificate programs given how centralized preparation seminars are commonly part of

such programs.

Centralized Programming

In general, centralized programs, or programs created by institutional units outside of

individual academic departments (e.g., faculty development offices, university teaching and

learning centers), aim to assist in preparing graduate students from all different types of

academic disciplines to teach. Centralized programming can range from disparate seminars or

orientations on topics such as “time management, preparing to be a faculty member,

and…American higher education” to comprehensive graduate certificates for teaching in higher

education (Mintz, 1998, p. 26). Although they can stand alone, centralized programs often work

to support academic departmental efforts to prepare graduate students to teach and usually

complement or augment what a department is already doing regarding preparation. Forms of

support centralized programs can offer to departments include pedagogical expertise from

program personnel, assistance from program personnel with experience preparing graduate

students to teach, and grant opportunities for funding (Mintz, 1998).

Centralized programming, like departmental programming, yield important outcomes for

graduate students preparing to teach. Self-efficacy toward teaching is a common outcome of such

centralized programs, for both domestic (Boman, 2013; Dimitrov et al., 2013) and international

graduate students (Salinas, Kozuh, & Seraphine, 1999). Graduate students felt less anxiety when

communicating with students in the classroom after completion of centralized programs (Boman,

18

2013; Roach, 2003). Lastly, finishing certain centralized programs inspired graduate students to

prioritize their own students’ learning (Dimitrov et al., 2013) and engagement (Boman, 2014)

when teaching. In sum, there is evidence centralized programming generates beneficial outcomes

for graduate students preparing to teach. Certificates in collegiate teaching, a common type of

centralized program not yet discussed in detail, also provide positive outcomes for graduate

students. What follows is a closer examination of certificates and the outcomes graduate students

who are preparing to teach experience through participating in them.

Certificates in collegiate instruction. Collegiate instruction certificates combine

coursework and experiences designed specifically to enhance graduate students’ teaching and

prepare them for the realities of instruction in higher education, potentially as faculty members at

colleges and universities. In general, certificates increase the respectability of teaching relative to

research in academia, encourage collaboration with academic departments regarding teaching

preparation for graduate students, and allow for better documentation of teaching effectiveness

(Tice, Featherstone, & Johnson, 1998). Linda von Hoene (2011) and Kenny, Watson, and

Watton (2014) studied collegiate teaching certificates in the United States and Canada,

respectively. Both studies revealed a myriad of descriptive data about these programs.

Certificates exist primarily in universities classified as highest or high research activity

institutions (von Hoene, 2011) and the composition and foci of certificates can vary based on

institutional type and mission (Tice, Featherstone, et al., 1998). Some institutions offer teaching

certificates as entire master’s degrees, with over 30 credit hours of required coursework,

electives, and teaching experiences supervised by a mentor. More common are certificates

offering coursework and supervised mentored teaching on a scale smaller than that of an entire

graduate degree and have completion times of between two and four semesters (Kenny, Watson,

& Watton, 2014; Tice, Featherstone, et al., 1998; von Hoene, 2011); the certificate program at

Midwestern State University falls into this category. Kenny et al. noted in Canadian certificate

programs two distinctive layouts: those that, through the accumulation of smaller individual

collegiate teaching certificates, constitute one larger comprehensive certificate program, and

those which are a just a singular, standalone program. Regardless of layout, the vast majority of

certificates require completion of either discipline specific departmental seminars, courses on

college teaching offered by centralized university-wide units, or both (Kenny et al., 2014; von

Hoene, 2011). In terms of assignments within certificate programs, the most commonly cited

19

were teaching portfolios/dossiers and written reflections related to teaching (Kenny et al., 2014;

von Hoene, 2011). In close to 80% of American certificate programs, students completed some

form of a teaching philosophy (von Hoene, 2011). Built into the curriculums of nearly half of all

certificates were some form of faculty mentoring. One form of mentoring frequently identified

was teaching practice. With this type of mentoring, faculty (and in some cases the peers of

graduate students) observe graduate students teaching and then provide feedback (Kenny et al.,

2014; von Hoene, 2011). In sum, there is a modest amount of research describing the

composition of certificates in collegiate instruction. There is less examining the outcomes of

such programs.

Regarding outcomes of certificate programs, Taylor, Schönwetter, Ellis, and Roberts

(2008) evaluated the impact of two college teaching certificate programs housed at two separate

Canadian universities. The authors created and oversaw the implementation of both programs;

they designed them to facilitate in graduate students "the development of teaching skills,

teaching and learning theories, reflective skills (i.e., teaching dossier and teaching philosophy),

and communication and presentation skills" (Taylor et al., 2008, p. 50). Both programs required

completion of credit-bearing courses, which utilized assignments such as reflection papers,

teaching philosophies, presentations, and teaching dossiers. Overall, both programs increased

students' perceptions of their preparedness to teach and facilitated increases in participants'

perceptions of the importance of teaching. Regarding individual knowledge and skills gained

from the programs, participants were more confident in their abilities to make a teaching dossier,

articulate a teaching philosophy, discuss teaching with an employer, develop an overall course,

and prepare for individual class sessions (Taylor et al., 2008).

Summary: Programs for Formal Preparation

This section reviewed literature about numerous aspects of programming for graduate

students’ formal teaching preparation, giving close attention to the courses that make up

preparation programming, discipline specific departmental programming, centralized

programming, and certificates in collegiate instruction. Research on courses emphasized the

important role they play as the building blocks of formal programming within departments and

centralized units. Course topics most frequently cited in both departmental and centralized

programs centered on assessment, course design, and micro-teaching (Chandler, 2011).

Literature on departmental-level preparation programming revealed that, although such

20

programming may vary in content due to the fact that academic disciplines are inherently

different from each other, the outcomes of such programming are similar. Outcomes commonly

found in graduate students who completed departmental programs included greater self-efficacy

and less anxiety related to teaching. Research on centralized programming showed similar

outcomes with regard to graduate students’ teaching related self-efficacy and anxiety. However,

an additional outcome realized from centralized programming included graduate students having

concern for, and prioritizing, their own students’ learning and engagement. Results reported by

Taylor et al. (2008) regarding certificate programs suggested positive outcomes for participants.

Specifically, graduate students completing their certificates perceived themselves to be prepared

to teach and perceived teaching to be important. Additionally, students gained confidence in

several practical skills necessary for successful teaching preparation (i.e., philosophy

development, course development, individual class session development).

In sum, the literature on programming for formal teaching preparation in graduate

students are thorough in terms of describing the contents of preparation courses and of the

different types of departmental and centralized programs. Furthermore, the literature suggests

that preparation, whether it be through an academic department, centralized unit, or a certificate,

yields positive outcomes. Overall, there is a robust collection of studies detailing the content and

product of formal teaching preparation programs for graduate students; what is missing is

research focusing more on the process of preparing in a formal program. Specifically, how do

graduate students experience their formal preparation in a centralized preparation seminar? From

a graduate student’s perspective, what is it like to prepare in this setting? What happens during a

typical preparation seminar, from the moment a graduate student walks into the classroom until

the moment they walk out? What do they see, hear, and do in this setting? This study’s

exploration of TEAC 530 – Introduction to Collegiate Instruction, a one-credit hour

interdisciplinary seminar that fulfills requirements for two centralized, university-wide teaching

preparation programs, sheds light on these questions. Furthermore, this study attempts to add to

the extant literature in a unique way by highlighting the nuances of the process of graduate

students’ teaching preparation, and from these understandings, generate practical insights into

what creates a more fruitful preparation experience.

Another way in which to understand how graduate students experience their formal

teaching preparation is to examine the role peers and instructors play in graduate students’

21

preparation. In general, what kinds of interactions do graduate TA peers have with each other?

What kind of interactions do TAs have with their formal preparation instructors? How do peer-

to-peer and TA-to-instructor interactions during preparation shape the teaching preparation

experience? What follows is a review of the literature touching on these topics.

Peer and Instructor Interactions

In reviewing the literature on interactions between graduate TA peers, three themes

emerged: TAs interacting generically, TAs interacting as peer mentors, and TAs interacting as

the teachers of other TAs in the context of TA preparation. Studies addressing TAs interacting

generically did not do so within the context of formal TA preparation programs (Austin, 2002;

Mena, Diefes-Dux, & Capobianco, 2013; Myers, 1996); nevertheless, these works uncovered

important insights about interactions between TAs. Generic interactions, in the context of these

studies, broadly meant TAs being in contact or communicating with each other, mostly within

the confines of graduate school but sometimes outside of it as well (Austin, 2002; Mena et al.,

2013; Myers, 1996). Scholars found generic interactions amongst TA peers facilitated their

socialization, or the “process through which an individual becomes part of a group, organization,

or community” (Austin, 2002, p. 96). Specifically, generic interactions increased TAs’

socialization toward graduate school in general (Austin, 2002; Mena et al., 2013; Myers, 1996)

and toward teaching in higher education settings (Austin, 2002; Myers, 1996). For Engineering

TAs, consistent interactions with each other fostered a spirit of reciprocity, meaning they were

more willing to be helpful to one another in navigating the TA role (Mena et al., 2013).

Several studies examined TAs interacting as peer mentors. Two of these studies (Bollis-

Pecci & Walker, 1999; Boyle & Boice, 1998) reported results from TA preparation programs

that explicitly assigned a veteran TA to serve as a mentor to a novice TA. Typical peer

mentoring interactions described in these studies included veteran and novice TAs attending

regularly scheduled meetings together about teaching and novice TAs observing their veteran TA

mentor teach (Bollis-Pecci & Walker, 1999; Boyle & Boice, 1998). Interactions of this nature set

the stage for in-depth discussions about teaching between peers, which enabled peers to

exchange ideas and perspectives about teaching and ultimately provide support for each other

during the teaching process. Additionally, these interactions aided in the socialization process for

novice TAs toward graduate school and inspired an attitude of reciprocity in peers with regard to

helping each other (Bollis-Pecci & Walker, 1999; Boyle & Boice, 1998). Notably, Bollis-Pecci

22

and Walker found that novice TAs expressed relief when interacting with their veteran TA

mentors simply because the novice TAs knew the veterans survived their first year as a TA.

Two additional studies about TA peer mentoring focused, respectively, on the following:

results from a program where TAs served as mentors to each other while they co-taught a TA

preparation class (Hollar, Carlson, & Spencer, 2000), and description of a Chemistry TA

preparation course in which a major component was peer reviews of peer teaching (Robinson,

2000). The primary mentoring-related interaction that emerged from these two works was

providing feedback on peers’ respective instructional styles (Hollar et al., 2000; Robinson,

2000). For example, Hollar, Carlson, and Spencer (2000) revealed co-teaching peers, by virtue of

their co-teaching relationship, learned how to graciously receive criticism from each other about

their respective instructional styles. Similarly, Robinson (2000) reported TAs felt enthusiastic

about receiving teaching feedback from TA peers and international TAs had less anxiety about

their peers’ presence in their classrooms during teaching compared to their instructor’s presence.

The last pervasive theme in the literature related to TA interactions also emphasized

teaching. Research by Hollar et al. (2000) and Marbach-Ad, Shields, Kent, Higgins, and

Thompson (2010) looked at TAs as the teachers of other TAs in the context of formal

preparation for teaching. Outcomes in these studies revealed that TAs enjoyed receiving

instruction from fellow TAs. In particular, Marbach-Ad et al. (2010) noted novice TAs

appreciated teaching advice from veteran TAs when a panel of veteran TAs guest taught a

session of a formal preparation course.

Some of the research cited above also examined the nature of interactions between TAs

and their instructors in formal teaching preparation settings (Marbach-Ad et al., 2010; Robinson

2000). Although no pervasive themes emerged from these works regarding interactions of this

nature, there were nevertheless some key results. Marbach-Ad et al. (2010) designed a formal

teaching preparation course for Biology graduate students co-taught primarily by three

Biological Sciences faculty members. This co-teaching approach permitted more interactions

between graduate students of the course and the instructors. As a result, students felt they

received more individualized attention from instructors, felt more connected to them, and felt

greater overall support (Marbach-Ad et al., 2010). Robinson’s (2000) description of a formal

teaching preparation course in Chemistry created noteworthy interactions between TAs and their

instructor. In addition to requiring peer observations and reviews of peers’ teaching for the

23

course, the instructor also conducted teaching observations and reviews of student’s teaching.

After the instructor observed and reviewed, they left a copy of their observation notes with the

student. Accompanying the notes was an invitation for the student to visit the instructor to talk

about the teaching session one-on-one if students so desired. This approach, coupled with peer

reviews of teaching, greatly improved students’ teaching performances (Robinson, 2000). Lastly,

in terms of TA and instructor interactions outside of the formal teaching preparation course

setting, Austin (2002) and Mena, Diefes-Dux, and Capobianco (2013) found TAs’ informal

interactions with faculty helped socialize them to graduate school.

Summary: Peer and Instructor Interactions

Literature about interactions between graduate TA peers revealed three primary themes:

TAs interacting generically, TAs interacting as peer mentors, and TAs interacting as the teachers

of other TAs in the context of TA preparation. Regarding generic interactions, research showed

such interactions among TAs outside of the context of TA preparation programs advanced their

socialization to graduate school (Mena et al., 2013) and to teaching in higher education settings

(Austin, 2002; Myers, 1996). Peer mentoring TA interactions were common in the form of

pairings between novice TAs and veteran TAs within formal TA preparation programs and

courses. These mentoring relationships created opportunities for peers to learn from and support

each other with regard to teaching. This type of mentoring also helped the socialization of novice

TAs (Bollis-Pecci & Walker, 1999; Boyle & Boice, 1998). Another form of peer mentoring TA

interactions found in the literature were peer reviews of teaching. TAs reviewing their peers’

teaching assisted TAs in accepting constructive criticism about their instructional styles (Hollar

et al., 2000). A final type of peer interaction that stood out in the literature were TAs as the

teachers of other TAs in the context of formal teaching preparation. One result of this interaction,

as discussed by Marbach-Ad et al. (2010), was that novice TAs enjoyed receiving teaching

advice from veteran TAs. In the realm of interactions between TAs and their formal preparation

instructors, the research suggested that more frequent interactions between these groups, whether

in the teaching preparation classroom setting or in a one-on-one meeting to discuss an

instructor’s observation of a TA’s teaching, helped TAs feel supported as they prepared to teach

(Marbach-Ad et al., 2010; Robinson, 2000).

Although there is a body of research examining interactions between graduate TA peers

and graduate TAs and their instructors, this research mostly highlights larger scale-interactions.

24

For example, the literature demonstrates that TA peers interact as teaching mentors to each other

during their teaching preparation (large scale-interaction). Missing is close description and

analysis of the micro-interactions, particularly the nuanced social interactions, that occur within

TA peer relationships like this and other TA peer relationships. Similarly, the literature is

practically absent of explicit study on how nuanced social interactions between peers during

preparation classes shape the preparation experience. Investigation of such phenomenon could

reveal how peers respond to these social exchanges through speech or body language and

ultimately how these exchanges influence TAs’ behavior. This, in turn, can create

understandings of what kinds of peer-to-peer social exchanges positively or negatively influence

graduate teaching preparation as well as help capture students’ general experiences in formal

preparation settings. Similarly, the literature says little about TA and instructor social

interactions during preparation courses. Close observation and analysis of social exchanges in

the preparation classroom setting between TAs and their instructor, how both parties respond to

these exchanges, and how these exchanges influence behavior, can reveal new knowledge about

TAs’ preparation experiences. Overall, this study attempts to fill the gap in the literature with

regard to social interactions between TA peers and TAs and their instructor in graduate student

teaching preparation settings. It does so by applying scrutiny to these types of interactions in

TEAC 530, a one-credit hour interdisciplinary seminar that fulfills requirements for two

centralized, university-wide teaching preparation programs at Midwestern State University.

Investigation of this phenomenon seeks to add to the literature on graduate students’ formal

teaching preparation and works to uncover new understandings of how graduate students

experience this preparation. As such, results from this study can inform how scholars and

practitioners of graduate TA preparation approach their research and practice.

Given the heavy emphasis on social interactions in this research project, the next section

discusses an effective way to understand such interactions: through a lens of symbolic

interactionism.

Part Two: Symbolic Interactionism – A Theoretical Framework

Part two of this review of literature begins with an overview of symbolic interactionism.

This overview outlines the perspectives of Herbert Blumer, Sheldon Stryker, and Erving

Goffman on this school of thought. Following that is a definition of the term theoretical

framework and a brief overview of research on college students that utilized symbolic

25

interactionism as a theoretical framework. To conclude, this section explains the inclusion and

use of a modified Blumerian symbolic interactionist theoretical framework in this study.

Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism

The basic tenets of Blumerian symbolic interactionism build upon George Herbert

Mead’s notion that “The self, as that which can be an object to itself, is essentially a social

structure, and it arises in social experience” (Mead, 1934, p. 140). A student of Mead’s, Herbert

Blumer (1969/1986) coined the term symbolic interactionism and built upon his mentor’s work.

Using Mead’s ideas as a foundation, Blumer generated three key principles for symbolic

interactionism in his seminal book on the topic:

1. "human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings that the things have for

them" (p. 2).

2. "the meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out of, the social interaction

that one has with one's fellows" (p. 2).

3. "these meanings are handled in, and modified through, an interpretative process used

by the person in dealing with the things he encounters" (p. 2).

Charon’s perspectives on symbolic interactionism clarify and corroborate the ideas of Blumer.

Charon (1992) states:

Interaction means human beings act in relation to one another, they take one another’s

acts into account as they act. Interaction means that the acts of each individual are built

up over time depending in part on what others do in the situation. Interaction means that

individuals are not simply influenced by others; it means that actors influence one

another as they go along. (p. 23)

Charon adds that symbolic interactionists believe people act based on what they are thinking in

the moment of an interaction with others rather than on their pre-established values; they act with

the present moment in mind, and the present moment within an interaction dictates action rather

than past experiences (Charon, 1992).

Overall, this summary succinctly outlines a Blumerian conceptualization of symbolic

interactionism. Over time, critiques of Blumer’s work and different ways of thinking about

symbolic interactionism emerged from the scholarship on this theory. The next section highlights

these critiques and differences.

26

Additional Perspectives on Symbolic Interactionism

An alternative perspective on symbolic interactionism materialized from the works of

Sheldon Stryker. Stryker’s (1980) version of symbolic interactionism offered critiques and

revisions to Blumer’s conceptualization, especially with regard to social structures. Stryker

contended that Blumer failed to adequately discuss how symbolic interaction tied into

discussions about wider social structures such as social class. Specifically, Stryker argued that

given how symbolic interactionism privileges social interactions, absence of discussion about

how social structures can determine “who interact[s] with one another in certain ways and in

certain settings or situations” (1980, p. 66) makes for an incomplete framework, especially

within Sociology, a discipline that greatly emphasizes recognition of social structures. Stryker

also critiqued Blumer’s lack of attention to the possibilities of role theory in symbolic

interactionism. For example, symbolic interactionism posits that individuals make meaning and

act towards things based on social interactions, but role theory helps show how this process

occurs: “Actors take the role of others to anticipate the consequences of possible patterns of

action they can initiate and they take the role of others to monitor the results of their actions”

(Stryker, 1980, p. 62). A final major criticism Stryker applied to Blumer centered on Blumer’s

insistence that research implementing a symbolic interactionist approach be naturalistic in its

methodology. In other words, Stryker disagreed that symbolic interactionist inquiry must always

be qualitative in nature. Overall, Stryker’s perspectives on symbolic interaction served as a

critique of Blumer’s perspectives. Stryker thus offered revisions and an alternative.

The works of Erving Goffman inspired another prominent approach to symbolic

interactionism differing from the ideas of Blumer. Goffman viewed social interactions between

individuals through a dramaturgical lens (Goffman, 1959). A dramaturgical lens entails picturing

ourselves, and others, as actors in a stage play of life. As actors, individuals purposely or

unconsciously present themselves in ways they want others to perceive them (i.e., as competent,

or kind, or attractive, etc.). Goffman states: “I assume that when an individual appears before

others he will have many motives for trying to control the impression they receive of the

situation” (Goffman, 1959, p. 15). Ultimately, individuals hope people will respond to them in

ways that reinforce their presentation (e.g., If I act smart, and individuals reflect back to me that I

am smart, then I have convinced individuals I am smart and will receive the benefits of that

perception). Goffman (1959), again, states:

27

Sometimes the individual will act in a thoroughly calculating manner, expressing himself

in a given way solely in order to give the kind of impression to others that is likely to

evoke from them a specific response he is concerned to obtain. (p. 6)

In sum, Goffman’s take on social interactions incorporates a dramaturgical lens and thus differs

from Blumer’s views.

A Symbolic Interactionist Theoretical Framework

To explain what constitutes a symbolic interactionist theoretical framework, it is first

necessary to define the concept theoretical framework. Jones, Torres, and Arminio (2014)

explained that theoretical frameworks provide “suppositions that inform the phenomenon under

study and comes from existing scholarly literature. The theoretical framework links the unsettled

question to larger theoretical constructs” (p. 22). Thus, a theoretical framework assists in

formulating a research study, serves as a guide through which one views a research study, and

helps connect proposed research to pre-established ideas. Use of symbolic interactionism, in

various forms, as a theoretical framework to study college students is not unprecedented.

Scholars implemented versions of symbolic interactionist theoretical frameworks in research

about how college students present themselves on social media (Birnbaum, 2013), how college

students engage in activism on Christian college campuses (Cole, 2014), presentations of

masculinity in Black college men (Ford, 2011), how Social Work students negotiate their

identities as students and practitioners (McSweeney, 2012), college fraternity hazing (Sweet,

1999), how Asian college students negotiate internal and external life expectations (Samura,

2015), and moral identity in friendships between LGBTQ and heterosexual college students

(Ueno & Gentile, 2015). This present ethnographic study inquiring into how graduate students at

Midwestern State University experience formal teaching preparation in TEAC 530 seeks to

implement symbolic interactionism as a theoretical framework and join the above works in using

this framework to provide nuanced understandings of particular aspects of college student life.

In particular, this study will employ a modified Blumerian symbolic interactionist

theoretical framework. It will contain Blumer’s (1969/1986) key principles of symbolic

interactionism (i.e., people act toward things based on the meaning things have for them;

creation of these meanings comes through interactions with others; meanings can change through

continued social interactions) with a modification that takes into account social structures and

roles. This modified framework will reflect Stryker’s idea that “social structures – including

28

systems of positions and related roles as well as larger principles around which societies are

organized…shape interaction” (Stryker, 1987, p. 91). Utilization of this modified framework

guides the creation of research questions for this study that, when answered, will fill the

aforementioned gaps within the extant literature on graduate student teaching preparation. The

literature does not yet adequately address (a) the nuances of the process of graduate students’

preparation, and (b) the nuances of the social interactions between graduate student peers and

between graduate students and preparation instructors (and how both types of interactions shape

students’ experiences in formal preparation settings).

This study’s modified Blumerian symbolic interactionist theoretical framework helps

shape several of this study’s proposed questions, which are:

1. How do Midwestern State University prospective college teachers (PCTs) experience

formal teaching preparation for higher education in TEAC 530, a collegiate teaching

preparation seminar?

2. How do peer-to-peer interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC 530?

3. How do interactions between PCTs and the instructor shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC

530?

Blumer’s principles emphasize inquiry into the creation and alteration of meaning through social

interactions; these research questions attempt to frame a study that creates this same type of

understanding, but within the context of PCTs’ formal teaching preparation. The purpose of

modifying Blumer’s framework to include Stryker’s attention to social structures is to draw

attention to how such structures shape PCTs’ social interactions. Regarding possible use of

Goffman’s dramaturgical approach, this perspective, though important, did not fit within the

scope of this study and as such did not merit inclusion into the theoretical framework.

Summary: Chapter Two

The first part of this chapter conveyed the extant literature about graduate students’

formal teaching preparation and preparation programs, interactions between TAs preparing to

teach, and interactions between TAs and their formal preparation instructors. Upon review of

these areas of literature, evidence of several gaps became clear. Regarding the literature about

formal teaching preparation and preparation programs, there are numerous studies conveying the

outcomes, or the product, of such programs. Broadly speaking, outcomes of formal teaching

preparation programs for graduate students include greater self-efficacy for teaching, less anxiety

29

about teaching, and greater desire for graduate students to, as teachers, help their own students

learn (Boman, 2013; Dimitrov et al., 2013; Pelton 2014; Roach, 2003; Salinas et al., 1999;

Taylor et al., 2008; Williams, 1991). However, there is significantly less research focusing on the

process of students’ formal preparation. In other words, the research says little about the nuances

of the graduate student experience during formal preparation (i.e., what happens during a typical

preparation seminar, from the moment a graduate student walks into the classroom until the

moment they walk out? What do they see, hear, and do in this setting?).

Regarding literature about interactions between TAs preparing to teach, it emerged that,

broadly, TAs responded to these interactions positively (Marbach-Ad et al., 2010; Robinson,

2000), interactions facilitated TAs’ socialization to graduate school and higher education (Bollis-

Pecci & Walker, 1999; Boyle & Boice, 1998), and interactions helped TAs better accept

constructive criticism on their instructional techniques (Marbach-Ad et al., 2010). Research

about TAs interacting with their preparation instructors showed that more interactions between

these two groups led to TAs feeling more supported with their teaching preparation, although

international TAs felt less anxious with peer observations of their classes compared to

observations with their instructors (Marbach-Ad et al., 2010; Robinson, 2000). Overall, the

literature on interactions primarily emphasized the general ways in which TAs, and TAs and

their preparation instructors, interact (e.g., TA peers interact as teaching mentors to each other

during their teaching preparation). However, there is a dearth of studies about more minute

interactions between TAs and between TAs and their preparation instructors. Studies that

describe and analyze the micro-interactions, particularly the nuanced social interactions, which

occur during preparation classes, are nonexistent. How do these social interactions shape TAs’

(or in the context of this study, PCTs’) preparation experience?

Part two of this chapter provided an overview of symbolic interactionism as the

theoretical framework guiding this study. The review included descriptions of the different

schools of thought about symbolic interactionism from Blumer (1969/1986), Stryker (1980), and

Goffman (1959), as well explanation of the modified Blumerian framework guiding this study.

This modified framework states the traditional Blumerian ideas that (a) people act toward things

based on the meaning things have for them, (b) the creation of these meanings comes through

interactions with others, and (c) meanings can change through continued social interactions

(1969/1986). However, it also entails the perspectives of Sheldon Stryker regarding social

30

structures and roles. His quote, “social structures – including systems of positions and related

roles as well as larger principles around which societies are organized…shape interaction”

(Stryker, 1987, p. 91), captures how this study takes into account social structures. The tenets of

this framework inform the research questions directing this study, which are:

1. How do Midwestern State University prospective college teachers (PCTs) experience

formal teaching preparation for higher education in TEAC 530, a collegiate teaching

preparation seminar?

2. How do peer-to-peer interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC 530?

3. How do interactions between PCTs and the instructor shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC

530?

These questions address the aforementioned gaps in the literature. Specifically, these gaps are (a)

the nuances of the graduate student experience during formal preparation; and (b) the micro-

interactions, particularly nuanced social interactions, between graduate students and between

graduate students and their preparation instructors in formal TA teaching preparation settings.

Exploration of these gaps through studying TEAC 530, a one-credit hour interdisciplinary

seminar that fulfills requirements for two centralized, university-wide teaching preparation

programs, attempts to create new and unique understandings of how graduate students prepare to

teach. The results from this study seek to aid scholars and practitioners concerned with formal

graduate student teaching preparation by extending the literature on this topic and improving

practice.

The next chapter provides the details of this study’s design. It discusses, at length, the

plans for this study’s execution.

31

Chapter Three: Study Design

This chapter extensively outlines the design for this study. Included in this outline are the

details of this study’s paradigm and theoretical perspective, ethnographic methodology, research

setting, strategies for data collection and analysis, and standards for research quality. The chapter

concludes with how I situate myself within this inquiry, grapple with ethical considerations, and

navigate limitations to this work.

Paradigmatic Worldview and Theoretical Perspective

This study adheres to an interpretivist worldview. Interpretivism holds that knowledge

and reality are not absolute but are relative to how individuals construct and co-construct them.

The ontological beliefs guiding interpretivism state there are multiple truths and realities which

develop through experiences and social interactions (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011).

Epistemologically, interpretivists believe individuals "construct their own understanding[s] of

reality" based on how they engage the world socially (Lincoln et al., 2011, p. 103). Thus, this

study does not uncover objective truths or ultimate truth about how the prospective college

teacher (PCT) subculture at Midwestern State University experiences formal teaching

preparation. Rather, this study focuses on representing this subculture’s experiences in their

preparation journeys, and the representation this study disseminates constitutes one

interpretation, not the interpretation. By representing the PCT subculture in writing, it will

naturally carry the personal subjectivities of me, the author. Development of these subjectivities

occurred and continues to occur through my lived experiences. In light of this fact, it is necessary

to take steps toward acknowledging these subjectivities, a process described later in this chapter.

Consistent with this study’s interpretivist worldview is the notion of co-constructing

knowledge with research participants. Specifically, through their interviews and participation in

data member checking, research participants play an active role in co-constructing knowledge

with the researcher to aid in the development of a portrayal of who they are that represents their

points of view. Details of these processes appear later in this chapter. Overall, the ideas guiding

the approach to this study, specifically that knowledge is subjective and constructed and co-

constructed based on social interactions, align with the interpretivist worldview.

Coupled with the interpretivist paradigmatic worldview guiding this study is a symbolic

interactionist theoretical perspective. Jones et al. (2014) explained theoretical perspectives as

“epistemological and ontological assumptions that guide methodology” (p. 10). The principles

32

described in the symbolic interactionist framework introduced in Chapter Two are the same

principles guiding the theoretical perspective of this study. As such, the ontological and

epistemological assumptions shaping the methodology of this research are as follows: (a) people

act toward things based on the meaning things have for them, (b) creation of these meanings

comes through interactions with others, (c) meanings can change through continued social

interactions (Blumer 1969/1986), and (d) roles and systems of thought that organize societies

shape interactions with others (Stryker, 1987). In terms of how these ideas shape the

methodology of this work in tangible ways, Woods (1992) helps clarify:

One of the first requirements of symbolic interactionist research is to understand the

symbolic meanings that emerge in interactions and are attributed in situations over time.

Methodologically, this means learning the language of the participants, with all its

nuances and perhaps special vocabulary. Other means of communication - gestures,

looks, actions, appearance, and the whole area of ‘body language,’ which is intended to

convey meaning to others - are also important. The symbolic expressions must be linked

to behavior and the situations in which they occur, because they can vary among them

and over time. Ideally one needs to show how meanings emerge in interaction. (p. 355)

Overall, the symbolic interactionist theoretical perspective for this project necessitates a

methodological approach that accommodates close proximity and extended immersion with

participants. To best operationalize this perspective, a methodology with data collection methods

that naturally privileges participant-observation is necessary. In the next section, discussion of

such a methodology ensues.

Methodology

Given the paradigmatic worldview, theoretical perspective, and other overarching goals

for this study, it employs an ethnographic methodological approach. Ethnography is a written

description and interpretation of a culture or subculture, or of particular facets of a culture or

subculture (Van Maanen, 2011). Schwandt (2007) elaborates, characterizing ethnography as "the

process and product of describing and interpreting cultural behavior" (p. 96). Ethnography unites

the process and product of (sub)cultural description and interpretation, the process being the

collection of data through fieldwork and the product being the writing (derived from fieldwork),

that represents a (sub)culture (Schwandt, 2007). Ethnography employs participant-observation,

interviewing, and document collection/analysis as three primary data collection methods and

33

builds around an emergent research design, allowing for the focus of a study to shift as it

progresses. The term ethnography dates back to the 19th century and has its origins in the field of

anthropology. Anthropologists implemented this methodology to study cultures outside of the

Western world. Though ethnography still maintains its anthropological roots, over time this

methodology grew within other fields of social research, leading to its use as a means for

studying cultures and subcultures in the Western world during the 20th century (Hammersley &

Atkinson, 2007).

Today, ethnography is common in the fields of sociology, social work, nursing, and

education. It is also common in the sub-field of higher education as an approach to explore

collegiate cultures or subcultures. For example, Rhoads (1997) implemented an ethnographic

methodology to examine the subculture of gay and bisexual men on a college campus. Arcelus

(2008) studied academic and student affairs subcultures in higher education using ethnography,

as did also Magolda and Ebben Gross (2009) and Petchauer (2012) to study collegiate

evangelical Christian and collegiate hip-hop subcultures, respectively. Park (2013) employed

ethnography to examine the evolution of racial diversity within the InterVarsity Christian

Fellowship subculture, and finally, Nicolazzo (2015) utilized ethnography to inquire into the

lives of trans* college students. Although this list of works is a small selection of ethnographic

research in higher education, it illustrates the utility and versatility of the methodology for

studying cultures and subcultures on campuses. This study on how the PCT subculture at

Midwestern State University experiences formal teaching preparation seeks to add to this

growing collection of higher education ethnographic inquiries.

Culture and Subculture

Given the emphasis on culture in ethnographic inquiry, it is necessary to elaborate on this

concept. Considering how an institution of higher education is the overarching context for this

study, use of Kuh and Whitt’s (1988) conceptualization of culture in the context of higher

education is appropriate. They describe culture as:

The collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and

assumptions that guide the behavior of individuals and groups in an institute of higher

education and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of

events and actions on and off campus. (pp. 12-13)

34

Keeping Kuh and Whitt’s conceptualization of culture in mind, if ethnography is the process and

product of describing and interpreting culture, then ethnography is a vehicle for describing,

interpreting, and representing how norms, dispositions, values, beliefs, and practices dictate

individual and group action. Simply put, the primary concern of ethnography is to describe,

interpret, and represent the actions of a group of people to better “understand their world”

(Spradley, 1979, p. 4).

In general, graduate TAs at Midwestern State (and beyond) have what Kuh and Whitt

(1988) describe as a culture: norms, dispositions, values, beliefs, and practices that guide

behavior. For example, a common practice of the graduate TA culture is creating a balance

between TA duties and personal academic responsibilities (Nyquist, Abbott, & Wulff, 1989;

Marbach-Ad et al., 2010). This is challenging because there is an obligation for TAs to perform

well in their TA duties since TA scholarships generally provide these students’ financial support

for graduate school. Similarly, TAs have an obligation to their academic work, since excelling in

this domain allows them to make progress toward their degrees. Thus, TAs must engage in the

practice of balancing these two competing interests. A common (and expected) disposition of

TAs is professionalism, especially when working with undergraduates. A document entitled

Issues to Consider as a Graduate TA, passed out during a Midwestern State University graduate

student orientation, communicates some essential characteristics of such professionalism. Items

on the list include establishing appropriate boundaries with undergraduates, following the

appropriate legal guidelines regarding student privacy, complying with disabilities laws in the

classroom, and behaving with students in an ethical manner (Midwestern State University

Graduate School Orientation, n.d.). In addition, the document references a webpage housed by

the Midwestern State University Graduate School entitled Good Teaching Practices. The

webpage lists numerous general principles for good teaching such as treating students

respectfully, providing advanced notice of assignment due dates, and acting impartially when

evaluating students’ work (Midwestern State University, 2016c). Overall, there is an expectation

Midwestern State University TAs will have the disposition of professionalism and it stands to

reason this expectation exists beyond the confines of Midwestern State as well.

Naturally, graduate students (PCTs) enrolled in TEAC 530 – Introduction to Collegiate

Instruction, are subject to the practices and dispositions outlined above. However, by virtue of

their participation in the seminar, PCTs ultimately engage in unique experiences and practices

35

that non-participating Midwestern State TAs do not. This makes PCTs a subculture of

Midwestern State University graduate TAs. A subculture is a specific “community that exist[s]

within a university, such as a student organization, members of a major, or an ethnic minority

group” (Park, 2013, p. 19). Students in collegiate subcultures such as the one under study for this

project have “persistent interaction[s], processes of socialization, mechanisms for social control,

and norms…[differing] from the parent culture” (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, p. 90). In other words, the

experiences of PCTs in TEAC 530 influence their beliefs and practices as future collegiate

teachers in ways that elude non-participating graduate TAs since the latter are not enrolled in the

seminar.

To illustrate an example of the uniqueness of the PCT subculture, I observed PCTs in a

TEAC 530 session analyze three different teaching philosophy statements, critique them with a

partner, and then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the statements as a whole class. The

purpose of the activity was to help PCTs make sense of how they might craft and implement

their own teaching philosophy statements. This specific practice, taking place in this class

session with PCTs from numerous academic backgrounds, all working together, is a unique

experience and one not replicated anywhere else on Midwestern State’s campus by other

graduate TAs. As a result of engaging in this activity, how members of this subculture think

about and enact their approaches to teaching in higher education settings will differ compared to

those who were not present in the seminar.

As a final note, regarding the label PCT, it is important to note that some PCTs are

already collegiate instructors or TAs, but all of them are graduate students. They are prospective

college teachers in the sense that they aspire to one day be collegiate instructors who are no

longer in graduate school.

Purpose of Study and Research Questions

The primary purpose of this ethnographic study is to explore how members of the PCT

subculture experience their formal teaching preparation for higher education. Specifically, this

study seeks to uncover the nuances of PCTs’ experiences during formal preparation in TEAC

530 – Introduction to Collegiate Instruction (i.e., what happens during a typical preparation

seminar, from the moment a graduate student walks into the classroom until the moment they

walk out? What do they see, hear, and do in this setting?). An additional focus of this study is to

investigate how peer-to-peer interactions and student-to-instructor interactions in TEAC 530

36

shape PCTs’ experiences in the seminar. To this end, this research seeks to describe and analyze

the micro-interactions, particularly the nuanced social interactions, between PCTs and between

PCTs and their preparation instructor. Pairing the interpretivist paradigm guiding this study, (i.e.,

knowledge is subjective and constructed and co-constructed based on social interactions) with a

symbolic interactionist theoretical perspective, and an ethnographic methodology aims to fulfill

the purposes of this research. Overall, the following research questions guide this study:

1. How do Midwestern State University prospective college teachers (PCTs) experience

formal teaching preparation for higher education in TEAC 530, a collegiate teaching

preparation seminar?

2. How do peer-to-peer interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC 530?

3. How do interactions between PCTs and the instructor shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC

530?

Institutional Context: Midwestern State University

Midwestern State University, a medium-sized public university located in a rural college

town in the east central United States, is the institutional context for this study. This institutional

context offers intrigue because of its national reputation for high quality undergraduate teaching

(Midwestern State University, 2015b), and the notable instructional presence of TAs, roughly

17% of the 4,247 part-and full-time instructors on campus as of 2015 (Midwestern State

University Office of Institutional Research, 2016). Additionally, the existence of Midwestern

State’s centralized, university-wide teaching preparation programs for graduate students (i.e., the

GIIP and Certificate in Collegiate Instruction) and their accompanying required seminar, TEAC

530, creates opportunities for participant-observation of PCTs as they prepare to teach. Overall,

Midwestern State offers both intrigue and practicality for a study of this nature.

Since offerings of TEAC 530 only occur on the Midwestern State main campus, this is

the tangible institutional context of this study. However, the university also contains both

domestic and international branch campuses. As of 2015, Midwestern State enrolled close to

16,000 undergraduates on the main campus. The university also enrolled a combined 5,500

undergraduates on its branch campuses (Midwestern State University, 2015c). Regarding student

demographics, the racial composition of the Midwestern State student body stands out.

Undergraduate students who identify as White make up roughly 81% of the undergraduate

population (Midwestern State University, 2014a). These demographics categorize Midwestern

37

State as a predominantly White institution of higher education. Another notable aspect of

Midwestern State’s demographics is its Greek life affiliation. Roughly 5,000 students affiliate as

Greek, a figure which constitutes one-third of the institution's total undergraduate population

(Midwestern State University, 2015a). The profile of the class of 2018, upon their admission to

Midwestern State, also paints a picture of the institution’s student demographics. Almost 41% of

the incoming class ranked in the 90th percentile or better in their high schools. Over 82% of

students scored 26 or higher on their ACT scores and nearly 67% registered a 1200 or above on

the SAT I. Finally, almost 9% of the 2014 incoming class were the children of Midwestern State

alumni (Midwestern State University, 2014b).

As stated above, Midwestern State receives a great deal of recognition and accolades as

an undergraduate institution. One webpage on the university website corroborates that fact, as it

touts Midwestern State’s status as a public institution that delivers an undergraduate education

on par with elite public and private institutions (Midwestern State University, 2015b).

Additionally, the page highlights Midwestern State’s high ranking in undergraduate teaching

nationwide (a rank surpassing many elite public and private institutions), the institution's high

job placement rate for graduates, its above national average rates of acceptance for Midwestern

State medical and law school applicants, and its high-ranking business and engineering schools

(Midwestern State University, 2015b).

Regarding graduate education, Midwestern State offers over 60 master's degrees, 13

doctoral degrees, and 10 graduate certificates, and nearly all graduate students complete their

coursework on the main campus (Midwestern State University, 2016a). As of 2015, around

2,400 graduate students enrolled at Midwestern State, roughly 15% of the undergraduate

population. Approximately 77% of Midwestern State graduate students identified as White

(Midwestern State University, 2014a; Midwestern State University, 2015c), making their racial

composition slightly more diverse than that of undergraduates. In terms of the complete racial

demographics of graduate students enrolled at Midwestern State in 2014, approximately 2%

identified as Asian, 2% as Multiracial, 3% as Latino, 4% as Black, 10% as Non-resident Alien,

and less than 1% as Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian and Native American, respectively

(Midwestern State University, 2014a).

Midwestern State’s graduate school webpage offers a significant amount of information

about graduate school life at the institution. The webpage provides readers with information

38

about graduate program offerings, admissions processes, the graduate student handbook,

administrative forms, teaching, and awards. There are also webpages linked from the graduate

school page that connect graduate students to resources about lodging, well-being, social events

on campus, academic events on campus relevant to graduate students, and graduate student

associations (Midwestern State University, 2016b). Lastly, as stated above, TAs account for

roughly 17% of part-and full-time instructors on the Midwestern State main campus as of 2015

(Midwestern State University Office of Institutional Research, 2016).

In sum, this brief overview of the composition and demographics of Midwestern State

shows it is a medium-sized, primarily undergraduate serving university with relatively low racial

diversity within the student body. Midwestern State supports a large and influential Greek Life

system and admits high-achieving undergraduate students, a significant number of whom have

previous ties to the university through their parents. The University has a national reputation for

excellence in undergraduate teaching. In terms of graduate studies, Midwestern State offers

numerous master’s degrees and a few Ph.D. and Ed.D. degrees. Overall, between Midwestern

State’s strong undergraduate teaching reputation, the notable instructional presence of graduate

TAs, and the existence of the GIIP and Certificate in Collegiate Instruction, both of which

require TEAC 530, Midwestern State University is a suitable institutional context for this study.

The Research Setting and PCTs

The research setting for this study is TEAC 530 – Introduction to Collegiate Instruction, a

one-credit hour seminar which works towards meeting the requirements for two centralized

university-wide teaching preparation programs: the Graduate Instructor Improvement Program

(GIIP) and Certificate in Collegiate Instruction. Midwestern State University’s TLC houses both

programs, and as such, the seminar under study. Both programs are open to all Midwestern State

University graduate students. This is true regardless of graduate students’ academic discipline,

whether they are actively teaching or not, and whether they are going to teach in the future.

Graduate students can apply to the programs if they have interest in joining (which presumably

means they have interest in collegiate instruction).

The Graduate Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP)

The GIIP contains two tracks, Gold and Silver. Silver track requirements fall outside of

the scope of TEAC 530, so this section will emphasize the Gold Track. Regardless of track,

graduate students must apply through an online application to be part of the GIIP. Evaluation

39

criteria for selection includes students’ interest in exploring pedagogy in higher education, desire

to learn from peers in other academic disciplines, and dedication to quality teaching (Midwestern

State University Teaching and Learning Center, 2017). Successful completion of the Gold Track

requires students to attend eight presentations or seminars related to collegiate teaching and

learning in one semester. Enrolling in and completing TEAC 530 is a requirement of the Gold

Track, and it counts toward the requirement of eight presentations or seminars; TEAC 530

addresses five different topics related to college teaching and learning, providing Gold Track

students with up to five of the eight required sessions. Though there are six TEAC 530 sessions

per semester, the final session of each semester, where students share a culminating project and

discuss outside sessions, does not count toward the eight-session requirement (Brown, 2015a).

As students attend TEAC 530 sessions, they can supplement them with outside sessions offered

through college teaching conferences or other general pedagogical sessions offered by the TLC.

That is, if students attend all five TEAC 530 sessions, they could attend three outside sessions to

meet the requirement of eight; outside sessions, and whether they count, are subject to the

approval of the instructor, Dr. Brown. Two final requirements for the Gold Track outside of

TEAC 530 are for students to write a 150-word summary of their overall experience in GIIP and

attend a closing ceremony (Brown, 2015a). Those who successfully finish these tasks meet the

GIIP – Gold Track requirements and receive $200 for their efforts. The $200 is for professional

development funds, which graduate students can apply to expenses such as conference travel or

books (Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center, 2015b).

The Certificate in Collegiate Instruction

The Certificate is a 12 credit-hour program designed to comprehensively facilitate the

development of graduate students’ collegiate teaching. Like the GIIP, prospective graduate

students to the Certificate must apply for admission. Certificate students take three required, one-

credit hour interdisciplinary seminars on the following topics: introduction to college instruction

(TEAC 530), intermediate college teaching (TEAC 531), and advanced teaching (TEAC 532).

There is no requirement regarding the order in which students take them. Upon completion of the

seminars, students take additional coursework related to teaching in higher education; examples

include courses on student development theory, philosophy of education, or human cognition

(Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center, 2015a). The final step in

completing the Certificate requires participants to do one of the following:

40

• take discipline-specific coursework in pedagogy from their departments;

• complete an independent study project related to teaching in their discipline in

collaboration with a faculty mentor; or

• participate in a mentoring programming with an undergraduate student (Midwestern State

University Graduate School, n.d.).

All Certificate participants must select a faculty mentor with whom they co-construct their plan

of study for the Certificate (Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center, 2015a).

TEAC 530 – Introduction to Collegiate Instruction

Before summarizing the more tangible requirements of TEAC 530, it is first necessary to

list the outcomes of the seminar. Since there are close ties between the GIIP – Gold Track and

TEAC 530 given the seminar’s prominent role in this program, both entities share the same

outcomes. They are as follows:

• Enhance the collegiate teaching proficiency of Midwestern State graduate TAs for the

purposes of increasing TA satisfaction.

• Deliver content that establishes a framework of teaching skills for TAs interested in

academic careers.

• Cultivate an interdisciplinary academic community among Midwestern State TAs.

• Assist graduate TAs in advancing Midwestern State’s mission of excellence in

undergraduate teaching (Brown, 2015b).

Regarding the more tangible requirements of the seminar, a cursory overview of the

TEAC 530 syllabus shows it covers a myriad of topics such as preparing for an academic job,

creating a teaching portfolio, classroom assessment techniques, small group and discussion

techniques, and setting classroom policies (Brown, 2015a). Regarding assignments, PCTs must

write one-page reflection papers for each seminar session they attend, including those outside of

TEAC 530, addressing the content of that session and what they learned. This counts towards

50% of their final grade for the seminar. A teaching project is the other major assignment for the

seminar, accounting for the other 50% of PCTs’ grade. Accompanying that project, PCTs must

also write a one-to-two-page reflection evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the project.

There is a high degree of flexibility in terms of what PCTs can do for their project, just as long as

it centers on collegiate teaching; typical projects include course syllabi or teaching philosophy

41

statements. PCTs must write a proposal a few weeks in advance of completing the project and

ultimately present their project during the final seminar session (Brown, 2015a).

Attendance is mandatory in TEAC 530 and the grading structure of the one-credit

seminar is credit/no credit (i.e., if PCTs actively participate and make meaningful progress

toward assignments, they receive credit; if not, they do not receive credit) (Brown, 2015a). The

seminar gathers six times in a semester and there are two sections of the seminar offered in fall

and spring to meet demand from students who need to fulfill their GIIP – Gold Track

requirement of eight pedagogy sessions. Regardless of the semester, TEAC 530 convenes twice a

week on varying days and times, presumably to accommodate a variety of different student

schedules. Students are free to switch back and forth between TEAC 530 sessions, as they are

not bound to one or the other (Brown, 2015a). Students can even attend both sessions in the same

week, though they can only count one toward their GIIP session requirements. Each TEAC 530

seminar lasts an hour and includes a free meal for attendees (Brown, 2015a).

The meeting room for TEAC 530 is a rectangular classroom in an academic building near

the heart of Midwestern State University’s campus. The room itself is medium-sized with a

rectangular conference table in the center. Curtains adorn the windows of the room, framing a

42

pretty view of the campus. Near the back of the classroom, a smaller table displays the meals for

TEAC 530. Figure 1 below provides a visual representation of the classroom.

Figure 1. TEAC 530 Classroom Diagram

As Figure 1 shows, the classroom can seat 15, though at these numbers the spacing becomes a

little tight. Sometimes there is a seat at the head of the primary table in front of the projector

screen. Occasionally Dr. Brown, the instructor of TEAC 530, will sit at this seat. However, in

most seminar sessions he stands at the head of the classroom by the computer terminal, negating

the need for the chair.

Overall, utilizing TEAC 530 as the research setting for this study creates opportunities to

gain important insights into how the PCT subculture experiences formal teaching preparation in

that seminar. Additionally, participant-observation, interviews, and document collection/analysis

with PCTs in the seminar also permits greater understandings of the social interactions between

PCT peers and PCTs and their preparation instructor, and how these interactions shape PCTs’

Figure 1. Aerial view of TEAC 530 classroom. Spacing is approximate, not to scale.

43

experiences in TEAC 530. Thus, having TEAC 530 as the research setting of this study

facilitates the process of answering the questions guiding it.

PCTs in TEAC 530. This section briefly highlights the general characteristics of PCTs in

TEAC 530 during the data collection period of the 2015-2016 academic year. Introduction to the

individual PCT participants who engaged with this study appears later in this chapter. Regarding

the academic degree levels of PCTs in general, the number seeking doctoral degrees versus

master’s degrees was relatively even. PCTs in TEAC 530 represented a myriad of academic

disciplines, such as Theatre, Psychology, Student Affairs/Higher Education, Architecture,

Chemistry, Biology, Political Science, Physics, and Kinesiology. Similar to the racial profile of

Midwestern State University as an institution, most students in these sessions were White,

although there were a couple of Asian, Black, and Latino students present. Regarding gender

distribution, there were generally more women than men in attendance. In terms of attendance, in

the 2015-2016 academic year, the average number of PCTs per session in TEAC 530 in fall was

11, and in spring was nine. These figures expand out to roughly 50 enrollees in the seminar

during that academic year.

Gaining access into TEAC 530. Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) described gaining

site access in ethnography as a process, which "involves drawing on the intra- and inter-personal

resources and strategies that we all tend to develop in dealing with everyday life" (p. 41). In the

process of narrowing down the topic and parameters of this study, I drew upon an intrapersonal

resource (i.e., perusal of Midwestern State’s website) and re-familiarized myself with the TLC’s

Graduate Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP), Certificate in Collegiate Instruction, and most

importantly, TEAC 530. As I began considering the topic of how graduate students prepare to

teach in higher education settings for my dissertation, I thought in-depth exploration of a

collegiate pedagogy seminar where such preparation occurs could have potential. As such, I e-

mailed Dr. Brown, the instructor of the seminar, to request a meeting to negotiate access into this

setting for data collection. He quickly replied and we set a date and time to get together. What

follows is an excerpt from my research journal chronicling this meeting, which took place in

April, 2015.

We both entered his office, which was sparsely decorated, save for a well-stocked book

shelf full of hard sciences texts (he is a professor in the hard sciences) and his desk,

which was decorated with a variety of playful looking trinkets. The crown jewel in the

44

collection was a miniature doll of Albert Einstein. Dr. Brown opened the meeting, but

quickly turned it over to me to explain why I asked to meet. I briefly told him about my

project and its tentative research questions. After I spoke, he spoke at length about the

GIIP and Certificate program. He teaches all of the seminars for both programs…the

most important part of the conversation, for my selfish purposes at least, is he agreed to

allow me to observe TEAC 530 starting the following fall. Needless to say I was very

pleased to hear this

My impression after leaving this meeting was I would have access to both participant-observe

and collect fieldnotes in TEAC 530. However, I later found out that gaining access was not going

to be so simple. In a subsequent meeting at the end of August 2015, right before the start of the

fall semester, I learned that I needed to gain the permissions of the students in the seminars. Dr.

Brown’s offer for access was just a first step; I also needed to pitch my study to the PCTs, after

which they would decide my fate. The following is another excerpt from my research journal,

written directly after my meeting with Dr. Brown in August:

After the convocation activity I met with Dr. Brown to discuss the terms of possibly

observing TEAC 530… Dr. Brown definitely welcomed me to pitch my study to

students, something I was not anticipating. Based on our last meeting, I thought access

was a done deal. Not so. In the upcoming TEAC 530 session early this week, I have

between three and five minutes to pitch my study to students. The same is true for the

second section of TEAC 530 later during the week

After presenting my study to PCTs in TEAC 530, I sent Dr. Brown a follow up e-mail asking

about a time frame for when he and the students would let me know as to whether or not I had

access. His reply was, “I just e-mailed the TEAC 530 course… asking students to e-mail me or

you as soon as they can if they have an objection to your coming to class. I'll let you know if I

hear anything!” As the days led up to the next class meeting for TEAC 530, neither Dr. Brown

nor I received any objections from PCTs. I showed up to the next class session with my pen and

a pad of paper, ready to take notes. When I entered the room, Dr. Brown greeted me, provided

me with a copy of the syllabus for TEAC 530, and welcomed me to sit down at the rectangular

table with the PCTs. Since I ultimately studied two sections of TEAC 530 over the course of two

consecutive semesters, I had to negotiate access with PCTs four times. All four times, as a class,

they approved of my presence to participant-observe and take fieldnotes. Each time I explained

45

the details of my study to the classes, I also passed out consent forms to students individually

(Please see Appendix A). By signing the forms, students agreed to allow me to observe and take

notes on their actions, interactions with peers, and interactions with Dr. Brown. I did not take

notes on the actions and interactions of students who did not provide consent. Inclusion of non-

consenting students only occurred if they were part of a broader, class-wide behavior or set of

actions that obscured their individual identities.

Data Collection

Data collection for this project took take place through participant-observation,

interviews, and document collection over the course of 15 months. Implementation of the three

methods occurred simultaneously throughout the data collection process.

Participant-Observation

Participant-observation is the dual task of observing cultural or subcultural members in a

setting, and while observing, participating in the same activities as the cultural or subcultural

group (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2014). Participant-observation generally takes place where

members of a cultural or subcultural group congregate. Creswell (2014) described different

levels of participant-observation: “Complete participant - researcher conceals role;” “Participant

as observer - observation role secondary to participant role;” “Observer as participant - role of

researcher is known;” “Complete observer - researcher observes without participating” (p. 191).

In TEAC 530, I adopted the Observer as participant role, meaning PCTs knew who I was and

the purpose of my presence in the classroom. Ultimately, I privileged observation over

participation. Specifically, from time-to-time I participated in the same activities and

assignments as PCTs so I could get a better sense of their experiences in the seminar. However, I

observed them taking part in these experiences more than participating in them myself. This

approach enabled me to have more time and space to concentrate on taking thorough notes

regarding how this subculture experienced their formal teaching preparation.

During TEAC 530 sessions, I participant-observed and recorded handwritten fieldnotes

using a small booklet and pen. Recordings entailed jotting down single words, shorthand phrases,

paraphrased quotes, direct quotes, or segments of a sentence. These jottings of notable

subcultural phenomenon accompanied my headnotes (e.g., notes taken by memory). Once a

session adjourned, I almost always immediately returned to a setting where I could transfer and

merge the handwritten jottings with my headnotes to produce fuller, more detailed sets of

46

fieldnotes electronically (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). I used a password protected desktop

computer and Microsoft Word to expand upon and store fieldnotes. By the end of the second

semester participant-observing TEAC 530, I recorded fieldnotes from 21 sessions. I also, with

the consent of all participants and Dr. Brown, audio recorded one session and transcribed the

recording (I handled this recording in the same manner as interview recordings, see below).

Since TEAC 530 sessions included the same topic twice in the same week, over my two

semesters of participant-observations I collected fieldnotes on four versions of the same teaching

topic (with few exceptions). Thus, by the end of two semesters researching TEAC 530, I reached

what Creswell (2014) called a saturation point, or that point in which new data no longer

revealed fresh insights into the (sub)culture. Overall, the goal for any ethnographer is to create

fieldnotes which “[depict] local interpretations or indigenous meanings” (Emerson et al., 2011, p.

16). In the context of my study, then, fieldnotes derived from my participant-observations aimed

to capture how the PCT subculture experienced their formal teaching preparation and how PCTs’

interactions with each other and their instructor shaped their experiences in TEAC 530.

Interviews

Interviewing is another common data collection method in ethnography. Below, Table 1

summarizes and describes the PCTs who individually contributed to this study, via interview and

otherwise. The sampling strategy I employed for soliciting interviews from PCTs began with

establishing who was willing to provide rich, detailed information about their experiences related

to teaching preparation within TEAC 530. My assessment of who fit these criteria was through

informal, unstructured conversations. Often, I approached PCTs after seminar sessions to inquire

into their interest in interviewing. I attempted to recruit PCTs with differing social identities (i.e.,

race, gender), majors, degree levels, and teaching statuses to reach a multitude of varying

perspectives. I achieved varying degrees of success in this endeavor, but ultimately had to

conduct interviews with those who were willing and able to do so. As established earlier, PCTs

in TEAC 530 can be actively teaching autonomously, serving as a teaching assistant, or not

actively teaching. Teaching autonomously entails a graduate student having complete

responsibility over all aspects of a class: planning, teaching, and grading. Serving as a TA, in the

context of PCTs, is having opportunities to teach freely, but under the guidance of a supervising

professor and/or with a pre-made curriculum and lessons. TAs can also be co-teachers with

47

faculty. I attempted to recruit PCTs representing a variety of experiences, but had to work with

whomever agreed to interview.

Table 1

Study Participants, Their Teaching Statuses, and Their Roles in this Study

Name Major/Degree Sought Race Gender Teaching Status

Interview,

Fieldnotes,

Both?a

Dolores Hard Sciences/Ph.D. White Female TA Both

Ella Hard Sciences/Ph.D. Latina Female TA Both

Genevieve Education/M.S. Asian Female Instructor Both

Geoffrey Education/Ph.D. White Male TA Both

Julie Social Sciences/Ph.D. White Female TA Fieldnotes

Lantern Social Sciences/Ph.D. Asian Male TA Both

London Health Sciences/M.S. White Male TA Both

Marie Education/Ph.D. Black Female TA Both

Quinn Hard Sciences/M.S. White Male TA Fieldnotes

Serena Education/Ph.D. Asian Female TA Both

Sidney Social Sciences/Ph.D. White Female TA Both

Todd Humanities/M.S. White Male TA Both

Dr. Brown Ph.D. in Hard Sciences White Male Instructor of

TEAC 530

Both

Note. All names are pseudonyms. aThe designation "Fieldnotes" means the participant did not conduct formal interviews in this study, but appeared explicitly by

name in this study by way of fieldnotes, especially in Chapter Four and Chapter Five.

The majority of interviewing participants provided two interviews, an initial, less

structured interview and a second interview that focused explicitly on addressing the research

questions guiding this project. In first interviews, PCTs had more degrees of freedom to say what

they wanted about their personal backgrounds and formal teaching preparation experiences in the

seminars, whereas in second interviews, there was greater emphasis on how PCTs experienced

their preparation in TEAC 530 and how interactions between their peers and instructor shaped

their experiences in the seminar. When interviewing Dr. Brown, I took the same approach: more

degrees of freedom in the first interview, more structured in the second. For all interviews, I used

protocols containing questions “to be covered in the interview…that together…suggest lines of

48

inquiry” (Weiss, 1994, p. 48). Please see Appendix B for the protocol from PCTs’ first and

second interviews, and Appendix C for the protocol from Dr. Brown’s first and second

interviews. Though I followed protocols carefully during interviews, it was often necessary to

deviate from the specific ordering of questions and occasionally necessary to alter certain

questions in the moment to provide richer descriptions and content. I audio recorded all

interviews using two devices, a tablet device and phone. From these devices, I transferred the

audio files to a password protected desktop computer. I transcribed all interviews personally

using a password protected laptop computer and Microsoft Word. Then, I transferred all

transcribed interview files into MAXQDA, qualitative analysis software package. Overall, I

conducted 18 interviews.

Document Collection

The gathering of relevant documents was the third method of data collection in this study.

This process started with gathering documents related to the general context surrounding TEAC

530. Such documents included handouts pertaining to graduate TAs from the Midwestern State

University graduate orientation, promotional materials for the GIIP and Certificate, and materials

related to the Midwestern State TLC. Document gathering became narrower as the study

progressed. Once granted access into TEAC 530, I collected the seminar syllabi, PowerPoint

presentations from different seminar sessions, and in-class handouts from sessions. All of these

documents assisted in conveying comprehensive description and understanding of TEAC 530

and the subcultural behaviors within it.

Data Analysis

Data analysis in this study occurred concurrently with data collection. For example,

during fieldnote collection I engaged in what Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (2011) described as,

“The most immediate forms of analytic writing” by generating “asides and commentaries,

interpretive writings composed while… actively composing fieldnotes” (p. 80). Similarly, during

interviews, I developed “insights, speculations, and small-scale theories beginning with the first

pilot interview” (Weiss, 1994, p. 151). I kept track of these thoughts and writings in a research

journal and occasionally returned to them for reference as full-scale analysis commenced (more

on the role of my research journal below).

Regarding full-scale analysis, this took place once all fieldnote collection, interviews, and

document collection were complete. To assist in this process, I utilized Ruona’s (2005) four steps

49

for conducting data analysis. Step one, data preparation, entailed getting “collected data into a

form that is easy to work with” (Ruona, 2005, p. 240). This meant taking fieldnotes converted

into electronic format, along with word processed interview transcripts and scanned (or already

digitized) documents, and uploading them into MAXQDA. Taking this step enabled me to have

all three data sources in one centralized location, making it easy to access them all at the same

time. Step two, familiarization, led me to “immers[e] in the data…deeply” (p. 240). To

implement this step, I read through all TEAC 530 fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and relevant

documents. As I read through the data, I wrote short analytic memos interrogating its possible

meanings. Some memos served simply as placeholders to parts of data, which required closer,

line-by-line scrutiny later in the analysis process.

Such scrutiny took place during coding (step three), the process of “discovering and

conceptualizing the data” (p. 241). I implemented a theory-driven coding procedure, which

creates codes “generated from the theories that guide the research” (DeCuir-Gunby, Marshall, &

McCulloch, 2011, p. 141). Thus, I developed codes using the aforementioned tenets of symbolic

interactionism:

• people act toward things based on the meaning things have for them;

• creation of these meanings comes through interactions with others;

• meanings can change through continued social interactions (Blumer 1969/1986); and

• roles and systems of thought that organize societies shape interactions with others

(Stryker, 1987).

Every code I generated aligned with at least one tenet of symbolic interactionism, thereby

inextricably tying this framework to the codes. Also, when generating codes, I adhered to

Boyatzis’ (1998) criteria for good codes: a) assigning a label that is concise but with clear

meaning, b) providing a clear definition expounding upon the label, c) guidelines for knowing

when the data warrants assignment of a specific label, d) criteria that explains when to include or

exclude a given label to data, and e) examples and non-examples in the data of what constitutes a

given label. As the coding process progressed, it was occasionally necessary to “review and

revise…code[s] in the context of the data” (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011, p. 141). This meant, after

initially creating a code, adjusting its label, definition, guidelines for inclusion, or (non)examples

to better fit with pervasive patterns in the data. Once I completed the coding process, I began

interpreting this categorized data, following Ruona’s (2005) fourth step for conducting data

50

analysis. Data interpretation started with understanding the data within the context of this study’s

guiding research question. In other words, how did the data reflect how PCTs experienced TEAC

530? Additionally, interpretation meant identifying which aspects of the data fit together,

patterns of similarity within data, and examples of data that did not fit with established patterns.

Analyzing data also caused me to speculate about its meanings and implications for both

research and practice, as well as led me to think about how its pervasive themes fit within the

existing literature on graduate student teaching preparation (Ruona, 2005).

Research Quality

A goal in many qualitative studies is to work toward achieving trustworthiness, or what

Jones et al. (2014) described as “a means by which to assure a study is of high quality” (p. 35).

One way in which I attempted to establish and maintain trustworthiness in this study was through

addressing its credibility, or the degree to which researchers correctly represent the meanings of

participants (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Qualitative researchers can attain credibility by sharing

initial drafts of findings and interpretations with colleagues and research participants (Jones et

al., 2014). To adhere to this standard, I sent participants summaries and raw transcripts of their

interviews and solicited their feedback. Since almost all participants completed two interviews,

each received two transcriptions and two interview summaries, along with a compilation of my

analytic memos detailing initial thoughts and interpretations. I asked each participant to review

their respective summaries and memos, inviting them to comment on the accuracy of the

summaries and critique the initial interpretations. Several participants replied with feedback

offering clarifications and fresh analytical perspectives. I carefully considered and ultimately

adopted most of their suggested changes. Overall, carrying out this activity aligned with the

principle of co-constructing meaning with participants, a key aspect undergirding this study’s

interpretivist paradigm. Another way in which I worked to enhance this study’s credibility was

through presentation of findings that contradicted pervasive themes in data (Creswell, 2014). In

the subsequent chapters, I made efforts to write about phenomenon that fell outside of persistent

patterns of behavior. Though presenting data that reinforced themes was necessary, presentation

of data contradicting those themes was equally important. Doing so signaled that established

themes were not the only meanings derived from, or that took place with, PCTs.

Additionally, I solicited the help of my academic peers in instances where I struggled

interpreting data. This peer debriefing (Jones et al., 2014) process entailed having conversations

51

with colleagues about my thinking in terms of this work, as well as receiving and considering

their feedback on written drafts of data analysis featured in the subsequent chapters of this

dissertation. Specifically, two faculty members in the field of Education, neither of whom were

on my dissertation committee, agreed to serve as debriefers. Our correspondences occurred

through e-mail exchanges and telephone conversations. Another way qualitative researchers can

establish credibility is through triangulation of data. Triangulation is the process of using

multiple sources of data together to highlight themes. Creswell (2014) stated, “If themes are

established based on converging several sources of data or perspectives from participants, then

this process can be claimed as adding to the…[credibility] of the study” (p. 201). One way in

which I engaged in triangulation was by substantiating the “perspectives of interview participants

through observation and document review” (Jones et al., 2014, p. 38). I specifically implemented

this mode of triangulation when examining how food helped shape participants’ experiences in

TEAC 530. In interviews, PCTs described the ubiquity and positive impact of food in TEAC

530. The syllabus for the seminar confirmed food’s ubiquity, stating every seminar session

included a free meal (Brown, 2015a). Participant-observations showed the ever-presence of food

and PCTs’ positive reactions to it.

In addition to credibility, Lincoln and Guba (1985) also recommended establishing and

maintaining trustworthiness through dependability. Researchers enhance the dependability of a

qualitative study by tracking how it changes over its duration, and communicating how they

accounted for such changes. To accomplish this, researchers create audit trails (Lincoln & Guba,

1985), or a chronological list of their actions and decisions while engaging in a study (Jones et

al., 2014). The first items in my audit trail were the initial e-mails I sent to gatekeepers to set up

meetings for access negotiation. As time went on, my gatekeepers and potential research sites

changed. Thus, the nature of my correspondences changed, showing the evolution of my study

and my decisions for how to account for this evolution. Additionally, as I began negotiating

access to sites, I started a personal research journal articulating, among other ideas, my decision

making throughout the duration of this study as it changed. My journal was also an integral part

of my trail. As this study progressed, I added all fieldnotes, interview protocols, interview

recordings, transcripts, and summaries to the audit trail. These items implicitly illustrated the

changes my study underwent and how I responded to them. Overall, my audit trail items painted

a clear picture of my inquiry-related decisions and actions over the course of my evolving study,

52

thereby enhancing this study’s dependability and general trustworthiness.

Transferability is also a means for building the trustworthiness of qualitative research.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) characterized transferability as demonstrating how research results

have applicability in multiple settings. To achieve transferability, qualitative researchers must

provide a thick description of phenomenon under study. In the context of ethnography, thick

description can mean:

a commitment to the exploration of the multiple forms through which social life is

enacted – material, visual, spoken, embodied and so on. It also implies a systemic view of

culture and social action. By that I mean an analysis that pays regard to the relations

between the different modes of organisation, or the organising principles that are in play

at any given time. (Atkinson, 2015, p. 67)

I used Atkinson’s words as a guide as I attempted to construct thick, descriptive stories about the

participants of TEAC 530. Doing so creates a level of detail and nuance that enables readers to

ponder the degree to which the findings and conclusions of this study transfer to another, similar

setting. However, it is important to note that transferability does not mean generalizability, and

that results from this research are not purely generalizable to settings similar in nature to TEAC

530.

Lastly, establishing confirmability is another way for qualitative researchers to achieve

and maintain trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Confirmability is the degree to which

participants’ perspectives and actions, not a researcher’s preconceived biases, shape the findings

of a study. Thus, to enhance a study’s confirmability, a researcher must account for and monitor

their biases throughout their study’s duration. I did this by consistently writing in my

aforementioned research journal. In the journal, I established parts of my personal and

professional background and what brought me to this study, possible biases I brought to this

study, personal identities that intersected with the parameters of this work, and preconceived

assumptions I brought to this study. As the research process unfolded, I worked to account for

these various positionalities and how they interacted with this research in journal entries. Though

impossible to highlight them all in this dissertation, it is necessary to summarize the most notable

aspects of these various important positionalities.

53

Researcher Positionalities

The idea of trying to understand how graduate students formally prepare to teach college-

level classes is inextricably rooted in my own experiences. I started teaching 7th grade Social

Studies directly after graduating with my master’s degree. Although my first-year teaching in

that capacity had many tough moments, it also had many fulfilling ones as well. My second year

of teaching thoroughly overwhelmed me and put such a strain on my physical and mental well-

being that I quit in the middle of the spring semester. Even though the very thought of teaching

was unbearable at this point in my life, I always thought I would teach again; perhaps not 7th

grade, but again in one way or another.

Transitioning into the student affairs field in higher education allowed me to reacquire

my passion for teaching. Working as an academic advisor who facilitated workshops on campus

were close enough to the act of teaching that I was satisfied, but not worn out as I was by the

daily demands of the middle school teaching profession. Also, working with college students

reignited my passion for learning while simultaneously healing the wounds from my 7th grade

teaching past. After a few years working as a student affairs practitioner, I decided I wanted to

teach again, only this time in a higher education setting with college students. I applied to Ph.D.

programs in student affairs and higher education, hoping I could teach classes as a graduate

student. With some hard work and good fortune, I was accepted into a program that enabled me

to do so.

Starting in the spring semester of my first year as a Ph.D. student, I would teach two

sections of my first college-level class: a graduate seminar centered on pre-service student affairs

practitioners’ professional development. At first, I was excited, but as time drew closer to the

actual teaching itself I started to get nervous. As described in Chapter One, I found I was

becoming so nervous that I was grinding my teeth at night in response. Although I had

experience teaching 7th graders, that previous experience was unlikely to adequately prepare me

for teaching college students. Also, the last time I truly taught in a formal classroom setting was

my second year as a 7th grade teacher, which did not go well. Taking these factors together, I felt

unprepared, frightened, and unconfident. As the date of my first class rapidly approached, I

occasionally wondered, do other graduate students who are teaching feel the same way as I do?

My somewhat nerve-wracking experience leading up to teaching my first college class stuck

with me months after the class was over. The question of whether my experiences were unique to

54

me or if other graduate students also felt underprepared replayed in my head. I decided that I

wanted to know more about how graduate students prepare to teach. Given my close personal

attachment to this line of inquiry, I thought it would make a good dissertation topic.

A key bias I held going into this study was appreciation for the art and science of

teaching. I am not indifferent toward collegiate instruction. To the contrary, I believe quality

college teaching is essential to the learning and development of college students. Teaching at this

level is a significant responsibility and has weighty implications. For example, subpar instruction

can negatively alter the general attitudes students have towards learning; those attitudes can

travel beyond the college or university campus and into our increasingly complex society that, to

successfully navigate, requires lifelong learning. Conversely, thoughtful and comprehensive

instruction can dramatically alter a student’s education and life. Good teaching can inspire

students to pursue scholarly or career interests, empower students to explore their identities, and

allow students to develop their voices as leaders and citizens. Since good teaching is clearly

something about which I care deeply, I suspected this bias might lead to harboring a negative

disposition towards PCTs who I perceived to disregard or neglect their teaching preparation.

Fortunately, I did not encounter or perceive many PCTs with this attitude. Most PCTs appeared

to take their preparation in TEAC 530 seriously.

A tension I did not anticipate emerging from a personal bias I held going into this study

related to my philosophical stances about teaching. Specifically, my background in teaching led

me to establish a strongly held philosophical approach to instruction that de-emphasizes direct

lecture by instructors in favor of students engaging in active group work. Buttressing that

philosophy is a framework about which I learned during my Ph.D. coursework (I write about

utilizing this framework as a collegiate instructor in Robinson, 2016). The Learning Partnerships

Model (LPM) (Baxter Magolda, 2004a) offers the following empirically-based assumptions

about learning:

• Knowledge is socially constructed and complex.

• How individuals view themselves plays a key role in their knowledge construction.

• During knowledge construction among individuals, there should be a sharing of

authority.

Paired with these assumptions are three principles for practice:

• Assume that learners are capable of knowing, and have knowledge.

55

• Encourage learners to use their preexisting experiences and knowledge to guide the

construction of their future experiences and knowledge.

• As an instructor, connect one’s own knowledge with what learners know when making

meaning of a situation or problem together.

Adherence to the assumptions and principles for practice of the LPM in educational settings,

such as classrooms, can yield self-authorship development in learners. In other words,

implementation of LPM in classrooms can enhance learners’ ability to evaluate knowledge,

understand their personal identities, and understand their social interactions with others (Kegan,

1994). An example of using LPM in a classroom setting would be to allow students to co-create

their own rubrics for an assignment or project with an instructor. This aligns with, a) the

assumption that individuals should share authority during knowledge creation, b) the principle

that learners are capable of knowing, c), and the principle of an instructor connecting their

knowledge with learners’ knowledge. Overall, use of the LPM in a classroom setting represents

what I believe to be good teaching. This framework, coupled with my background in teaching

middle school, leads me to believe that students learn and develop more through active group

work than class sessions dictated primarily by lectures. Considering the nature of this research

study, there were obvious intersections between it and my personal philosophy of instruction,

specifically when observing teaching in TEAC 530. Learning that teaching in TEAC 530 often

contained lecture-based instruction, I realized the tension between this fact and my own

educational philosophy. Thus, I worked to suspend my personal evaluations of phenomenon in

TEAC 530 and instead focused on how PCTs in the seminar experienced their preparation.

A notable salient personal identity I brought to this research was my identity as a

graduate student. My position as a graduate student studying other graduate students meant I

would likely share many experiences with my participants. As such, I suspected I would get

along with most of them, opening the temptation to forge friendships with some. Though

befriending a research participant is not, in and of itself, problematic to the research process,

there is a risk of going native (Tresch, 2001), which is the act of the researcher becoming so

involved with participants they are no longer able to conduct their research objectively. Thus, as

I observed and interviewed fellow graduate students, I attempted to occupy a middle ground

between establishing distant relationships and establishing friendships where the lines between

researcher and friend were too blurry to distinguish. Upon review of my research journal, I found

56

little evidence of any compromised relationships with participants. Furthermore, peer debriefers

did not mention any potential conflicts.

In terms of assumptions I brought to this study, I assumed my own personal struggles

leading up to teaching my first college-level class were not unique. In other words, I expected to

hear PCTs tell stories about anxiety and sleepless nights leading up to their teaching experiences.

However, since I planned to participant-observe coursework aimed at preparing PCTs, I also

expected to witness and hear stories about feeling supported and prepared to teach. In reality, I

did not hear either of these accounts very often. Few PCTs expressed the anxiety I experienced

leading up to my teaching. I heard a little more about PCTs feeling supported, or unsupported,

from mentors and academic departments regarding teaching. I also thought it was likely PCTs

who participated in preparation activities would still not feel ready for their teaching

assignments. Again, I did not hear stories or observe much that suggested these feelings. I did

not expect all PCTs would have enthusiasm for teaching. In fact, I thought some would certainly

have outright disdain for it given the multitude of other tasks they have to address as graduate

students. This did not turn out to be the case. However, considering the elective status of TEAC

530, it stands to reason students would not voluntarily attend a class on collegiate instruction if

they disliked it or were disinterested in it. Though food and a $200 professional development

award are incentives, they are probably not strong enough to make a graduate student commit to

the seminar. Lastly, I assumed there would be PCTs who were genuinely excited about teaching

and being enrolled in the seminar. This turned out to be true.

Ethical Considerations and Study Limitations

Qualitative research projects such as ethnography always elicit important ethical issues to

consider. One issue Creswell (2014) highlighted that I thought relevant to this research was the

invasiveness of fieldwork. Given how fieldwork is privileged as a primary source of data

collection in ethnography, the ethnographer spends a great deal of time in spaces participant-

observing. As such, taking fieldnotes through participant-observation in fieldwork is an invasive

mode of data collection and this level of invasiveness can raise ethical issues. For example,

before engaging in data collection, I asked myself: would my constant presence in TEAC 530 be

a distraction? Would my presence taking fieldnotes and occasionally participating in seminar

activities detract from PCTs’ learning? Creswell recommended causing as little disruption to

research sites as possible. To work toward this end, I attempted to implement his suggestion to

57

“Build trust, and convey [the] extent of anticipated disruption …[when] gaining access (p. 93).

As described earlier, in the process of gaining access to TEAC 530, I spoke in person to PCTs to

pitch them my study. I made this pitch four times between the four sections I ultimately observed

over two semesters. In other words, I described the details of my study, how long I would

observe, and to what extent I would participate in their seminar. If PCTs and Dr. Brown objected

to my presence, I would go elsewhere. Ultimately, they agreed to grant me access. Overall, I did

my best to communicate to PCTs the frequency of my presence and participation before entering

the research setting, giving them a chance to anticipate this disruption and adjust to it.

Another important issue Creswell raised is collecting information from participants that

could harm them. Although impossible to predict, I thought it possible I could witness an event

or hear conversations from PCTs that could jeopardize their standing as students or employees of

Midwestern State should that information become known. It could be that, in these cases,

protecting PCTs’ anonymity through pseudonyms would not be sufficient. This only happened

once during a class session. The nature of a conversation between PCTs and the instructor after

an activity, if taken out of context, could have led to embarrassment among individuals present

in class. As such, I chose not to collect or report this conversation due to its potential to cause

harm. Another ethical issue that warranted consideration was anxiety in PCTs. I thought PCTs

could feel uncomfortable knowing someone was closely studying them. These feelings of

discomfort could turn into anxiety, especially if PCTs sensed I was passing judgment on them or

their work (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007). This consideration felt especially relevant to my

study, considering I was participant-observing with PCTs who were actively working on their

preparation for teaching. It was possible PCTs would sense judgment in my participant-

observations of them. Furthermore, the simple fact PCTs were preparing to engage in the

stressful activity of teaching could have been anxiety inducing. It was possible that my presence

as researcher would serve to exacerbate preexisting anxiety and add stress to PCTs. Although

there was no failsafe remedy to quell potential anxieties in PCTs, Hammersley and Atkinson

(2007) emphasized the importance of establishing trust and building rapport. I attempted to do

this by getting to know students individually and being a positive presence in the classroom

whenever acknowledged. I also made it my responsibility as a researcher to remind PCTs

throughout the study, whether they were visibly anxious or not, that they could choose to end

their participation at any time without penalty (this stipulation also appears on PCTs’ copy of

58

their consent forms). Overall, I did not sense my presence in the classroom caused undo anxieties

in PCTs, nor was I ever alerted to this being the case.

Study Limitations

As with all research studies, this study contained some limitations. One limitation of this

work was the focus on only one (TEAC 530) of the three preparation seminars housed within the

TLC at Midwestern State University. This narrower focus was necessary to create a manageable

scope for this study. Furthermore, of the three seminars offered by the TLC, TEAC 530 is the

most common and does not require commitment to a whole certificate like TEAC 531 and TEAC

532. Therefore, it reaches the highest number of graduate students compared to the other

seminars. However, only focusing on TEAC 530 limits the ability of this dissertation to conclude

how graduate students experience their teaching preparation throughout the course of an entire

teaching preparation certificate like the Certificate for Collegiate Instruction. Since all seminars

(i.e., TEAC 530, TEAC 531, and TEAC 532) are part of the Certificate curriculum, emphasis on

all three would have enabled this study to draw more comprehensive conclusions about how

PCTs experience the Certificate. By focusing on just one seminar, this dissertation can only draw

conclusions about how PCTs experience TEAC 530, which is only a small part of the Certificate.

A second, and perhaps more significant limitation to this study, relates to the utility of the

interview data gathered. As a reminder, most PCT participants completed two interviews. First

interviews were more open ended and served as a way to learn about both the general and

pedagogical backgrounds of participants. Second interviews were more specific and geared

towards PCTs addressing the research questions guiding this study. In particular, second

interviews asked PCTs to describe interactions between their peers and Dr. Brown in TEAC 530.

Ultimately, PCTs struggled to answer these questions with detail; some could not answer them at

all. As a result, this study disproportionately relied on fieldnotes to address the research

questions inquiring into interactions between PCT peers and PCTs with Dr. Brown. Heavier

focus on fieldnotes also tilted analysis more toward the behaviors of PCTs as a group rather than

PCTs as individuals.

Though significant emphasis on fieldnotes relative to interview data is a limitation of this

study insofar as the results and analysis draw upon fewer possible data sources, it is also possible

this occurrence is appropriate considering the symbolic interactionist approach to this study.

59

Consider Blumer’s (1969/1986) perspectives on the methodological possibilities for symbolic

interactionism:

Symbolic interactionism is a down-to-earth approach to the scientific study of human

group life and human conduct. Its empirical world is the natural world of such group life

and conduct. It lodges its problems in this natural world, conducts its studies in it, and

derives its interpretations from such naturalistic studies. If it wishes to study religious cult

behavior it will go to actual religious cults and observe them carefully as they carry on

their lives (p. 47).

Blumer suggests that a symbolic interactionist approach necessitates direct, in-person

observations of group behavior within the social or cultural context of that group. Thus, a

disproportionate reliance on fieldnotes from participant-observation of PCTs in TEAC 530 is

appropriate, and not a limitation, to a study implementing a symbolic interactionist framework

and perspective. Buttressing this point is the critique that ethnographic studies in general rely too

much on interview data that “yield information (of sorts) in a vacuum, bereft of the sensory and

material means of mundane reality” (Atkinson, 2015, p. 92).

60

Chapter Four: Describing TEAC 530

This chapter features two sections. The first outlines the general structure of TEAC 530,

emphasizing the different parts of the seminar. In section two, vignettes describe these parts in

rich detail. Subsequent chapters analyze the vignettes and answer the research questions guiding

this study.

Section One: The General Structure of TEAC 530

In observing 21 sessions, conducting 18 interviews with seven PCT participants from

multiple disciplines, interviewing Dr. Brown, and analyzing relevant documents, it is clear the

majority of TEAC 530 sessions contain specific and distinct parts. I characterize these parts of

TEAC 530 chronologically as part one, transitional periods, and part two. The format of TEAC

530 and actions of both PCTs and the instructor, Dr. Brown, are relatively predictable and stable

in parts one and two. In other words, they rarely deviate from their respective patterns and

routines. Within the transitional periods, however, the format of the seminar and the actions of

these actors vary and are less predictable. Part one of TEAC 530, on average, constitutes the first

15 to 20 minutes of the seminar. The format of part one in most sessions is transactional,

meaning the instructor lectures to students using PowerPoint presentations as visual aids, and

during lectures, students take notes. Directly after part one of TEAC 530 are transitional periods.

Lasting on average between five and ten minutes, transitional periods connect part one of TEAC

530 sessions to part two. The activities in transitional periods, as well as the actions of students

and the instructor, vary. Some contain a flurry of activity and place more demands on PCTs and

Dr. Brown; others are less eventful. Overall, these periods exist to segue PCTs out of the

transactional-natured part one of TEAC 530 and into the application-based part two of the

seminar. Part two, on average, lasts between 20 and 30 minutes. The format of part two in most

sessions emphasizes application, meaning students work individually, together, or with the

instructor, to apply content knowledge gleaned from lectures in part one. Application generally

entails students completing one or more activities, sometimes collaboratively, to connect their

newly acquired knowledge to realistic collegiate teaching scenarios.

Together, the three parts of TEAC 530 exist within a relatively short, 60-minute time

frame. This limited time structure requires Dr. Brown to lead and maintain control of the seminar

so he can run it efficiently and ensure PCTs complete necessary tasks. Said differently, Dr.

Brown structures the time so that he can both provide PCTs the content knowledge necessary to

61

complete application activities and guide the implementation of these activities. Though PCTs

have more opportunities to guide the trajectory of TEAC 530 in the transitional parts and part

two, Dr. Brown is still the primary actor controlling the timing of activities in all three parts of

the seminar. As a result, TEAC 530 is relatively stable and predictable. For example, in a typical

part one, when Dr. Brown has a PowerPoint presentation queued up at the beginning of class and

starts to talk through slides about a specific topic, the next set of actions are usually predictable:

Dr. Brown will continue lecturing and students will take notes.

Part two of TEAC 530 also features this stability and predictability. Specifically, when

students are silently reading packets, the actions that typically follow are for them to finish

reading and receive instructions from Dr. Brown to help them utilize the packets in some type of

application activity. Transitional periods differ from parts one and two of TEAC 530, as they are

shorter and somewhat less predictable. These periods exist to connect the first and second parts

of the seminar and thus do not contain the same breadth. Though, as with parts one and two, Dr.

Brown is the individual initiating action in transitional periods, in some periods it is not always

obvious which actions will occur, or in what order. This contributes to the fact that not all

transitional periods are alike in terms of format or content, making these periods less predictable.

Overall, the general structure of TEAC 530 is akin to a suspension bridge with two anchoring

pillars. The seminar is the entire bridge, and the pillars represent parts one and two: well-

developed, stable, reasonably predictable, holding the seminar together. The transitional periods

represent the road in-between the two pillars, a pathway connecting them. The road is slightly

less predictable than the pillars, as it could contain unforeseen traffic jams or potholes, but it is

nevertheless always present. Together, the pillars of the suspension bridge direct the road, and

the road ties the pillars together. The pillars and road are inextricably tied together and the

connection between these elements render the bridge functional.

Sessions Outside of the General Structure of TEAC 530

Though most TEAC 530 sessions follow the general structure outlined above, there are

exceptions. For example, the first sessions of each semester are informational in nature, as Dr.

Brown explains the parameters of the seminar, how to register, rewards for completion, and the

credentialing programs of which TEAC 530 is part (i.e., the GIIP – Gold Track, and the

Certificate in Collegiate Instruction). Students attending this session decide whether they want to

commit to taking TEAC 530 and ask Dr. Brown logistical questions. After Dr. Brown finishes

62

this part of the presentation, he shifts the discussion into how to prepare for the academic job

search. Thus, these informational sessions stand apart from the general structure of TEAC 530.

The final sessions of the semester are also outliers to the general seminar structure. In these

sessions, PCTs share their semester-long projects and their experiences in pedagogy sessions

outside of TEAC 530. In the final sessions, Dr. Brown relinquishes control of the class to

students and asks them to go around the room and share. These sessions do not include lectures

or application activities. Also, as established in Chapter Three, they do not count as a session in

fulfilling the eight-session requirement for the GIIP – Gold Track. TEAC 530 sessions about

modeling small group discussions fall outside of the general structure of the seminar. Such

sessions start with an application activity where PCTs, at the direction of Dr. Brown, engage in

and model different types of small groups. Then, the sessions segue into a whole-class talk about

grading group discussions. Thus, these sessions do not feature a formal lecture from Dr. Brown.

Lastly, as the next section will reveal, there are aspects of part two of TEAC 530 that fall outside

of the general structure of the seminar.

Section Two: Vignettes Describing TEAC 530

As mentioned above, section two of this chapter contains four vignettes, which are thick

descriptions of a single session of TEAC 530 broken down into four chronological parts. The

four vignettes explore the three distinct parts of TEAC 530. Vignette 1 introduces the role of

food in the seminar, which as Chapter Five will show, is prominent within many sessions.

Vignette 2 aligns with part one of the seminar, which segues into a transitional period illustrated

in Vignette 3. Finally, Vignette 4 details part two of the seminar session. Figure 2 illustrates the

general structure of the seminar and which vignettes describe the respective parts.

63

Vignette 1: An Appetizing Entrée into TEAC 530

I am walking through a long hallway that is about to dead-end into a mandatory left-hand

turn. As I turn the corner into a much shorter hallway, I see a young woman holding, with two

hands, a large cardboard box with a giant submarine sandwich on top. She walks toward the

classroom on the far-left end of this short hallway. I follow her into the classroom and watch her

greet Dr. Brown. As I put down my backpack I hear them exchange pleasantries. Dr. Brown

takes the sandwich off of the box with two hands and transports it to a small table near three

large windows in the classroom. The woman delivering the food follows him. I grab my

notebook and pen from my backpack and sit down at a long, large table that stretches from the

back of this medium-sized classroom to the front. The long table can seat 12 people comfortably,

including Dr. Brown. I sit with my back to three large windows. I am facing the door. I turn

around to watch Dr. Brown and the woman transfer potato chips from the cardboard box to the

small table and unwrap the pre-cut sub sandwich that could feed a military platoon. They arrange

the sandwich segments onto a clear plastic serving plate. Next to the serving plate, already on the

food table, is a large clear plastic tub full of bottled drinks like water, fruit juice, and soda. Once

finished, the woman leaves and Dr. Brown, walking toward the front of the classroom toward the

computer terminal, sees me and says hello. We talk about our respective summer plans as he

stands at the terminal jiggling the mouse and pressing keyboard buttons. I express my hope to

make continual progress on my dissertation study and he mentions taking a vacation away from

the Midwest. As our conversation naturally ‘dies down,’ I see the projector screen flash and

reflect a PowerPoint presentation with the words, “Setting Classroom Policies You Can Live

With” accompanied by an image of a bright orange sign set against the background of

snowcapped mountains. The sign, analogous to a typical traffic sign, reads “Ski Area Boundary:

Part 1 of TEAC 530, featured in Vignette 2,

between 15 and 20 minutes

Transitional Period of TEAC 530,

featured in Vignette 3, between 5 and 10

minutes

Part 2 of TEAC 530, featured in Vignette 4, between 20 and

30 minutes

Figure 2. The general structure of TEAC 530. This figure illustrates how the three parts take place over a span of 60-minutes.

64

Not Patrolled.” I take a look at my cell phone. It reads 11:55am. Class is supposed to start at

noon. I look up and see three students walk through the door. They set their materials down at

the long table and, before unpacking, walk over to the food at the small table. Two of the three

students glance at the meat-filled sandwiches, look at each other, and walk back to their seats

empty-handed. Watching them, Dr. Brown asks why they did not take any food. Both students

explain they are vegetarians. After a short pause, Dr. Brown mentions there is some leftover

food, pasta with creamy pesto sauce, in the Teaching and Learning Center. He offers for them to

go get some and bring it back. The students nod enthusiastically, thank him, get up, and exit to

walk to the Center, which is conveniently right across the hallway from the classroom. As they

leave, more students arrive. They follow the same pattern as the first three: Find a seat at the long

table, put down their belongings, and walk over to the food table. Five students arrive within a

span of two minutes (making a total of eight students), creating a small line for the food.

It is a warm and sunny spring day at Midwestern State University. Students’ clothing

choices reflect the weather outside, as all are wearing some combination of casual looking short-

sleeved shirts/tops, pants, and in some cases, jeans. None of the clothing selections on display,

including the selections of both Dr. Brown and I, would pass muster for a job interview.

Standing at the head of the classroom, Dr. Brown greets the students at 12:01pm:

So, um, help yourself [to food]. I am also going to start because…it is syllabus day. I had

a teaching friend years ago who always called the first day of class Saint Syllabus Day,

like it was a holiday, like, nothing was really going to happen that day, we're just going to

talk about the syllabus, which is a little bit of a sad way to think about…Syllabus Day.

But, we're going to talk about classroom policies, why we would ever have any of them,

um, and I know some of you are writing syllabi for your semester projects, so, just a

reminder that the syllabus is more than a list of everything you're going to read and turn

in during the semester. There's also policy on there.

Shortly after Dr. Brown starts his lecture, the two vegetarian students return to class and find

their seats. Each of them are holding paper plates full of spiral pasta topped with a creamy white

sauce with speckled bits of green pesto. It smells good. Even before they returned, the classroom

smelled of food. Everyone now is sitting around the long table. Everyone has food in front of

them and most have drinks of some kind. Several students brought in their own drinks from

65

outside class. As Dr. Brown continues to lecture, some students begin eating as they watch him

speak.

Vignette 2: Digesting Possible Challenges in Collegiate Teaching

Over the sound of Dr. Brown’s voice are loud, audible pops of soda cans and the rustling

of individualized potato chip bags. Other students pull out notetaking materials from their

backpacks, messenger bags, and purses. I notice I am the only person sitting around the table

with a laptop. Everybody else is utilizing the traditional medium of taking notes: a writing utensil

with paper or a pad. Eventually, everybody starts engaging in some combination of eating,

drinking, taking notes, and watching Dr. Brown lecture. As Dr. Brown lectures, he stands in the

front of the room by the computer terminal. He uses his outstretched right arm to point out text

on the projector screen from the PowerPoint slide. When students watch him lecture, they orient

their heads, bodies, and chairs to the front of the room where he stands. While explaining the

importance of including a section on syllabi about disability accommodations, students nod their

heads. Everybody in class seems to be fixated on Dr. Brown’s lecture, though occasionally a

student will break eye-contact from his presentation to check their cell phone. In the first 10

minutes of this 60-minute session of TEAC 530, Dr. Brown’s voice dominates; it is only him

speaking thus far. Roughly 11 minutes into class, he references Midwestern State University’s

Student Handbook regarding attendance in classes and discusses the impact of that information

relative to how graduate students might convey attendance policies on their syllabi:

The student handbook does say, some people are amused every year to find this out, that

students go to every class ever. That is the student attendance policy. So, we can in fact

change our attendance policy…we are allowed to set policy that's different, but in

general, students come to every class. The university recognizes excused absences for

religious observances and has a list of all religious holidays…somewhere on the website.

So, if you are a member of the…a minority religion, you should go look and see if the

university knows about all of your holidays.

Moments after Dr. Brown finishes this point, a student asks an immediate follow up question,

thereby ending the ongoing lecture:

I have a question. I had a student tell me that, um…one of her professors has a three-

strike policy, and no matter what the absence is, it's automatically a strike, even if it's a

death in the family or anything like that. Is that still, in keeping with religious

66

ceremonies, can you do that? Because I was like, I totally understand the purpose of

doing that, but I was wondering if that would get the professor in trouble because they're

not….

As they finish their final sentence, the student begins to trail off, not audibly enunciating every

word. Dr. Brown begins to his answer as the student trails off, saying:

I imagine it could, especially if a student was out for three days because of religious

observances. I think you could make an argument that, if a student was out twice because

they were…asleep, you know, not in a deathly ill way, but just in a sleep way, and then

they had a religious observance, then that might, you know, add up to 3 strikes and you're

out because they had not been careful at the beginning of the semester.

He continues to answer the student’s question, emphasizing how there is no one correct solution

and that ultimately discretion lies with the instructor setting the policy. When he finishes

answering, Dr. Brown segues into a story related to the topic of class attendance. He recalls a

time a few years ago when Midwestern State had a good football team; so good, in fact, the team

made it to a bowl game. He slyly quips: “That may have been Midwestern's only bowl game

ever,” which elicits a hearty laugh from the class. Brown states the university provost at the time

sent a campus-wide e-mail imploring faculty to loosen their attendance policies during finals

week (the week of the game) so that as many Midwestern students as possible could attend.

Students listen to the story and continue to eat, as Dr. Brown’s words occasionally get obscured

by the sound of a crunching potato chip. Once finished, he segues seamlessly back into his

lecture on syllabi, shifting his conversation from attendance policy to academic integrity.

The text of the PowerPoint slide about academic integrity is black, set against a plain

white background. The brightness of the white background is offset by the fluorescent lights in

the classroom and the sunlight beaming through the windows. There are multiple sources of light

illuminating the classroom. Just as Dr. Brown referred to the Midwestern State Student

Handbook to discuss classroom attendance, he does so also for the topic of academic integrity.

The slide title reads Student Handbook, with the words Section 3, Part 1: Academic Integrity

underneath. Both titles are center justified, at the top of the slide. Below them, aligned to the left,

are three bullets points, each with four-digit codes. The codes look similar to that of the decimal

system libraries use for cataloging books. After the bullets and codes are descriptions of policies

for academic integrity. The descriptions are only approximately two and a half, single-spaced,

67

lines long. All three of them cut off prematurely on the slide for the purposes of brevity. For

example, policy 3.1.AI reads: “After completing a hearing, the [chair] will establish if the student

has performed an act of academic dishonesty. … will determine a recommended sanction to be

made to the dean…” (Midwestern State University Policy Library, 2015, para. 10). Dr. Brown

lectures using this slide to buttress his thoughts on academic integrity. As some students take

notes, he states:

So, it is not ok for, if you cheat in this class, like if three of you turn in the same final

project, which I am sure is a problem I am going to have any minute now, I can't just fail

you. Like, I can't just rip them up dramatically in front of you, or e-mail you and say,

you're a horrible person, you're not going to get credit in this class. I'm not allowed to do

that. I need to report that… and we would have a hearing and we would decide what to

do. And, if someone is found responsible for academic dishonesty, the student will have

an opportunity to appeal also. So, there's kind of some human rights reasons to go

through the whole process properly. So, that's part of our job.

After he finishes this point, Dr. Brown turns his head to look back at the class. He sees a hand up

in the air. He gestures his hand to the student, Geoffrey, and says “Yeah?” Geoffrey asks:

What happens if a student is, like, unnecessarily rude, inappropriate, offensive, if they

say, like, you know, Geoffrey I don't like you as my professor. You have blue eyes and I

refuse to work from professors with blue eyes. And I won't do any of your assignments

and I am going to disrespect you in front of the rest of the students in the whole class. Is

there a policy related to that?

Dr. Brown thinks for a moment, and then responds, saying:

Well, people who don't do any of your assignments are probably going to just fail, so

that's easier…They'll fail if they don't do anything you ask them to do. But, disrespecting

you is harder to deal with. I know that we…the most extreme way to answer your

question is to say that the classrooms have phones and you can call the police. So, if

you're literally being threatened, or someone else in your class is literally being

threatened physically, then you can do that and you probably should do that. But, that's

not the same thing as saying I don't like your kind of person and I refuse to engage in

civil conversation with you. I don't know if the police care about that.

68

As Dr. Brown provides his response, Geoffrey looks at him intently. He maintains eye-contact,

nods his head, and makes verbally audible “mmhmm” sounds. Once Dr. Brown finishes

speaking, Geoffrey asks, “But there's not a policy for anything like that, right?” Dr. Brown

replies, “Not that I can think of off the top of my head. Any of you know differently?” Dr.

Brown looks outward from the front of the classroom to the rest of the students in class.

Students’ posture remains upright and their eyes are on Dr. Brown as he asks his question.

After asking his question, students’ eyes and heads dart around slightly, as if to anticipate

an answer from somebody. Only one student, who is looking at her phone, is the exception to

these gestures. The class remains silent for several seconds following the question. Dr. Brown

breaks the silence, stating, “Yeah. I don't know…yeah, that's tricky.” His statement hangs in the

air for some time. Nobody in the classroom immediately responds to it, creating several

consecutive seconds of silence. Geoffrey breaks this, and says, “I've heard of similar situations

that I think what happens is the student just dropped themselves because they don't want to be

there, so…” Dr. Brown acknowledges Geoffrey’s statement and starts to tell the class a story

about a student he did not care for, but still had to teach. He described the student’s in-class

behavior as obnoxious and how the rest of the class also disliked this student. Dr. Brown recalls

how he struggled to confront this student about their behavior, even though being the teacher

made him responsible for doing so. The moment Dr. Brown finishes his story, Geoffrey chimes

in, saying: “That's a hard conversation.” Dr. Brown says he has not yet had another student like

this, thus preventing him from practicing these types of confrontations. In a jovial tone, he says:

“I haven't gotten a chance to practice like: ‘You! Stop being a jerk!’” The class breaks into mild

laughter, with some students jokingly acting out imaginative scenarios with a problematic

student, saying phrases like, “Come to my office!” Just after the laughter dies down, Dr. Brown,

in a serious tone, looking directly at Geoffrey, states: “So, those are hard and good questions and

I don't have easy answers for you.”

Vignette 3: A Comedy Dinner Show

“And even though the whole office across the hall came in, I bet there's still more food to

eat if you need to eat more food.” Dr. Brown makes this remark and then presses a key on the

keyboard. Instantly, the projector screen changes from a PowerPoint slide crowded with text

about Midwestern State University policies on final exams to a slide with the title, “CASES from

REAL Syllabi.” He steps towards the small stand attached to the computer terminal and grabs a

69

stack of bright white stapled packets. It appears his lecture is over and the class is about to start a

different activity. His comment about food refers to a few moments earlier, when three staff

members from the adjacent Teaching and Learning Center entered the room to help themselves

to food. They did this as Dr. Brown spoke about policies for scheduling final exams.

Walking closer to the table, Dr. Brown counts the packets to himself, divides them into

two stacks, hands them to the two students closest to the front of the table, and instructs them to

take one packet and pass to the next person what remains. There are audible words of “thank

you” directed at Dr. Brown when he hands the packets off. As the papers move down the table,

Dr. Brown says, “So…there’s 11 of these here. I know that, at least two of them are not legal at

Midwestern.” The sounds of papers scratching together get closer to me, and I turn left to receive

my two page, double-sided packet. The title corresponds with the current displayed PowerPoint

slide (i.e., “CASES from REAL Syllabi”). There are 11 different cases, each about a paragraph

long, for students to consider. Each case has its own subtitle, such as, “Attendance policy,”

“Make-up exams,” and “Late arrival policy.” Instructions underneath the title ask readers, “To

what extent is this policy: Consistent with Midwestern policy? Fair? Consistent with your

teaching philosophy?” A second question asks: “Where is the borderline between faculty’s

reasonable preference and arbitrariness?”

Students sitting at the back part of the table finally receive their packets and the wooshing

sounds of paper rubbing against paper finally die down. Dr. Brown fills the temporary void of

silence with instructions: “As you read these and think about whether you would put this or

something just like this on your own syllabus, think about how students would react.” Just as

those words leave his mouth, Geoffrey, who is at the back of the classroom next to the food table

asks the entire class, “There's one more piece of sandwich left. Is anybody really wanting it?”

Another student, Quinn, without missing a beat, says, “There's also one right here I am not going

to eat, if anyone wants it, just FYI.” A third student says to Quinn, “I’ll take yours.” The whole

class softly laughs at this exchange. Another student grabs his plate of a half-eaten sandwich

with pieces of deli meat piled together, holds it slightly above the table as if to display it like a

serving dish, and says to the class, “If anyone wants wads of ham and turkey….” This elicits

uproarious laughter from peers. Geoffrey replies, “I was really hoping you would offer that!”

Another student adds, “Not only that, but appetizingly, as a wad.” The whole class is laughing,

and it carries on for several seconds. It is as if the classroom temporarily transformed into a

70

comedy club, and the comedian just brought down the house with a hysterical punchline. As the

laughter subsides, students begin to socialize with each other. Dr. Brown, who quietly laughed to

himself as these exchanges occurred, walks over to a student who flagged him down to ask a

question. She was the only student not participating in the socializing and was beginning her

work. The closer Dr. Brown gets to the student and the table, the quieter the overall class gets,

making him seem like a human volume control; the volume in the room diminishes as he

approaches. Students begin to orient their heads and eyes to the packets. It gets quieter as more

and more students start reading. Just before one student starts reading, she looks up and asks,

“Dr. Brown, for each of these, we're saying…we're answering them as questions…?” He turns

away from the student he is currently helping and replies, “Yeah. Are you allowed to put that on

your syllabus? Is it a fair thing?” She says, “Ok,” and lowers her head back to the packet. Dr.

Brown adds, “Is it something you would actually do…?” The student looks up, smiles, nods, and

says, “Thank you.” The class is now nearly silent. Dr. Brown finishes helping the other student,

begins to walk toward the computer terminal, and says, “You probably don't have to talk all 11

of them into the ground, but we can go for several of them.” Nobody responds. The class is silent

and students are reading quietly to themselves.

Vignette 4: A Working Lunch

The silence as students read their packets is in stark contrast to the ambience of the class

thus far. In the entire first half of this session the sound of voices was a constant. Either Dr.

Brown spoke or students (albeit noticeably less) spoke (or laughed). However, now everybody is

silent and the sudden change is palpable. I would say one could hear a pin drop, but the

classroom is carpeted, so that metaphor does not work in this case. I look up from my computer

and see one student holding a sandwich up near his face with one hand, and holding his packet

even closer to his face with his other hand. His eyes are moving across the page. Others have

their packets on the table and bow their heads to study it. A student is pressing and dragging her

fingers across the text as she reads. Another is making the same gesture, except with a pen

instead of fingers. There is one student leaning forward, holding the packet in her left hand while

her right-hand presses against her forehead. As students quietly read, Dr. Brown is doing so as

well by the computer terminal. The room stays quiet, with the entire class reading for a couple of

minutes. There is some intermittent whispering and occasional stifled laughs amongst students,

but it is mostly silent. Julie breaks this silence, looking up at Dr. Brown and saying:

71

Dr. Brown, I also had an interesting case and I was wondering if I could propose it to the

group about, like, how I handled it. It wasn't in the syllabus, but it's kind of, like, maybe

something you can put in there to safeguard for it.

Dr. Brown smiles and replies: “Good! Now I am intrigued.” He puts down his packet and walks

from the computer terminal to the food table. Students remain quietly reading. Dr. Brown

surveys what remains of the food spread. He takes the dessert items and piles them together on a

nearby serving plate. “There is cake and fruit, and all of these little things are chocolate chip

cookies.” Not one to miss a comedic moment, Geoffrey asks, “Are they wads of chocolate chip

cookies?” The class laughs loudly. “They have wads of chocolate chips in them,” says Dr.

Brown. This latest break in the silence appears to stick, as students begin socializing with each

other. Some are still reading, but the majority of students are now chatting. Dr. Brown walks

from the food table back to the front of the room. He grabs his packet, flips it to page one, and

asks: “Did you find the cases that you…that are wrong? Things you're not allowed to put on your

syllabi? Yeah?” “Case five,” says a student. Dr. Brown replies, “case five.” Case five, entitled

Disability accommodation, states the following:

If you have special needs: Many excellent services are available on campus to help

students who have visual, hearing, or learning disabilities and other kinds of concerns. If

you need any kind of assistance, please speak with me right away so that I can make the

necessary arrangements to help you.

Directly after the student identifies case five, Dr. Brown interjects:

Yeah. Case five says if you need accommodation for your disability, talk to me and I'll

make it work. It could be that you say, talk to me and I'll help you find the right office.

You know, you could put all the contact information for the office and offer to help them

get there if they need help getting there. But…yeah. It's not for us to do that. Which one

is the other one?

A student says, “three.” The room erupts in the sounds of papers shuffling as students turn their

packets back to the first page. “Three,” says Dr. Brown. Case three, entitled Academic

dishonesty, says: “Don’t do it. Any documented cases of cheating or plagiarism in this class will

result in a grade of F for the semester.” Before delving into the details about case three, however,

Geoffrey asks a question about the previous identified case: “Is it that, students are not…they're

72

not supposed to tell you about their disability? Or they don't have to tell you about their

disability, or….” Geoffrey’s voice trails off and Dr. Brown answers:

They don't have to, and we can't ask. So, if you come to my class with dark glasses and a

cane and a seeing-eye dog, I will not ask you if you're blind, ideally. I might slip and ask

in that case, but you're not supposed to…And, what is true is that the accommodations

are not made as a conversation between the student and the professor. So, when, ideally

the student talks to the student disability services and that office talked to the professor,

and the student usually also does, but, sometimes the e-mail from the office says that the

student will be talking to you about this if you can't negotiate among the three of you, but

without an e-mail from that office, we're not supposed to make accommodations.

Because we're not supposed to be the ones who judge.

Dr. Brown’s answer to Geoffrey’s question continues, and segues onto the topic of students

cheating during exams and the correct and incorrect ways in which instructors can address that,

based on university policies. His answer is relatively long; some students appear to be paying

attention to him, but two others are scrolling through their phones as he speaks. Dr. Brown’s

answer ends with asking Julie, “So, I wanted to make sure, Julie, right? “Right,” she says. Julie

explains her case:

Um, I was just wondering [about]…creating and maintaining a civil classroom

atmosphere. I had a student who I empathize with…she was really frustrated by

[my]…class…But, she had stuff going on, at least that's what it seemed like to me, that

she was so, she was visibly struggling and kind of like, angry… But, she would literally

like, do this [::makes a shaking gesture::] when she was thinking [in class] because she

didn't understand the course content. And, so I was like, how about you come to my

office…so we can sit down one-on-one and I can help you through it.

As Julie speaks, I glance at my phone to check the time. It is 12:35pm, a little more than halfway

through class. I look up and see three students watching Julie explain her case. Dr. Brown also

looks at her intently. However, other students seem preoccupied. Two students to my right are

looking at their phones. The remaining students not watching Julie are eating and thus looking

down. Julie continues:

I'm a lab TA, so I talked to the main instructor, and told him about the situation…And

he's like, well I'll just let them [the Student Mental Health Center] know…that it was

73

possible that you might need to walk her down there, just like, if you want. Or, I'll bring

that up to her. But I didn't really know, because I felt bad for her, but then it also put me

in a weird situation, and it was really, it was highly inappropriate [the way] she was

acting [in class]…so, it's like, I think putting that in a syllabus or something, I don't

know. I just was like, I don't know how to handle this. I felt like she was just extremely

frustrated and had issues with emotional regulation, and so…putting that…in the

syllabus…[policies for] how to deal with students that are visibly upset.

Dr. Brown addresses her case immediately after she finishes. He recalls a story:

The first person I TA'ed for when I was a lab TA said that his philosophy of human

nature was, everything happens at the 1% level. And our class had 150 people in it. So it

was like, let me know who's got the weirdo, basically. Which is not a very sensitive way

to put it, but there's going to be somebody in this class who has an issue that rises up and

becomes an issue for us as well. You know, because someone's gonna be having a mental

health problem, or somebody's going to be having something.

To Dr. Brown’s reply, Julie states:

It actually turned out really well. She was doing much better in class. Everything…all of

our interactions were very positive… So that's why it's like, it's the 1% thing, but a lot of

the stuff in the syllabi that are not directly, like, for the class, are usually like, the 1%

thing. So, it's kind of interesting.

Dr. Brown retorts, “Yeah, and you were sparked by this number nine, right? That has the…long

list of things to not do in the classroom.” The class laughs at this response. Confused, I flip to

page two of my packet to look for case nine. As soon as I see it, I understand students’ laughter.

Case nine, entitled Creating and Maintaining a Civil Classroom Atmosphere, contains a bulleted

list of classroom behaviors deemed unacceptable by the author. The list comprises of 14 separate

behaviors, such as “Sitting in the back of the classroom when there are seats available in the

front,” and “Asking questions that are off the topic or that have already been answered.” I reach

the end of page two of the packet, only to find the list continue onto page three. Dr. Brown

comments that making a list like this is probably not a constructive activity, but communicating

points about classroom civility on syllabi is still important. Following his comment, Julie turns to

her peers to ask their advice:

74

But, I was wondering your guys' opinion, like, the specific behavior seems [a] little, like

overdoing it, but it seems like in almost every syllabus that I've ever read, somebody has

a section of, don't disrespect me and I won't disrespect you. I care about your learning

and you should care about my teaching.

Before her peers can respond, Dr. Brown jumps in with his thoughts:

I think it's possible, and I will also want to hear from others, in a small or medium-sized

class, that lists can be co-created. Even the things like, so we all vaguely agree that

respect is good, or it can be a slight dictatorship, like, I declare respect is good. You can

help me define what respect is, and if you're worried about it, the students can also help

to find consequences.

He continues, sharing an example of a class he took where students and the instructor co-

constructed a list of standards for good classroom etiquette. Dr. Brown also emphasizes the point

that even just one student can poison a classroom atmosphere. After making these two points, he

puts it back onto the students, “What do you all think? How do you prevent or fix that kind of

problem?” After a brief silence, Serena offers her perspective:

Asserting civility or respect as a classroom norm, is important and I think I too have seen

that on many syllabi. But, I think it's more effective when it's asserting the type of

behavior that is rewarded or expected rather than here's a list of things you shouldn't do.

Like, framing it in this is the execution, this is how I plan to treat you, and this is what I

expect from you as students, rather than, like, here's the list of don'ts, because then

someone could do something disrespectful that isn't on the list, and be like, well, it wasn't

on the list, like, doesn't matter.

Dr. Brown adds, “It doesn't actually say you can't raise your middle finger.” The classroom

explodes in laughter. “That's not a disrespectful behavior,” he says sarcastically. Everybody in

the room laughs louder. “You can't do that! Yeah. So, what would be the kind of things that you

would put as a positive? What do you want students to do instead of what do you not want

them?” It takes several moments for students’ laughter to wane. As the room gets quieter, Serena

answers Dr. Brown’s question:

Engaged, active listeners, respectful of their peers, and when tension or disagreement

arises, like, maybe expectations for how I would hope that they approach that, um, and to

75

think of the teaching space in the classroom, to be an opportunity to do development for

students that may be beyond the course material, right?

Dr. Brown agrees. To connect to this idea, he acknowledges that, although the field of study in

which he teaches full-time (a difficult hard science) may not touch on controversial issues, it can

still elicit visual and verbal frustration in students during class. Dr. Brown connects this example

back to the larger topic at hand, saying:

If you're about to start leading a conversation that you think might be triggering to

people, or might bring out the worst in people, you might, in addition to having

something on your syllabus, kind of preface the conversation with ‘remember how we're

all nice?’

He adds that establishing a classroom rapport, one in which as many students as possible trust

each other, would be helpful. Marie jumps in, adding that it is important for instructors to

remember how their students are human beings with feelings and emotions. Specifically,

instructors should be mindful that just because a student does not participate in class, does not

mean that is a reflection on the instructor’s teaching. It could simply be that a student is having a

bad day. Marie states,

I think, I've seen too many faculty members take it too personally instead of just asking

and assuming it's not about them or it's not about this personal thing. And I don't know

where that can be on the syllabus, but I just feel like it's this mindset of how you

approach the class.

While Marie speaks, Dr. Brown nods, and adds to her comment, saying:

Right, and that goes both ways. I mean, I've had students come to me after class, and

apologize profusely for being late and they didn't mean any disrespect, and it was this,

and this, and this, I didn't even notice that they were…sometimes it's the other way, that

I'm like, what's up with him? And there's nothing up with him, except he stayed up too

late or he's distracted by the punch line of a joke he just heard, or something simple.

As some students share their insights, those not speaking appear to be tiring or less engaged

compared to earlier in class. Quinn is leaning on his knees with his head down, staring into the

desk. Several other students are leaning on the desk with their elbows, holding up their heads up

with the palms of their hands. After making his last point, Dr. Brown comments on how the class

did not get the chance to talk through many of the cases together. He walks the short distance

76

between the front of the projector screen to the computer terminal side table, grabs another stack

of papers, and says, “I'll give you more things to absorb. Maybe not even the right number of

pieces of paper, but I have more.”

Chapter Four: Summary

This chapter opened by outlining and describing the general format of TEAC 530, which

divides the seminar into three distinct, chronologically ordered segments: part one, the

transitional period, and part two. Part one, highlighted in Vignette 2, is the first 15 to 20 minutes

of the seminar and is transactional such that Dr. Brown provides information to PCTs via lecture

and students take notes. The transitional period, in Vignette 3, is between five and ten minutes

long and uses various activities to connect part one of TEAC 530 to part two. Part two of the

seminar, illustrated in Vignette 4, generally lasts between 20 and 30 minutes and involves PCTs

working through activities in which they apply their content knowledge to realistic collegiate

teaching scenarios. Parts one and two are relatively stable and predictable parts of the seminar;

transitional periods are less predictable by comparison. TEAC 530 exists within a 60-minute

time frame, requiring Dr. Brown to lead and maintain control of the seminar for the purposes of

efficiency and to ensure PCTs complete necessary tasks. This contributes to the general

predictability and stability of the different parts of the seminar. Though most TEAC 530 sessions

fit within the described general format, there are outliers, such as the first and final sessions of

the semester. Sessions about small groups discussions are also outside of the general format

parameters. The remainder of this chapter featured four thick, descriptive vignettes illustrating

the role of food in TEAC 530 and the three distinct parts of the seminar. Chapter Five contains

analysis of the four vignettes, as well as attention to the three research questions guiding this

overall study.

77

Chapter Five: Data Analysis

To review, the three research questions guiding this study are:

1. How do Midwestern State University prospective college teachers (PCTs) experience

formal teaching preparation for higher education in TEAC 530, a collegiate teaching

preparation seminar?

2. How do peer-to-peer interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC 530?

3. How do interactions between PCTs and the instructor shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC

530?

This chapter divides into three sections, each addressing one of the three guiding research

questions in detail. For example:

• Section One emphasizes how PCTs experience formal teaching preparation in TEAC

530.

• Section Two emphasizes how peer-to-peer interactions shape their experiences within

TEAC 530.

• Section Three emphasizes how interactions between PCTs and the instructor shape PCTs’

experiences within TEAC 530.

Each section analyzes, through the lenses of the respective research questions, vignettes two

through four from the previous chapter. Thus, each section lends analysis to the different parts of

TEAC 530 (i.e., part one, the transitional period, and part two). Three subsections within each

section encompass the respective parts. For instance, subsection one of Section One explores

how PCTs experience their formal preparation in part one of the seminar, subsection two of

Section One examines how PCTs experience their formal preparation in the transitional periods

of the seminar, etcetera. All three sections draw upon fieldnotes (from 21 different TEAC 530

sessions), interview data (with seven participants), and documents to corroborate information

from the vignettes and help build analytical arguments. Lastly, symbolic interactionism (SI) is

the theoretical framework guiding the analysis throughout. As highlighted in previous chapters,

this study utilizes a modified Blumerian (Blumer, 1969/1986) version of SI with the following

guiding tenets:

• People act toward things based on the meaning things have for them.

• Creation of these meanings comes through interactions with others.

• Meanings can change through continued social interactions.

78

• Roles and systems of thought that organize societies shape interactions with others

(Stryker, 1987).

Analysis in this chapter links these tenets directly to social phenomenon described in the

vignettes and additional sessions to explain the behaviors of the PCT subculture and Dr. Brown

in TEAC 530. What follows is Section One, addressing PCTs’ experiences in TEAC 530.

Section One: How do PCTs Experience TEAC 530?

This section comprehensively answers the first guiding research question of this study:

how do PCTs experience TEAC 530? As reviewed in Chapter Four, TEAC 530 contains three

distinct parts: part one, transitional periods, and part two. Therefore, this section divides into

subsections based on the three parts of the seminar. Each subsection addresses the first research

question individually, and then a summary subsection addresses the question more broadly.

How PCTs Experience Part One of TEAC 530

Vignette 2 showcases the first 20 minutes of TEAC 530. This roughly 20-minute time

period represents the first part of the seminar. PCTs and the instructor engage in specific,

pervasive, predictable, and transactional patterns and habits that characterize how PCTs

experience the first part of TEAC 530. These patterns and habits emerge because of the overall

time structure of the seminar. Specifically, due to the seminar’s short, 60-minute time structure, a

social relationship between a more active instructor and passive students emerges in the first 15

to 20 minutes of TEAC 530. The active role of the instructor in concert with more passive

students contributes to the stability of this part of the seminar. What follows sheds light into the

nuances of part one of TEAC 530.

Based on observations in Vignette 2, observations from other TEAC 530 sessions, and

comments from participants, the activities in the first part of a typical TEAC 530 session contain

lecturing from Dr. Brown, students taking notes as he lectures, management of the seminar by

Dr. Brown, and seminar content driven by Dr. Brown. Vignette 2 picks up where Vignette 1

leaves off. In the beginning of Vignette 2, students listen to Dr. Brown lecture and use

PowerPoint slides for 10 uninterrupted minutes about the content and policies collegiate

instructors should include on syllabi. As they listen, students take handwritten notes. Lecturing

by Dr. Brown at the beginning of TEAC 530 sessions is a common occurrence. When asked to

79

recall, step-by-step, how a typical TEAC 530 session usually starts, Sidney Bristow shared a

keen insight:

[In] a typical class, we all sort of get into the room, and normally we sort of get up to do

snacks of course. Priorities. And then Dr. Brown usually starts…he usually starts

lecturing and then we start…we stay on topic, but usually about 15 minutes into class

that's when the actually…the people start to speak up about things.

Sidney, almost verbatim, identifies how the first part of TEAC 530 in Vignette 2 begins. In

Vignette 2, roughly 11 minutes into Dr. Brown’s lecture, a student finally asks a question, or as

Sidney describes it, “speak[s] up about [some] things.” Sidney also points out how the seminar

“stay[s] on topic.” Her statement refers to how carefully and precisely Dr. Brown manages the

first part of TEAC 530. Vignette 2 showcases Dr. Brown taking time to answer PCTs’ questions

and tell personal anecdotes to supplement his lectures. However, while doing so, he consistently

works to manage the seminar by staying on the topics of attendance policy and academic

integrity on syllabi. In observing Dr. Brown in TEAC 530, he unfailingly, in the first 15 to 20

minutes of the majority of TEAC 530 sessions, calls the class to order verbally, presents seminar

content directly using lectures and PowerPoint presentations, calls on students to answer

questions, fields students’ questions, and segues the class into student-centered activities which

typically take place in the second part of class. Students, in the first part of TEAC 530, take

notes, attempt to answer Dr. Brown’s questions, and occasionally ask clarifying questions

(Section Three of this chapter describes and analyzes questions and answers from Dr. Brown and

PCTs in part one of the seminar in greater detail). With few exceptions, there is always lecture

and careful management of the first 15 to 20 minutes of the seminar by Dr. Brown and

notetaking by PCTs.

Ella also answered the same question as Sidney; her experience of the first part of TEAC

530 was strikingly similar:

So, what I've noticed is like, well we walk in and we're like, "Well, we need to eat!"

[laughs]. So, we get food, we sit down; the professor starts talking, starts talking about

his PowerPoints. He basically, kinda…he doesn't read from the PowerPoint, but he gives

you a summary of what's on the PowerPoint. So far, we have covered a few topics. And

80

what I like is that, he doesn't talk forever. There's like, some breaks in between where we

are allowed to discuss among ourselves and exchange our ideas.

Like Sidney, Ella describes getting food, Dr. Brown beginning his lecture, and the lecture

eventually ceasing in favor of more whole class discussions between peers and with the

instructor. She alludes to his management of the seminar when she says “There’s…breaks in

between where we are allowed to discuss among ourselves.” Ella deviates slightly from Sidney’s

description in that she discusses “his PowerPoints.” Mention of Dr. Brown’s PowerPoints

captures another significant aspect of how PCTs experience the first part of TEAC 530: Dr.

Brown drives the content of the seminar. Specifically, he selects the topics of the sessions,

selects the content for the topics, and usually delivers content through lectures and PowerPoint.

Genevieve emphasizes this point when she answered the same question as Sidney and Ella:

The professor would sit…or stand in the front of the room with his PowerPoint, um, and

then talk about what's on the PowerPoint slide. There might be a few discussions, small

comments…but it's mostly the professor just talking, um, and like giving or presenting

the information.

As did Sidney and Ella, Genevieve mentions Dr. Brown’s lectures, but mostly stresses his giving

and presentation of content. In the six total TEAC 530 sessions offered in a semester (Brown,

2015a), Dr. Brown provides the topics and content for five of them. In the sixth, and final,

session of a given semester, PCTs drive the seminar content by presenting their end-of-semester

projects to Dr. Brown and peers.

What, then, is the meaning and significance of Dr. Brown utilizing lectures, managing

seminar time carefully, and driving seminar content in the first 15 to 20 minutes of TEAC 530?

What is the meaning and significance of PCTs taking notes, answering questions, and

occasionally asking questions in part one of the seminar? Dr. Brown, who is at the center of

practically everything during this first part of the seminar, must remain at the center because of

the time structure of the seminar itself. Namely, TEAC 530 only lasts one hour. According to the

fourth tenet of the modified Blumerian SI theoretical framework supporting this analysis, roles

and systems of thought organize societies and shape interactions with others (Stryker, 1987).

Applying this tenet to TEAC 530, the 60-minute time structure of the seminar means Dr. Brown

must adopt a more authoritative role in the seminar, which in turn shapes the nature of it, and

interactions in it. This time structure necessitates that he assumes the role of manager of TEAC

81

530, and plan and implement the seminar as efficiently as possible to both save time and create

an educative experience for students. He attempts to accomplish this in part one of the seminar

by preselecting course content, delivering it in an easily consumable lecture format, and

managing the focus of both himself and students. The result is PCTs experience part one as a

roughly 15 to 20-minute period of rich information transferred to them in a well-controlled

setting. Dr. Brown’s more authoritative role contributes to PCTs taking on a more passive role in

this part of the seminar, as they absorb information presented by Dr. Brown through notetaking

and an occasional clarifying or application question before the seminar transitions into the

second part, where PCTs typically connect their learning to collegiate teaching practice with

peers. In sum, the seminar time structure yields the creation of a social relationship between a

more active instructor and passive students in the first part of TEAC 530. Specifically, the social

relationship is transactional in that Dr. Brown provides PCTs information through lecture and

PCTs acquire it through listening and notetaking, thus finishing the transaction. This

transactional pattern makes the first part of TEAC 530 relatively stable and predictable. As part

one of TEAC 530 moves into the transitional period, this social relationship tilts towards the

students being more active, but the instructor still serving as the manager of the seminar.

How PCTs Experience the Transitional Periods of TEAC 530

Vignette 3 highlights the transitional period between part one and part two of TEAC 530.

In this vignette, Dr. Brown ends his lecture and begins transitioning the class. Specifically, he

stops lecturing, invites PCTs to get more food, provides informational packets that guide an

activity, reviews instructions for using the packets, answers a student’s clarifying question, and

segues the class into preparing for the activity. In the middle of conducting these duties, students

supply their own version of comic relief, using food as their prop. Thus, the transitional period in

Vignette 3 contains a flurry of activities in a relatively short amount of time. Other TEAC 530

sessions feature transitional periods similar to the one highlighted in Vignette 3, though there are

also transitional periods, which are less eventful. As such, the manner in which PCTs experience

transitional periods differs depending on their degree of eventfulness. Although transitional

periods can be somewhat less predictable and stable than the first parts of TEAC 530, they all

82

share the characteristic of Dr. Brown being the main driver of action in them due to the brief, 60-

minute time structure of the seminar.

Regarding less eventful transitional periods, every second TEAC 530 session of a given

semester (i.e., two sessions each semester for a total of four sessions over the course of one

academic year) contain such periods. These sessions consistently feature these periods because

they all feature the same topic, teaching portfolios and philosophy statements, and Dr. Brown

always manages the sessions in the same manner. In one of these sessions (i.e., in early

September, 2015), Dr. Brown begins the seminar immediately after its designated start time,

lecturing about teaching portfolios with a PowerPoint presentation. After about 12 minutes of

lecturing, he asks PCTs to introduce themselves to each other by supplying their names,

program/major, teaching experience (if any), and career goals. This signifies the end of part one

of this session and the beginning of its transitional period. Introductions start in the front of the

classroom, on the side of the table farthest from the door. The first student, a Ph.D. Candidate in

the hard sciences, provides each of the details in her introduction requested by Dr. Brown. Once

she finishes, the student to her left starts. A pattern quickly emerges in that after a student

finishes, the person sitting to their left goes. The introductions go in this order around the

rectangular table. Each student follows the introduction template provided by Dr. Brown. During

introductions, Dr. Brown is multitasking, carrying a late food delivery into the classroom and

displaying it on the designated food table while listening to students. Unlike most sessions, the

food does not arrive on time in this one. As Dr. Brown multitasks, he appears to be half listening

to students, and half involved with the food. By the time students’ introductions end, the food

table is set up, and Dr. Brown tells students to help themselves. Students line up while Dr.

Brown places packets on the main table, by students’ seats. The packets are examples of teaching

philosophies. As students return to their seats, they eat and begin to read their packets. Compared

to the transitional period in Vignette 3, this period is slightly less eventful, with students

introducing themselves and Dr. Brown tending to the food. It is more predictable due to the

repetitive nature of the introduction activity. Though Dr. Brown is multitasking during

introductions, this transitional period is still noticeably more subdued and PCTs experience it as

such.

In a different, more eventful transitional period during a session in late September, 2015

(the topic of this session was classroom assessment techniques, or CATs), Dr. Brown begins

83

with the customary lecture and PowerPoint. When he reaches PowerPoint slide number four, he

stops and picks up a stack of stapled packets. The slide stays on the screen; it contains two bullet

points, the first of which states, “We use CATs to assess progress toward our teaching goals,”

and the second of which states, “Please take a few minutes to reflect on the Teaching Goals

Inventory, with a particular course in mind.” Dr. Brown, with the packets in hand, passes them

out to students. The packets are three pages, double-sided, listing 53 different teaching goals.

Next to each goal is a Likert scale from one to five. If students mark a one, it means this is a goal

they never try to achieve. If they mark a five, it is a goal they always try to achieve. As students

receive the packets, Dr. Brown instructs them to read quietly as they eat. Students comply,

looking down at their packets and chewing their food. The room remains silent for about 2

minutes. Afterward, Dr. Brown briefly segues back into his PowerPoint presentation to explain a

new topic: Bloom’s Taxonomy. He shows students two slides about Bloom’s and then begins an

activity where students apply their new knowledge about the taxonomy. Dr. Brown does not

explain the purpose of the packets, and how they ultimately connect to Bloom’s, until much later

in the class. In sum, this transitional period begins with Dr. Brown passing out teaching goals

packets to PCTs. Then, he facilitates an activity about Bloom’s Taxonomy. After this activity,

part two of this session begins as Dr. Brown returns to the packets and instructs students to

utilize them, in concert with Bloom’s Taxonomy, in a new activity. Thus, he sandwiches the

Bloom’s Taxonomy content and activity in-between the CATs and teaching goals content and

subsequent activity, making this transitional period leading up to part two of this session

particularly eventful and intellectually demanding of PCTs. It is also less predictable considering

the variety of activities.

Analysis of how PCTs experience transitional periods. Overall, PCTs experience

transitional periods in TEAC 530 as having varying degrees of action happening either to, or

around, them. Since Dr. Brown is the main driver of action in these periods, he is the one

primarily dictating these actions. Some transitional periods are less eventful, as highlighted in the

example showcasing students’ introductions. Though this particular example illustrated Dr.

Brown as multitasking during introductions, this transitional period relative to others, in general,

was less eventful. Moreover, the other transitional periods in sessions featuring student

introductions (four in total over the course of an academic year) were relatively less eventful and

more predictable due to the natural repetitiveness of the introduction activity. Beyond these

84

transitional periods, however, few others showcased this lack of eventfulness and predictability.

The transitional period in Vignette 3, and the example above featuring CATs, were significantly

more eventful. Both contained a myriad of activities happening within a small, roughly 10-

minute window of time. The varying degree of these activities, ranging from passing out packets

to answering student questions, made the more eventful transitional periods less predictable.

Furthermore, in the CATs session, the abrupt change in topic from CATs/teaching goals content

to Bloom’s Taxonomy possibly created a student experience of temporary confusion due to the

intellectual demands of balancing multiple unfamiliar topics in a short amount of time.

Ultimately Dr. Brown connected the two topics, but the swift change from CATs/teaching goals

to Bloom’s likely created initial confusion.

Though there are differences between transitional periods in terms of eventfulness and

predictability, they also share similar characteristics. Each are relatively short regarding time

length, never lasting more than 10 minutes. All transitional periods serve the purpose of

connecting part one of TEAC 530 to part two. Transitional periods prominently feature Dr.

Brown as the manager of such periods. Said differently, he is the individual driving the

transition. The primary task Dr. Brown undertakes in these transitional periods is preparing

students for more student-centered classroom activities later in the seminar. To do this, he often

provides students with packets containing information salient to the activities. He often instructs

students to read the packets shortly after passing them out. After allowing students time to do so,

he completes the transition by moving the class into an activity. Though Dr. Brown is the

manager during transitional periods, PCTs are also active. They get up from their seats to serve

themselves more food, eat as they read their packets, participate in whole class introductions

(i.e., introducing themselves to each other), and joke with their peers. PCTs spend most of their

active time responding to the actions of Dr. Brown and the amount of time in which PCTs are

active during these periods is short, as Dr. Brown quickly shifts them into the second part of the

seminar.

Overall, as with the first part of TEAC 530, Dr. Brown is the main driver of action in the

transitional periods of the seminar. However, in order to transition students to the second part of

the seminar, he must ease some control of the class. As a result of this easing, students have

more opportunities to be active. For example, in Vignette 3, as Dr. Brown finishes his lecture and

prepares to pass out the packets, he also invites students to get more food. Geoffrey does so and

85

asks his peers whether they would like the last piece of sandwich before he takes it. His question

creates a chain reaction of other socially-natured questions and peer-to-peer interactions.

Likewise, in another seminar Dr. Brown asks students to introduce themselves to each other, and

in doing so, temporarily relinquishes control of the class. Though he creates specific parameters

for their introductions, he nevertheless takes a short hiatus from directly managing the class. In

sum, regarding the transition between the first part of TEAC 530 and the second part, the social

relationship between the instructor and students tilts towards the students being more active, but

the instructor still serving as the manager of the seminar.

Playing a vital role in how PCTs experience the transitional periods of TEAC 530 is the

60-minute time boundary of the seminar. Just as this time structure necessitates having Dr.

Brown at the center of the first part of the seminar, it necessitates the same during transitional

periods. This is true, regardless of whether transitional periods are more eventful and less

predictable, or more subdued and more predictable. Dr. Brown must be the manager of these

periods so he can expedite them to save time for additional activities later. As the fourth tenet of

the modified SI framework guiding this study suggests, Dr. Brown’s role as manager of these

periods shapes the nature of them. For example, Dr. Brown’s need to expedite creates conditions

where he multitasks, such as tending to the late food delivery while students introduce

themselves. Though a possible consequence of doing this is students interpreting Dr. Brown as

less engaged in their backgrounds, stopping introductions to take care of the food would waste

precious class time. Similarly, in the session about CATs, Dr. Brown sandwiches the Bloom’s

Taxonomy content and activity in-between the content and activity about CATs and teaching

goals. This action is efficient and saves time, though it creates the possibility for initial student

disorientation considering the need for them to learn and apply two new and likely unfamiliar

topics quickly. Overall, the 60-minute time boundary impacts PCTs’ experiences during

transitional periods of TEAC 530 by keeping Dr. Brown as the main driver of action and forcing

him to multitask, which perhaps leaves PCTs wanting. Additionally, this time boundary also

leaves the social relationship between Dr. Brown and PCTs in the transitional periods relatively

unchanged from the first part of TEAC 530. However, as the following section on part two of

TEAC 530 shows, this social relationship slightly evolves.

86

How PCTs Experience Part Two of TEAC 530

Vignette 4: A Working Lunch highlights the second comprehensive part of TEAC 530. In

this vignette, students sit in silence as they read their packets, a student (Julie) asks Dr. Brown to

set aside time to discuss a personal teaching-related issue, Dr. Brown offers students more food,

Dr. Brown and students implement a whole-class activity, the class addresses Julie’s issue, and

students ask questions and the entire class engages in general dialogue. Many of the events

showcased in Vignette 4 occur in other second parts of TEAC 530 sessions, though some events

are unique to this vignette. Specifically, events in this vignette highlight one of the few instances

of unpredictability in part two of TEAC 530, as this part of the seminar, like the other parts, are

generally predictable and stable. Overall, this section focuses on how PCTs, in general,

experience this specific part of TEAC 530, emphasizing the implementation of whole-class

activities.

Vignette 4 illuminates the implementation of a whole-class activity in the second part of a

TEAC 530 session. The vignette shows that, before students break their silence from studying

their packets, Julie asks Dr. Brown if she can propose a personal, collegiate teaching-related

scenario to the class. Dr. Brown agrees, and as such this transforms what was certainly a

planned, conventional syllabi activity into something less predictable. In typical implementations

of the activity, such as those occurring on the November 17th and 19th sessions (i.e., sessions with

the same content and activities as the one detailed in Chapter Four), students and Dr. Brown

discuss four and three different cases from syllabi at length, respectively. Due to Julie’s question

and the subsequent discussion around it, in the session showcased in Vignette 4, the class only

discusses one case (case five). Ultimately, Julie’s question and request to discuss her scenario

substitutes for comprehensive review and discussion of multiple syllabi cases. This type of

spontaneous, student-initiated activity is atypical in TEAC 530. Generally, whole-class activities,

and seminar sessions in general, move forward as planned without students initiating changes.

When discussing how whole-class activities in TEAC 530 generally occur, Ella states: “it's

basically coming together as a whole class to discuss what we've talked to each other about. And

he [Dr. Brown] kind of like, summarizes whatever we talk about in a few sentences.” Ella’s

blueprint is generally accurate (though sometimes students work individually and then the whole

class comes together for discussion), and this shows in other TEAC 530 sessions. In sessions

where the whole-class activity focuses on Bloom’s Taxonomy (i.e., late September, 2015 and

87

mid-March 2016), students individually read relevant materials, engage with peers, and engage

with Dr. Brown. Though students ask Dr. Brown questions during the activity, most of the

questions relate to the material at hand. Before the end of class, students complete the activity in

full. In the majority of TEAC 530 sessions focusing on teaching philosophy statements, the

whole-class activity plays out as likely intended: students read sample teaching philosophies,

pair up with peers to discuss and critique them, and then reconvene as a whole class to share.

Overall, the implementation of the whole-class activity in Vignette 4 is atypical to how these

activities generally occur in TEAC 530.

Analysis of how PCTs experience part two. A key theme established in analysis of

previous parts of TEAC 530 is that Dr. Brown is the primary manager of the seminar. This

familiar theme mostly continues in the second parts of the seminar. In these parts, Dr. Brown

implements whole-class activities by facilitating a routine in which students read something,

discuss the reading with a peer partner, and engage in a whole-class discussion of the reading.

Though in most cases whole-class activities play out following this carefully orchestrated and

predictable pattern facilitated by Dr. Brown, a few do not. The case of Dr. Brown and the whole-

class activity in Vignette 4 illustrates this point. Ultimately, he relinquishes some control in both

the management and content of the activity. Before the activity gets under way, Julie asks Dr.

Brown if she can pose a personal teaching case to the class for the purpose of working through it

together as a group. In response, Dr. Brown expresses excitement and acquiesces, transferring a

degree of control over the management and content of the seminar to Julie and the class. He does

this without knowing in advance the nature of the problem or how much time it will take to solve

it. Ultimately, the nature of Julie’s teaching-related scenario aligned closely with one of the

scenarios (i.e., Case Nine: Creating and Maintaining a Civil Classroom Atmosphere) from the

packet. In this sense, Dr. Brown’s risk of allowing a student to guide the content of the course

pays off, as Julie’s case did not veer off into territory unrelated to the seminar topic. On the other

hand, allowing Julie to temporarily dictate the management of the class prevents Dr. Brown and

the class from exploring multiple cases from the packet, something which commonly happens in

most of the other seminar sessions featuring the same content and activities as the one detailed in

Chapter Four. Overall, the typical way in which Dr. Brown implements whole-class activities in

the second parts of TEAC 530 is similar to how he engages in previous sections of the seminar,

as the primary manager and driver of content. In doing so, he facilitates the general predictability

88

and stability of all three parts. However, unlike in previous sections of the seminar, in part two

Dr. Brown can relinquish control of both the management and content of the seminar during

whole-class activities.

The flexibility Dr. Brown shows by allowing Julie to workshop her personal teaching-

related scenario with the class suggests the 60-minute time boundary of the seminar plays a

different role in the second parts of TEAC 530 than it does in the first and transitional parts. In

the first and transitional parts, Dr. Brown keeps careful control and management of the seminar,

primarily because the short 60-minute timeframe necessitates him to be as efficient with time as

possible. This initial efficiency creates a surplus of time for the second parts of TEAC 530,

which typically average 25 minutes and go as long 30 minutes. Having more time in the second

parts is necessary because whole-class activities, exercises in which students apply their

knowledge and dialogue with their peers and Dr. Brown, require more time than all other events

in TEAC 530. More time also enables Dr. Brown to, as shown in Vignette 4, temporarily shift

from his role as manager of the seminar to that of a facilitator. The fourth tenet of this study’s

adopted version of SI suggests that, by doing this, the nature of the seminar and interactions

within it will also shift. As a facilitator, Dr. Brown can grant students like Julie the opportunity

to process her scenario. In doing so, Dr. Brown takes a risk by relinquishing a significant degree

of control to students, but this risk pays off as discussion of Julie’s scenario yielded fruitful

conversation. By having more time, Dr. Brown can afford to switch roles from manager to

facilitator, and take such a risk because, in the event students take the seminar in an irrelevant

direction, there is extra time to reconvene (i.e., manage the seminar again). Overall, the 60-

minute time boundary of TEAC 530 plays a different role in shaping students’ experiences in the

second parts of the seminar than in previous parts. Specifically, this boundary requires the first

and transitional parts to be more time efficient so the focus on time in the second parts is less

urgent. Efficiency in the first and transitional parts creates a time surplus in the second parts,

which is necessary because the whole-class activities in these parts require more time. Having

this extra time also enables Dr. Brown to take more risks with his control and management of the

seminar, creating an opportunity for Julie to pitch her scenario.

As suggested throughout this section, a request such as Julie’s is rare. Whole-class

activities in second parts of TEAC 530 generally follow a standard and predictable pattern

facilitated by Dr. Brown. In almost every observed seminar session, PCTs go along with this

89

pattern, unquestioned. Why did Julie decide to ask Dr. Brown for special attention to this issue,

and why do PCTs generally not do this? Regarding the former, one possible explanation for

Julie’s actions is the uniqueness of her situation. Perhaps her case was pressing on her mind and

she just had to talk about it. Another possible explanation for why PCTs do not replicate Julie’s

behavior is a lack of having a pressing problem. Not all PCTs are actively teaching yet, and thus

may not have any issues to present. By extension, there could be limited benefits to enrolling in a

teaching preparation seminar for these participants because they do not yet possess enough

practical experience to maximize their learning. Another possibility is the established cadence of

TEAC 530, with Dr. Brown serving as the manager of the seminar and driver of its content

throughout. Perhaps students interpret the cadence created by Dr. Brown’s management of the

seminar such that it does not occur to them or they do not sense they can even pose such

requests, or they believe that their requests will be rebuffed. Considering the presence of this

cadence and the teaching methods that lead to it, there is a possibility that PCTs could internalize

it and then replicate it in their own present or future instruction. Overall, Julie’s request stands

out as unique and shows there are range of possibilities for student and instructor behaviors in

the second parts of TEAC 530. The uniqueness of Julie’s request also sheds light on the routine

of how the second parts of this seminar typically occur.

Regarding the social relationship between PCTs and Dr. Brown in the second parts of

TEAC 530, it does not drastically change between the previous parts of TEAC 530 (i.e., the first

and transitional parts). In the second parts, Dr. Brown implements whole-class activities. He

initiates these activities, suggesting he is the manager of them; this pattern of initiating is also

evident for most of what happens in the parts of the seminar leading up to the second parts. Dr.

Brown is the main driver of actions in the second parts, even though in some cases students can

customize whole-class activities to their needs. Taking everything together, in the second parts

the social relationship between the instructor and students show the instructor as the main driver

of action, but with students having opportunities to drive the seminar if they wish to do so.

However, such instances of student-driven management and content in the second parts of

seminars are rare.

Summary: Section One

This section describes and analyzes how PCTs experience the different parts of TEAC

530. To summarize, PCTs experience part one of the seminar as stable, predictable, and

90

transactional. In this part, Dr. Brown provides students with collegiate pedagogy information

through lecture and PowerPoint, and students receive this information through notetaking, thus

completing the transaction. Additionally, students occasionally answer questions and ask short,

clarifying questions. How PCTs experience transitional parts of TEAC 530 varies depending on

the degree of eventfulness in these periods. Less eventful periods are more predictable and

stable, whereas busier periods can be more random and possibly disorienting. Nevertheless,

transitional periods always bridge the gap between the content from part one of the seminar to

the application activities in part two. Regarding part two, PCTs experience it as relatively

predictable: Dr. Brown regularly facilitates activities in which students apply their knowledge in

groups or individually. However, in rare cases, PCTs express the desire to work through their

own salient teaching issues in part two and Dr. Brown acquiesces. Taking the three parts of the

seminar together, PCTs experience it as relatively predictable and stable.

With few exceptions, Dr. Brown is at the center of all three parts of TEAC 530.

Specifically, he dictates the seminar content, timing, lecture material, and activities. Seldom is

Dr. Brown not heavily managing TEAC 530, though students become slightly more active in

dictating aspects of the seminar as it moves into the transitional periods and part two. The short,

60-minute time structure of TEAC 530 forces Dr. Brown to assume the role of manager of the

seminar because he needs to fit a bevy of information and activities within it. Thus, by having

control of all the parts, he is best able to create both an efficient and educative course for

students.

Section Two: How do Peer-to-Peer Interactions Shape PCTs’ Experiences in TEAC 530?

This section addresses the above research question in the three different parts of TEAC

530. As such, there are three subsections below: one focusing on PCTs’ peer interactions in part

one of the seminar, one focusing on these interactions in transitional periods, and one focusing

on these interactions in part two. At the end of this section, there is a summary of the three

subsections, illustrating a comprehensive answer to the research question guiding this section.

Peer-to-Peer Interactions in Part One of TEAC 530

In the previous section on how PCTs experience part one of TEAC 530, it was clear the

instructor, Dr. Brown, embodied the role of manager of this part of the seminar. Part one featured

a 15 to 20-minute period carefully managed by Dr. Brown, as he utilized lectures, governed

seminar time carefully, and drove seminar content. In response, PCTs listened, took handwritten

91

notes, and occasionally asked or answered simple questions. Dr. Brown’s control and efficient

handling of the seminar in its first parts was necessary because of its short, 60-minute time

structure, coupled with the need for him to implement additional tasks in the transitional and

second parts of the seminar. Thus, due to the patterns and habits of Dr. Brown in the first parts of

TEAC 530, combined with the seminar’s short time structure and PCTs’ relative passivity, a

social relationship between a more active instructor and less active students emerged in the first

15 to 20 minutes of TEAC 530 class sessions. This subsection explores the implications of this

social relationship for peer interactions in the first part of the seminar. In particular, this

subsection analyzes peer-to-peer interactions from Vignette 2 and first parts of other TEAC 530

sessions.

Interactions and the stability of part one. Due to the conditions present in Vignette 2

and in the first part of other TEAC 530 sessions, a social relationship develops between a more

active instructor and passive students, leaving PCTs with few opportunities for sustained

interactions with their peers. Dr. Brown, when comparing TEAC 530 to the advanced seminars

in the Certificate in Collegiate Instruction (i.e., TEAC 531 and TEAC 532) acknowledges, “It's a

little more teacher-student in 530 I think. But, that's partly because it's faster.” A reality of this

“teacher-student” arrangement in the first parts of the seminar is instructor-led lectures and

PowerPoint presentations and, in response, students taking handwritten notes. According to the

first principle of SI, individuals act towards things based on what these things mean to them

(Blumer, 1969/1986). Thus, in Vignette 2, as PCTs watch Dr. Brown present and lecture, they

interpret it as a cue to listen and take notes, likely due to their past socialization as students with

many years of education. Generally, when the teacher is in the front of the classroom talking,

students’ conditioning leads them to listen politely and take notes. A second tenet of SI is that

individuals derive meaning from things based on social interactions with others (Blumer,

1969/1986). Therefore, as PCTs witness their peers listening to Dr. Brown’s lecture and taking

notes in the vignette, they interpret this as what they should also be doing. In most sessions, Dr.

Brown starts class right away with a PowerPoint and lecture, which as the peer-to-peer

interactions illustrated above show, creates a stable and predictable pattern of student behavior

(i.e., listening, notetaking) in part one of TEAC 530. Overall, other than non-verbal looks and

gestures conveying the action of acknowledging a peer or listening when a peer speaks, PCTs

have limited opportunities for significant interactions with each other in the first part of the

92

seminar. This pattern is pervasive in most seminar sessions. Thus, peer-to-peer interactions

typically shape PCTs’ experiences in the first part of TEAC 530 such that they contribute to the

stability and predictability of the seminar.

Exceptions to the peer interaction pattern in part one. In terms of TEAC 530 sessions

that are exceptions to the pattern mentioned in the previous paragraph, there are two: sessions

modeling small group and discussion techniques and sessions in which PCTs share their projects

and discuss sessions outside of TEAC 5303 with the whole class. It is important to note that

Chapter Four established small group and discussion technique sessions, and sessions where

students discuss projects and outside sessions, as falling outside of the general structure of TEAC

530. For example, these sessions do not contain lecture activities in their respective first parts,

distinctive transitional periods, or second parts that clearly contain application activities.

Nevertheless, there is value in exploring these sessions and how PCTs interact with their peers at

the beginning of them, especially since PCTs have limited opportunities for significant

interactions in the first parts of TEAC 530 sessions that fall within the general structure. For

example, in a small group and discussion technique session in late October, 2015, Dr. Brown

begins class with a short introduction to the topic. Then, instead of starting a lecture with a

PowerPoint presentation, he asks students to individually make a list of pros and cons about

having group discussions in class. After a few minutes pass, he asks students to turn to the

person sitting next to them and merge their two lists into one, non-redundant list. Letting a few

minutes pass again, Dr. Brown asks the student pairs to find another pair and perform the same

task: merge the two co-constructed lists into one list. This process continues until the whole class

creates one, relatively large list, together.

Unsurprisingly, the nature of this activity creates opportunities for peer-to-peer

interactions. When I personally joined a group of two pairs of students, I witnessed them

completing the activity by sharing strategies (e.g., “I listed cons first, because they were easier”).

I also witnessed students introducing themselves, asking about each other’s respective academic

3 As explained in Chapter Three, outside sessions help fulfill the eight presentation or seminar requirement for the

GIIP – Gold Track. Since there are only five TEAC 530 sessions in a semester, students must find three other

pedagogy-related sessions outside of the seminar to meet Gold Track requirements. Also, PCTs’ teaching projects,

which count toward 50% of their seminar grade, usually consist of mock or authentic course syllabi, teaching

philosophy statements, or something similarly tangible that centers on collegiate teaching and learning (Brown,

2015a). PCTs write project proposals a few weeks in advance at the beginning of the semester for Dr. Brown’s

approval. Accompanying that project, PCTs must also write a one-to-two-page reflection evaluating the strengths

and weaknesses of the project.

93

disciplines (e.g., “Do they do a lot of group discussions in Physics?”), and engaging in generally

friendly and collaborative behavior. Through the lens of the second tenet of SI (i.e., social

interactions shape how individuals interpret phenomena), it is clear through PCTs’ interactions

that they interpreted this group as a means for both completing the activity and socializing. The

third tenet of SI states that how individuals interpret the meanings of things can change based on

their experiences (Blumer, 1969/1986). Analyzing PCTs’ behavior in the group through this

tenet suggests their interactions led to their understanding of the group to be, over time, more

social in nature than oriented towards the activity. This is clear through PCTs’ stronger emphasis

on getting to know each other than working on the activity. Also, specifically regarding

introductions, PCTs introducing themselves to each other in a session in late October suggests

they lack familiarity with their peers, even though this was the fourth session of the semester.

Chapter Six explores the implications of this lack of peer familiarity. Overall, unlike most other

TEAC 530 sessions, in the first part of this session, and in other small group and discussion

technique-themed sessions (i.e., another in late October 2015 two in late March 2016), PCTs

have some opportunities for peer-to-peer social interactions.

Another exception to the lack of sustained peer interactions in part one of TEAC 530 are

sessions in which PCTs share their projects and discuss their sessions outside of TEAC 530 with

the whole class. These sessions are always the final sessions of the semester. Dr. Brown dictates

the topics and content for the first five TEAC 530 sessions of a given semester, and the final

(sixth) sessions proceed with PCTs presenting their semester-long projects4 to the class. In

addition to presenting projects in these sessions, PCTs also discuss the various sessions they

attend outside of TEAC 530 throughout the semester. As a reminder, final sessions do not count

as a session toward meeting the requirements of the GIIP – Gold Track. In one of these sessions,

taking place in late December, 2015, I enter the classroom to see Dr. Brown sitting at the head of

the long table rather than standing at his typical position near the computer terminal. It is about

6pm, so class is supposed to start soon. However, there is a noticeable casualness to this session,

as it ultimately does not start sharply at the top of the hour. As the clock moves to five past,

4 The teaching project, which counts for 50% of the seminar grade, must be something tangible, like a mock course

syllabus or teaching philosophy statement. However, students have a degree of autonomy over the nature of the

project, just as long as it centers on collegiate teaching and learning. Regardless of what they decide to create,

students must write a project proposal for Dr. Brown’s approval several weeks in advance of its due date, which is

always at the end of the semester. A final requirement for the project is a one-to-two-page reflection gauging the

strengths and weaknesses of the project (Brown, 2015a).

94

students are milling around the food table chatting and Dr. Brown is engaging in a side

conversation with a student. Around 6:07pm, everybody in the room is sitting around the table

and Dr. Brown starts class. After making a few administrative announcements, he states,

“Tonight I don’t have any real agenda other than what you want to talk about.” Students proceed

to talk about their sessions outside of TEAC 530, focusing particularly on sessions from an

annual teaching and learning conference hosted by Midwestern State University that PCTs

commonly attend. The open conversation allows PCTs to share knowledge about and critique

certain sessions. Occasionally they make jokes with each other, eliciting laughter throughout the

classroom. At one point, the conversation shifts from the conference to more general topics such

as having imposter syndrome as a graduate student. PCTs’ conversations with each other achieve

some depth, as they build on each other’s points, provide differing perspectives, and connect

ideas to their professional and personal lives. In other final sessions, students discuss their

projects more and additional sessions less than in the above described session. Also, other final

sessions depict students as less talkative than in the above. However, all final sessions, at their

beginnings and throughout, share the characteristic of being casual and relatively open; the only

guideline from Dr. Brown in all of them is to talk about outside sessions or projects.

Overall, the casual, open dialogue format established at the beginning of this session

enables PCTs to interact with each other throughout, particularly with conversations about

teaching and learning and the struggles of being a graduate student. Analyzing this session

through the first tenet of symbolic interactionism (i.e., individuals act towards things based on

what these things mean to them), PCTs’ interactions with each other at the beginning of the

session, such as milling around the food table 5 minutes into class, suggests they interpret this

session as more casual than others. Reinforcing this message of casualness is Dr. Brown sitting

at the table, instead of standing at the front of the room (a more authoritative position) and

chatting with a student after the 6pm start time. Once the session starts, PCTs exclusively discuss

their outside sessions, rather than some combination of discussing their projects and outside

sessions. This trend is due to PCTs, in interaction with each other, establishing a pattern of only

talking about their outside sessions, thereby shaping the topic of dialogue in this TEAC 530

session (second tenet of symbolic interactionism). However, through continued interactions, the

dialogue of this session shifts from discussion of outside sessions to topics about graduate

student life. Thus, PCTs’ interpretation of this session changes from one that generally follows

95

the parameters set by the instructor to one that ventures into the PCT-constructed topic of the life

and struggles of being a graduate student (third tenet of symbolic interactionism).

Conclusion: PCTs’ peer interactions in part one of TEAC 530. In sum, due to the

primary use of PowerPoint presentations accompanied by lectures during the first parts of TEAC

530 sessions, there are limits in the volume of peer-to-peer interactions in these parts of the

seminar. Typically, most peer interactions consist of PCTs observing their peers taking notes and

listening to lectures, which ultimately creates the reaction of more students doing the same. This

contributes to the relative stability and predictability of this part of TEAC 530. There are

exceptions to this pervasive pattern in certain seminar sessions: modeling small group and

discussion techniques and sessions in which PCTs share their projects and discuss sessions

outside of TEAC 530. In the first parts of these sessions and beyond, PCTs have opportunities to

engage in richer interactions with each other, either in groups or together as a whole class. Both

session formats show PCTs’ peer interactions lead to co-constructed shifts towards actions

salient to them. Specifically, in the small group and discussion session, PCTs working together

in groups take steps towards completing their assigned activity, but also socialize to get to know

each other better. In the session where PCTs share their projects and outside session experiences,

they start the class off discussing their outside sessions, but eventually steer the conversation

toward the topic of having imposter syndrome as graduate students. These conversations enable

PCTs to achieve depth and nuance on topics important to them. Overall, these exceptions to the

general pattern of peer-to-peer interactions in part one of TEAC 530 shows that when PCTs have

more autonomy in their interactions, they will direct seminar activities and conversations

towards topics fitting their preferences. In these cases, it is getting to know their peers better and

discussing the challenges of graduate student life. However, taking both the pervasive patterns of

PCTs’ limited peer interactions together with the sessions that are outliers, PCTs ultimately do

not engage in many rich interactions with each other in the first part of the seminar. Less peer

interactions, due to the social relationship of the more active instructor and less active students in

part one of TEAC 530, shape how PCTs experience this part of the seminar in that they

experience it as stable, predictable, likely educative, and featuring a traditional dichotomy

between teacher and learner. On occasion, certain sessions enable students to engage in richer

interactions, thereby providing an experience of a seminar more tailored to their needs and

96

preferences. However, this seldom occurs, as the general pattern of part one of TEAC 530, and

the top-down orientation of the seminar overall, is relatively restrictive of PCTs’ autonomy.

Peer-to-Peer Interactions in the Transitional Periods of TEAC 530

As established in the previous section on how PCTs experience the transitional periods of

the seminar, Dr. Brown is the primary driver of action in these periods, creating a social

relationship of a more active instructor and less active students. Nevertheless, compared to part

one of TEAC 530, PCTs have more opportunities to be active during transitional periods. To

transition PCTs, Dr. Brown must lessen some control of the seminar, allowing PCTs more

opportunities to be active and interact. Yet, how PCTs’ interactions shape their experiences of

transitional periods varies due to the relatively unpredictable nature of these periods compared to

the first and second parts of TEAC 530. This subsection examines PCTs’ interactions in the

transitional period highlighted in Vignette 3 and the transitional periods from sessions that

contain initial PCT introductions (i.e., sessions occurring every second TEAC 530 session of a

given semester). This subsection also briefly touches upon a transitional period in a session about

CATs/teaching goals, first introduced in Section One of this chapter.

As previously noted, the transitional period depicted in Vignette 3 was relatively eventful.

In that period, Dr. Brown invites students to get more food, passes out packets, and provides

students instructions for the packets. After giving these instructions, most students begin to read,

but Geoffrey walks over to the food table to see what is left of the submarine sandwich platter.

Only seeing one sandwich left, he asks his peers if any of them would like the final piece.

Immediately following his question, Quinn offers his peers the food left on his plate. A student

takes Quinn up on his offer. Next, another student humorously offers peers the “wads of ham and

turkey….” on his plate. The entire class laughs hysterically at his offer. Students’ laughing

transforms into socializing. In this scene, PCTs have an opening to be active with each other;

they are reading their packets, but also have the opportunity to get more food. Geoffrey’s

question, followed by Quinn’s response, and a student’s response to Quinn, suggests that PCTs

interpret this opening in class as a chance to consider each other’s desire for food and exchange

food. In other words, PCTs are acting as if discussion and action around food in the seminar is

acceptable (first tenet of SI). After a student takes Quinn’s food, another student makes a

humorous comment, eliciting laughter from the rest of the class. This laughter quickly segues

into socializing. Thus, as PCTs continue to interact over food, their interpretation of this opening

97

in class moves from discussion around food to food related humor and general socializing with

each other. PCTs’ interactions are reshaping how they interpret this moment in the seminar: from

exchanging food to humor and socializing (second tenet of SI). As the socializing continues, Dr.

Brown, whether purposefully or inadvertently, quickly brings the class back to order with his

presence near the main table, addressing a student’s question. Soon, PCTs cease their socializing

and begin reading their packets. Thus, PCTs interpret Dr. Brown’s presence as a signal to stop

socializing and return to the task at hand. His established role as the manager of TEAC 530

explains PCTs’ reaction to his presence (fourth tenet of SI).

Noted previously, the transitional periods containing introductions occur in every second

TEAC 530 session of a given semester; compared to other transitional periods, they are less

eventful. In them, Dr. Brown starts with instructions: students should provide their name,

program, teaching experience (if any), and career goals for after graduation. Students always

follow his instructions and introduce themselves to their peers in a specific order, around the

long rectangular table. This order entails one student conducting their introduction and the next

student, either to the left or right of the previous, going next until all students finish. In no cases

do students skip over each other or randomize the introductions. The nature of students’

interactions with each other in their introductions are somewhat mechanical, meaning one

student provides their introduction and almost immediately afterward, another student provides

their introduction. There are no conversations in the space in-between the introductions. Though

highly regimented, introductions provide PCTs a formal opportunity to get to know each other.

In keeping with his role as manager of the seminar, Dr. Brown provides PCTs

instructions for their introductions, thereby shaping the nature of their subsequent interactions

with each other (fourth tenet of SI). PCTs start their introductions following Dr. Brown’s

instructions and quickly establish a consistent pattern around the table. Working from a baseline

established by the first student, the rest of the students follow in an orderly fashion. Thus, based

on the actions of their peers, PCTs appear to interpret the introduction exercise as something that

should be organized (first tenet of SI). By following an order, not skipping over each other, and

not engaging in side conversations, PCTs interpret introductions as something that should be

efficient and serious (second tenet of SI).

Analysis of PCTs’ peer interactions in transitional periods. Through initial analysis of

peer-to-peer interactions in the transitional periods of TEAC 530, it is apparent PCTs have more

98

opportunities to interact with each other in these periods compared to part one of the seminar.

However, just as transitional periods are moderately less predictable than the first and second

parts of TEAC 530, so are the nature of PCTs’ interactions in these periods. As such, the manner

in how peer-to-peer interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in the transitional periods of the

seminar varies. The period highlighted in Vignette 3 showed peer interactions related to food.

These interactions started with Geoffrey asking if others, who were following Dr. Brown’s

instructions and reading quietly, wanted the last piece of sandwich. This led to an exchange of

food between peers, and ended with peers joking and socializing with each other. Dr. Brown

quickly corralled the class back together with his presence near the table. The interactions in this

transitional period suggests PCTs experienced it as a time in which there was a break in the

lecture-based part of the seminar, which created an opportunity for peers to engage socially, with

food serving as a means to that end. In their socializing, PCTs shared food and in their sharing,

got to know each other better, and possibly built community. When discussing the role of food in

TEAC 530, Todd believes it has benefits beyond providing nutrition: “the food…when we eat

we have a certain way we behave, and it establishes a sense of community, it's a [way] of getting

to know each other.” Thus, peer interactions over food have the potential to facilitate community

building among PCTs. Nevertheless, PCTs’ swift reorientation back to their work rendered this

experience as short-lived.

The transitional periods featuring PCTs’ introductions showcased a different type of

peer-to-peer interaction. Interactions in these periods are highly structured and regimented. This

stems from PCTs carefully following Dr. Brown’s instructions for introductions and PCTs’

adherence to replicating, from their peers, the same introductory procedure over and over again.

As such, these interactions are far less dynamic than those in Vignette 3. Thus, PCTs’

interactions shape their experiences of these transitional periods such that they get to know their

peers through introductions, but these introductions are formal, orderly, and regimented. PCTs

briefly learn basic information about their peers in a quick and consecutive fashion, a method

that may fall short of creating memorable introductions. Specifically, the previous section

highlighting peer-to-peer interactions in part one of TEAC 530 touches on the lack of familiarity

peers have of each other, as evidenced by the need for peers to reintroduce themselves in the

fourth seminar session of the semester. Therefore, PCTs may experience the introductory

interactions in this transitional period as too fleeting for them to truly get to know their peers.

99

How PCTs’ peer interactions shape their experiences of transitional periods in TEAC 530

varies, as transitional periods are dynamic and often less predictable than the first or second parts

of the seminar. The nature of PCTs’ peer interactions in transitional periods tend to differ with

every different session. This is evident when analyzing the transitional periods above: the period

from Vignette 3 and the periods where students introduce each other. In Vignette 3, PCTs’ peer

interactions, though short, are unstructured and open. Thus, they are similar to the richer, more

in-depth interactions PCTs experience in part one of the seminar such that their interactions in

this transitional period provide them autonomy, leading them to salient actions: getting to know

each other better over food and socializing. Conversely, PCTs’ peer interactions in the

transitional periods containing introductions are highly structured and ultimately limiting,

thereby constraining the degree of autonomy PCTs have in shaping the seminar through their

actions. Overall, though PCTs are more active in transitional periods compared to part one of

TEAC 530, Dr. Brown is still the manager and main driver of action in these periods, continuing

the social relationship of a more active instructor and less active students. This, along with the

short time span of the average transitional period (i.e., 5 to 10 minutes), explains the brief time

for PCTs to interact in the periods described in Vignette 3, as well as the highly-structured

interactions illustrated in the transitional periods with introductions. Also, though transitional

periods are relatively unpredictable compared to parts one and two of TEAC 530, one common

aspect that cuts across all three parts of the seminar is Dr. Brown’s managerial role (due

primarily to the 60-minute time structure of TEAC 530). In sum, the manner in which PCTs’

peer interactions shape their experiences in transitional periods varies due to the dynamic nature

of these periods. The varied nature of transitional periods makes it difficult to identify a

consistent pattern of how PCTs’ peer interactions in transitional periods shape their experiences

of them. However, Dr. Brown’s role as manager of these short periods assures that PCTs’ peer

interactions will remain brief or highly structured.

Lastly, it is important to note there is no relationship between the degree to which a

transitional period is busy, or relatively uneventful, and whether PCTs engage in greater or fewer

interactions with each other. Said differently, a more eventful transitional period does not mean

PCTs always have more, or less, interactions with each other. The inverse is also true: less

eventful transitional periods do not necessarily mean more, or fewer, PCT interactions. The

above examples suggest such a pattern exists, as the transitional period from Vignette 3 contains

100

a flurry of activities while PCTs engage in numerous interactions. Conversely, the transitional

period featuring introductions, a less eventful period, features fewer interactions. Returning to

the relatively eventful transitional period in the session about CATs/teaching goals highlighted in

the previous section, PCTs in this period have few significant interactions. As Dr. Brown passes

out teaching goals packets and later engages students in a short lesson about Bloom’s Taxonomy,

PCTs comply with instructions and eat food. This example shows there is no relationship

between the degree of eventfulness of a transitional period and the frequency of PCTs’

interactions. The absence of such a relationship buttresses the notion that transitional periods are

relatively unpredictable compared to parts one and two of TEAC 530.

Peer-to-Peer Interactions in Part Two of TEAC 530

This subsection describes and analyzes two distinct types of PCT peer interactions and

how they shape PCTs’ experiences in the second part of TEAC 530. Such interactions include

peers’ body language toward each other, and extended dialogues with each other. Analysis will

proceed starting with events from Vignette 4, but will also include descriptions and analyses of

PCT interactions in other observed seminar sessions. As established above, part two of TEAC

530 is relatively stable, consistently under control by Dr. Brown. However, similar to transitional

periods, part two sees PCTs with more opportunities to interact. On rare occasions, PCTs

experience complete autonomy over activities in this part of the seminar.

PCTs’ peer interactions through body language. During the whole-class activity in

Vignette 4, Dr. Brown yields the floor to Julie so she can describe a case to the class from her

personal experiences teaching. Julie’s case highlights a situation with a student in one of her

classes who was inappropriately expressing their frustrations. As she speaks, three of her

colleagues affix their gazes upon her, watching as she speaks, paying attention to what she is

saying. Dr. Brown does so as well. Conversely, two other students are looking at their phones,

and the remaining students are looking down at the table or eating. Overall, about half of the

class is visibly paying attention and the other half visibly less so. Within this scenario, when a

peer (i.e., Julie) speaks, roughly half of PCTs interpret this as a time to explicitly show attentive

body language and the other half interpret this as a time to not be explicit in displaying embodied

attention to their peer. In other words, half of PCTs are showing attentiveness because they

believe they should be doing so at this point in class, and the other half of PCTs are not showing

attentiveness because they do not believe they should be doing so (first tenet of SI).

101

In a different session (November 17th) featuring the same topic as the one woven

throughout Chapter Four, Dolores asks a question to peers who work in Student Affairs on

campus about undergraduates. As she asks her question, peers orient their bodies and eyes to

Dolores, and as her Student Affairs peers provide their perspectives, students lock eyes with

them. A conversation ensues in which the entire class, through their body language, act engaged.

Comparing PCTs’ behavior in this scenario to their behavior in the above scenario, PCTs here

are more visibly attentive to what is happening in these moments with their peers. It is likely the

nature of Dolores’ question to her Student Affairs peers more broadly captures the general

interest of the class compared to Julie’s case, particularly since most PCTs work, or will work,

with undergraduate students and thus would have interest in learning more about these students.

Julie’s case may not capture the initial interest of her peers since they do not know the nature of

her scenario in advance. Overall, as PCTs realize the nature of Dolores’ question, they begin to

pay close attention to her because PCTs have interest in this topic. PCTs’ actions reflect their

interest (first tenet of SI). As the Student Affairs students answer Dolores’ question, PCTs direct

their careful attention to their Student Affairs colleagues, likely because they have interest in the

responses. The class is beginning to show collective, group interest based on their body language

(second tenet of SI). An ensuing conversation about undergraduates, and PCTs’ body language

throughout, shows sustained interest in Dolores’ question and the Student Affairs students’

answers. This creates, for PCTs, a general atmosphere of a class keenly focused on the nature of

undergraduate students. This atmosphere started with a simple question, but expanded as PCTs

interacted (third tenet of SI).

A third session, this one focusing on classroom assessment techniques (September 22), a

student from the humanities volunteers to answer Dr. Brown’s question, “What goal did you

choose and how would you assess for it?” This question comes at the conclusion of an activity

where PCTs create a learning goal and an assessment strategy for that goal. During the

humanities student’s answer, much of the class sits silently, looking at her and appearing to listen

carefully. However, in this same example, some students appear preoccupied, still writing out

their learning goals and assessment strategies. Here, PCTs finished with the activity can pay

attention to their peer, and do so. They show interest in participating in the activity they

themselves just completed and want to engage (first tenet of SI). Conversely, PCTs still writing

choose not to pay attention to the student answering Dr. Brown’s question and instead focus on

102

their own work. Completing their individual work takes priority over engaging in the activity

about the work. For them, this is not time to outwardly engage with the rest of class (first tenet of

SI).

PCTs’ peer interactions through extended dialogues. Extended dialogues often occur

in part two of TEAC 530. However, the nature of these dialogues varies. The vast majority

feature extended interactions between PCTs and Dr. Brown; Section Three will highlight PCT

and instructor interactions in dialogues. What follows will illustrate one of the rare occasions in

which PCTs have opportunities to dialogue purely with each other.

During the second part of a session in early February, the same type of session featuring

PCT introductions during its transitional period, PCTs engage in direct dialogue with each other.

Dr. Brown tasks PCTs with discussing the strengths and weaknesses of teaching philosophy

statements. Since this session features several PCTs representing the same academic program,

Dr. Brown assigns them into two groups, breaking apart students from the same program to

allow them to engage with peers from other programs and disciplines. Next, Dr. Brown provides

PCTs instructions for analyzing the different philosophy statements, and then leaves the

classroom temporarily to get an additional bottle of water requested by a student. After he leaves

the room, PCTs, after some deliberation, decide to mix the two separate groups into one large

group. PCTs detect the possibility of working as one group and begin discussing this possibility

collectively (first tenet of SI). Through continuous interactions and discussion, they decide

completing this activity can and should be done together as one group (second tenet of SI). The

possibility and outcome of PCTs forming their large group arises in reaction to Dr. Brown’s

absence. Therefore, on some level, PCTs understand Dr. Brown’s role as the manager and

authority figure of TEAC 530 such that when he is in the classroom and giving instructions,

PCTs will follow them. However, with Dr. Brown absent and not there to enforce his

instructions, PCTs can fill the vacuum of power in the class themselves by taking control of their

educational experience. To PCTs, Dr. Brown’s role as manager of TEAC 530 is more prevalent

when he is physically in the classroom space versus when he is absent; when absent, PCTs

perceptions of his role shift, enabling them to take more autonomous group action (fourth tenet

of SI).

As one group, PCTs begin working on this activity collaboratively and respectfully,

exchanging perspectives and engaging in direct dialogues. This behavior shows that, over a short

103

period of time, PCTs’ conception of how to complete this activity evolves from possibly doing

so in two separate groups to doing so together as one collaborative group (third tenet of SI).

When Dr. Brown returns, he sees PCTs working as one group and listens as they complete the

activity. Eventually, he joins in on the dialogue after the group has a lull in their conversation.

Thus, instead of reasserting his role as the manager of TEAC 530 upon discovering that PCTs

subverted his instructions, Dr. Brown decides to allow PCTs to work through the activity, only

commenting when the conversation naturally subsides. By changing his role in the seminar in

this moment from manager to passive facilitator, PCTs can continue in their interactions. In other

words, how Dr. Brown implements his role in TEAC 530 shapes the nature of PCTs’ interactions

(fourth tenet of SI). Overall, this example of an extended dialogue showcased PCTs purely

working together. This is a rare form of extended dialogue in TEAC 530, one that materialized

due to the convergence of the following factors: Dr. Brown leaving class, PCTs filling the

vacuum of power in the class and co-constructing their own collective educational experience,

and Dr. Brown deciding not to interfere with PCTs acting as a single group upon his return.

Analysis of PCTs’ peer interactions in part two of TEAC 530. Considering the data on

PCTs’ body language and dialogues in part two of TEAC 530, how do these peer-to-peer

interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in this part of the seminar? Regarding body language, in

Vignette 4, roughly half of PCTs visibly pay attention to Julie as she presents her scenario while

the other half of the class are visibly less attentive. In a different session, PCTs show universal

interest in a question Dolores asks to the Student Affairs students about working with

undergraduates; PCTs show a similar high-level of interest in the Student Affairs students’

answers. Comparing these two sessions, Dolores’ question and the Student Affairs students’

answers about undergraduates likely garnered more attention because of the topic’s wider-

ranging appeal to PCTs relative to Julie’s scenario. Thus, PCTs’ interactions in response to both

Dolores’ question and the subsequent answers generated a common social experience of

engagement around the topic of undergraduate students. This comprehensive attentiveness

contributes to a classroom setting where mutual learning takes place. PCTs’ collective body

language suggests a desire to listen, deference to the perspectives they are about to hear, and a

willingness to learn from these perspectives. Implicitly, the body language of the class sends the

message that, as a whole, they are engaged together in a community of learning. When Julie

presents her case in Vignette 4, PCTs’ interactions in response generated a common social

104

experience of ambivalence in terms of engagement with her case. Based on PCTs’ interactions

and social behaviors in these two cases, PCTs’ show greater engagement towards topics that are

of broad relevance to their present or future circumstances. Since all PCTs currently, or will soon

work with undergraduates, learning more about this student group is most relevant to them. The

scenario Julie presents, though relevant to any collegiate instructor, is not as universally salient

to PCTs.

In the session where the humanities student answers Dr. Brown’s question, the body

language of PCTs in class varies. Some are looking at the student as they speak, and others are

not. Those PCTs not showing attentive body language are still individually completing the

activity from which Dr. Brown’s question derives. Thus, when given the choice of completing

their individual work or showing attention to their peer, PCTs choose the former. Overall, this

generates a disjointed social experience, with half of the class engaged in the discussion

following the activity, and the other half still working on the activity. An important consideration

when analyzing PCTs’ body language in this session is the time structure of TEAC 530. As

shown throughout this chapter, the seminars are relatively short and contain a robust combination

of content and activities. Therefore, Dr. Brown must create an efficiently run seminar that wastes

no time. A side-effect of this efficiency is that class activities sometimes run into each other and

overlap, creating examples like the one above. The students finishing their work needed more

time to do so. However, because time is short in TEAC 530, Dr. Brown moves the class forward

by asking a question to students and receiving a response. PCTs who can show their attention to

their peer do so, but those who cannot, do not. In moving the class forward to be time efficient,

Dr. Brown is acting rationally, conforming to the 60-minute boundary of the seminar. He is also

asserting his role as the manager of TEAC 530 and shaping the nature of PCTs’ interactions. By

moving forward with questions about the activity before all PCTs finish the activity, Dr. Brown

facilitates conditions in which PCTs’ interactions will be inconsistent and disjointed (fourth tenet

of SI). Dr. Brown’s rational actions, which ultimately lead to fragmented PCT social interactions

in this session, trace back to the short time structure of TEAC 530. His actions also corroborate

the notion that he generally maintains control of part two of this seminar, even though PCTs

have relatively more opportunities to interact in this part compared to part one and the

transitional periods.

105

Overall, the above analysis of PCTs’ interactions using body language in part two of

TEAC 530 and how that shapes their experience of this part of the seminar shows that, when

PCTs interact with each other using body language, they show embodied attentiveness towards

peers when peers discuss topics broadly relevant to their present or future work in the academy.

Peer-to-peer interactions containing such embodied attentiveness creates a common social

experience of mutual learning where PCTs listen to, defer to, and learn from colleagues in the

second part of the seminar. These types of interactions occurred with Dolores’ question to her

Student Affairs’ peers and the answers that followed. The case of Julie’s scenario showed that, if

PCTs show less embodied interest in a topic presented by peers, it is less obvious there is a

common social experience of mutual learning. This is also true when PCTs have fewer

opportunities to interact due to preoccupation with other tasks, as shown in the session where

some PCTs are still working on an activity while Dr. Brown engages students finished with the

activity with questions about it.

In the case of PCTs engaging in pure dialogue together, they do so after Dr. Brown leaves

the room, suggesting that PCTs perceive Dr. Brown’s role as manager of TEAC 530 less

explicitly when he is not physically present in class. PCTs overtaking this activity shows they see

themselves as able to complete the activity with maximum autonomy and little to no facilitation

from Dr. Brown; ultimately, this proves to be true. PCTs displaying their autonomy over this

activity suggests a high degree of investment in their own learning and interest in the

perspectives of their peers. The direct extended dialogue constructed and implemented by PCTs

in this session illustrated creation of a common social experience of making meaning of complex

issues about collegiate teaching. However, it is important to note this dialogue came about due to

a series of somewhat random events not repeated in any other TEAC 530 session. As such, pure

PCT dialogues are rare. In sum, the above analysis of PCTs’ extended dialogue in part two of

TEAC 530, and how this dialogue shapes PCTs’ experiences in this part of the seminar, shows

the dialogue results in the creation of a PCT community of learning about college teaching. PCTs

have autonomy over this dialogue and thus a direct and unadulterated line to peers’ knowledge

on topics. Engaging in an autonomous dialogue suggests PCTs can, and want to, learn from each

other; directing their own dialogue shows they have a clear and unambiguous interest in their

own learning.

106

Conclusion: PCTs’ peer interactions in part two of TEAC 530. This subsection

describes and analyzes peer-to-peer interactions in the second part of TEAC 530 sessions,

emphasizing PCTs’ body language and extended dialogues with each other. Regarding body

language interactions, PCTs show attentive body language to peers when peers discuss topics

which are clearly relevant to their professional interests. This embodied attentiveness contributes

to creation of a common social experience of learning together as a community. Topics less

obviously salient to PCTs’ professional interests receive less attentive body language.

Additionally, when PCTs need to choose between showing attentive body language to peers, or

finishing individual work, PCTs choose the latter. Overall, PCTs’ attentive body language

toward each other, and the subsequent social experience of learning that follows in part two of

the seminar, only plainly occurs when PCTs are not preoccupied by other tasks and discuss

topics broadly relevant to their present or future professional circumstances. In terms of extended

dialogues, when PCTs engage in co-constructed dialogues independent of Dr. Brown, they

generate a common social experience of learning about college teaching in part two of TEAC

530. However, these dialogues are rare, as the example cited above shows that a myriad of

events (i.e., Dr. Brown leaving class, PCTs deciding on their own to work together as one group,

and Dr. Brown deciding not to interfere with PCTs acting as a single group upon his return)

needed to take place to create the conditions necessary for the dialogue. Nevertheless, in this

type of dialogue PCTs have direct contact with peers, and PCTs’ interest in their peers’

perspectives, as well as investment in their own learning, is evident.

Overall, PCTs’ peer interactions in part two of TEAC 530, with regard to their body

language and extended dialogues, shape their experiences of this part such that when they engage

in attentive body language and extended dialogues, they experience group learning about

collegiate instruction.

Summary: Section Two

Section two of this chapter contained three subsections: one examining PCT peer-to-peer

interactions in part one of TEAC 530, one examining these interactions in the transitional periods

of the seminar, and one examining these interactions in part two of the seminar. Each subsection

described and analyzed how PCTs’ peer interactions shaped their experiences in one of the three

parts of TEAC 530. To summarize, in part one of TEAC 530, PCTs engaged in limited

interactions with each other due to the prominence of lecture and PowerPoint as instructional

107

methods from Dr. Brown. Most interactions consisted of PCTs watching their peers take notes

and listening to lectures, which ultimately led to PCTs conforming to, and replicating, this

behavior. Though these types of interactions were pervasive, there were TEAC 530 sessions

which served as exceptions. Sessions focused on modeling small group discussion techniques

and sessions in which PCTs shared their projects and discussed sessions outside of TEAC 530

enabled PCTs to interact more. Greater frequency of interactions, coupled with fewer

instructional constraints in these sessions, lent PCTs more autonomy in guiding activities and

conversations, which they often steered towards getting to know their peers better and discussing

graduate student life. Nevertheless, the prevalent instructional methods of lecture and

PowerPoint in part one of TEAC 530 lessened the number of peer interactions. Fewer

interactions shaped PCTs’ experience of this part of the seminar such that, with only some

exceptions, they generally experienced it as stable, structured, predictable, educative, and

perhaps limiting in terms of autonomy towards preferred interactions.

Regarding the transitional periods of TEAC 530, how PCTs’ peer interactions shaped

their experiences of these periods of the seminar varied. The nature of PCTs’ peer interactions in

transitional periods often differed with every session. Vignette 3 highlighted how PCTs partook

in relatively open and unstructured interactions, which granted them some autonomy over the

seminar session and led them to socialize over food. However, transitional periods featuring

formal introductions were highly structured, creating rigid and scripted interactions and thus not

providing PCTs with much control in shaping these sessions. Moreover, a transitional period

from a session about CATs/teaching goals, first described in Section One, showcased few

interactions between PCTs, as Dr. Brown consistently maintained PCTs’ focus by passing out

teaching goals packets and engaging them in a short lesson about Bloom’s Taxonomy. The

varied nature of transitional periods makes it difficult to identify a consistent pattern of how

PCTs’ peer interactions shaped their experiences of them; transitional periods are dynamic and

less predictable than the first or second parts of the seminar. Yet, as with parts one and two of the

seminar, transitional periods consistently featured Dr. Brown as the manager and main driver of

action in these periods. Therefore, though difficult to identify patterns regarding how PCTs’ peer

interactions shaped their experiences in transitional periods, Dr. Brown’s consistent managerial

role combined with the limited time in these periods (i.e., between 5 and 10 minutes) ensured

PCTs’ peer interactions in them were short or carefully planned.

108

Finally, regarding PCTs’ peer interactions in part two of TEAC 530, when they engaged

in specific types of interactions, they experienced learning about collegiate instruction together

as a group. For example, in examining PCTs’ body language, it was clear that attentive body

language towards peers fostered a social experience of learning together. Such attentiveness

materialized when PCT peers discussed topics that were clearly relevant to their own

professional interests and when peers had enough time to engage each other with their body

language. Less attentive body language among PCTs towards their peers occurred when peers

discussed topics less obviously relevant to their collective professional interests or when class

activities overlapped due to time limitations. In examining extended dialogues, it was clear the

PCT co-constructed dialogue led to PCTs experiencing learning from each other. This dialogue,

in which PCTs interacted with each other directly, unambiguously showcased PCTs’ interest in

their own learning about college teaching and their interest in peers’ perspectives. Overall, this

dialogue led to PCTs engaging in a common social experience of learning about collegiate

instruction.

When taking PCTs’ peer interactions in all three parts of TEAC 530 together, some

notable patterns emerge. First, when PCTs have opportunities to interact with each other with

little restraint, they will steer classroom conversations towards topics salient to their needs and

interests. Second, PCTs most clearly connect with peers, and seemingly with their own learning,

when engaging in topics both professionally and personally relevant to them. Third, there is a

noticeable degree of tension between PCTs and Dr. Brown regarding how Dr. Brown regulates

and facilitates PCTs’ interactions. Lastly, extended dialogues in which peers interact directly,

facilitate the creation of a community of learners. Further discussion of these patterns will take

place in Chapter Six.

Section Three: How do Interactions Between PCTs and the Instructor Shape PCTs’

Experiences in TEAC 530?

This section addresses the above research question in the three different parts of TEAC

530; subsections facilitate the organization of this section. At its conclusion, there is a summary

109

of the three subsections, containing a comprehensive answer to the research question guiding this

section.

PCT and Instructor Interactions in Part One of TEAC 530

A common type of interaction in the first part of TEAC 530 are PCTs’ questions to Dr.

Brown, and Dr. Brown’s responses. Returning to Vignette 2, the first question Dr. Brown fields

is from a student asking about the possibility of a three-strike classroom attendance policy. Dr.

Brown answers the student’s question, providing examples for how a three-strike policy could

possibly work, and then continues his lecture about classroom attendance. In this example, Dr.

Brown double-checks with the inquiring student to make sure he completely addresses their

question. This exchange shows the student is comfortable asking a question during Dr. Brown’s

lecture, and Dr. Brown is comfortable answering it. Said differently, the student asks the

question, and Dr. Brown answers it, because both social actors perceive their respective actions

to be appropriate in this moment in time during the seminar (first tenet of SI). However,

consistent with the pervasive patterns of lecture and PowerPoint in part one of TEAC 530, Dr.

Brown returns to his lecture after answering the question. Other seminar sessions highlight

similar short question and answer exchanges. For example, in a separate session on classroom

policies for collegiate syllabi (in mid-November, 2015), a student asks Dr. Brown his opinion

about undergraduate students’ parents signing syllabi. After the student asks the question, Dr.

Brown replies, “In college?” The student clarifies: “Yeah.” Dr. Brown proceeds to share his

opinion as the rest of the class stays quiet. Soon thereafter, Dr. Brown resumes his lecture. Like

the exchange in Vignette 2, a student asks a question and Dr. Brown responds. Then, he returns

to his lecture.

The pattern of PCTs asking questions, Dr. Brown responding, and then returning to

lecture, though pervasive, sometimes deviates. Returning to events in Vignette 2, a few moments

after Dr. Brown answers a student’s question about a three-strike classroom attendance policy,

Geoffrey asks Dr. Brown a question about policies to address outright student disrespect. In

response, Dr. Brown talks out loud about the idea and helps Geoffrey think through possibilities

before returning to a general conversation about syllabus policies. Geoffrey’s question leads to a

short dialogue between himself and Dr. Brown. Nobody besides Geoffrey and Dr. Brown speak

during this dialogue. Overall, this exchange deviates from the typical pattern of a student asking

a question, Dr. Brown responding, and then immediately returning to lecture. The exchange

110

shows that both PCTs and the instructor view part one of TEAC 530 as a time in which questions

and answers can go beyond the common, transactional pattern of ask, answer, and return to

lecture. In other words, as PCTs ask questions and Dr. Brown responds, both parties show they

are comfortable expanding beyond the established transactional pattern. In other words, the

continuous interactions between the social actors solidifies their perceptions that question-answer

exchanges in part one of TEAC 530 can go beyond the transactional (second tenet of SI).It is

possible Dr. Brown’s perceptions of question-answer exchanges were already more liberal

considering his willingness to always diligently check, and double check, if answers to his

questions from PCTs were sufficient.

Questions from Dr. Brown. Scenarios in which Dr. Brown asks PCTs questions, and

then PCTs respond, are another, albeit less frequent, type of interaction between these actors in

part one of TEAC 530. Such an interaction is on display in Vignette 2 (and highlighted in the

previous paragraph). After Geoffrey asks Dr. Brown his question about policies for disrespectful

students, Dr. Brown thinks out loud about this, and he and Geoffrey engage in a short dialogue.

Ultimately, however, Dr. Brown states he does not know of any such policies. He then invites the

class to share their knowledge, asking, “Any of you know differently?” There is silence for

several seconds, signaling that PCTs have nothing to add. After wading in the silence for some

time, Dr. Brown continues the conversation about syllabi policies. In sum, Dr. Brown’s question

comes directly after his conversation with Geoffrey. Dr. Brown asks this question to welcome

PCTs into the conversation and gauge their perspectives. He utilizes his role as manager of part

one of TEAC 530 in asking this question. In other words, by asking this question he continues to

steer the direction of the class, though showing his openness to PCTs’ participation while doing

so. PCTs do not reply, likely because they do not know of any relevant policies. They choose

silence to represent their unfamiliarity (first tenet of SI).. They then stay silent, waiting for Dr.

Brown to retake the mantle of the class and continue the lecture. Waiting in silence and not

imposing some degree of control over the class suggests PCTs understand Dr. Brown’s

prominent role in part one of TEAC 530 well. PCTs expect him to continue with his lecture and

want to create a path for him to do so (fourth tenet of SI). This further corroborates the general

pattern of a more active instructor and passive students pervasive throughout the first part of the

seminar.

111

Another example of Dr. Brown asking PCTs questions, and then PCTs responding, takes

place in a different session, one about classroom assessment techniques in September 2015. In it,

Dr. Brown asks PCTs about taxonomies of learning. After showing students two different visual

layouts of the same taxonomy, he asks, “Do you like the hierarchy or the wheel more?” Dolores

responds, “The wheel. It tells me more.” Her comment sparks a conversation between Dr. Brown

and three other students about the possible uses of taxonomies in their respective academic

fields. The conversation lasts for roughly 2 minutes, and, out of the entire class of 15, three PCTs

participate. As the conversation naturally dies down, Dr. Brown returns to his lecture. In the

previous example in which Dr. Brown asks a question to PCTs, it is clear his question is

spontaneous; he wanted to know if PCTs knew anything about a specific type of policy. In this

current case, Dr. Brown prefaces and plans to ask PCTs about taxonomy formats. As a result of

Dr. Brown prefacing his question, PCTs learn more about the topic ahead of time and are more

likely to answer. Ultimately, Dolores answers his question, showing she wants to engage in Dr.

Brown’s question and has an answer (first tenet of SI). This leads to a short dialogue about

taxonomies between Dr. Brown and three other students. Dolores’ answer and the subsequent

dialogue signal to PCTs that there will be a temporary break from the lecture led by Dr. Brown

and, in lieu of it, a class conversation. Dr. Brown’s question, Dolores’ answer, and the ensuing

dialogue on this topic shows how these social actors, through their interactions, change the short-

term nature of the class from lecture-based to discussion-based (third tenet of SI). The remaining

silent majority of the class observes and listens to this conversation. Similar to the previous

example in which Dr. Brown asks a question to PCTs, after the conversation on the topic of

taxonomies ends, PCTs wait for him to retake the mantle of the class and continue lecturing.

Given Dr. Brown’s consistent role as manager of part one of TEAC 530, PCTs expect him to

resume leading the class and quietly wait for him to do so. PCTs’ perception of Dr. Brown’s role

as the consistent manager in part one of TEAC 530 yields their silence (fourth tenet of SI).

Analysis of questions and answers. Aside from Dr. Brown or PCTs asking and

answering questions, these actors share few other notable social interactions in part one of TEAC

530. Considering the nature of this part of the seminar, fewer social interactions between Dr.

Brown and PCTs makes sense. The first part of TEAC 530 generally operates as such: Dr.

Brown lectures, manages the class, and drives the content. This creates a transactional

relationship between Dr. Brown and PCTs such that Dr. Brown provides information and PCTs

112

take notes. Thus, there is an established social relationship between a more active instructor and

passive students. How this part of the seminar operates naturally impacts the interactions PCTs

and Dr. Brown share in it. For example, when PCTs ask Dr. Brown a question, the general

sequence of events that follows are Dr. Brown provides an answer to the question, and then

returns to lecturing. Sometimes, Dr. Brown double-checks with PCTs to make sure he answers

their questions completely. This aligns with the transactional nature of part one of TEAC 530:

one social actor provides another social actor with something, and then both parties proceed to

the next transaction. Occasionally, as highlighted in the example with Geoffrey’s question about

policies to address outright student disrespect, the question and answer interaction between Dr.

Brown and PCTs goes beyond the typical transactional format and evolves into a short, one-on-

one dialogue. However, such occasions seldom occur and a common social experience of

transactional interactions abounds.

The manner in which the first part of TEAC 530 usually operates influences the

interactions stemming from Dr. Brown asking PCTs questions. Specifically, PCTs’ perception of

Dr. Brown’s role as manager of part one of the seminar shapes instructor-student interactions. In

both cases described above, Dr. Brown’s spontaneous question to PCTs about syllabus policies

and his planned question about learning taxonomies, PCTs ultimately yield to Dr. Brown to

guide the class. With the first case, they remain silent after not answering his spontaneous

question and in the second case, PCTs become silent after the short conversation regarding the

use of learning taxonomies. At no point do PCTs fill the void of silence with socializing or any

other activity. They are yielding to Dr. Brown’s authority to continue his lecture. Overall, due to

the pervasive structure of part one of TEAC 530, PCTs expect Dr. Brown will continue his

lecture and continue carrying out his role as manager of this part of the seminar. Thus, PCTs will

wait for him quietly after periods of inaction to allow him to retake control of the class.

Concerning how PCTs’ questions to Dr. Brown shape PCTs’ experiences in part one of

TEAC 530, PCTs, when asking Dr. Brown their questions, usually receive answers in an orderly

and efficient manner. Dr. Brown’s responses always answer the question, and sometimes he will

double-check with the inquiring student to make sure he completely addresses their question.

Nevertheless, PCTs experience this type of interaction as transactional: they ask, he answers, he

continues lecturing. Occasionally certain questions require longer responses, leading to a brief

dialogue between an inquiring student and Dr. Brown. However, this is rare. Regarding how Dr.

113

Brown’s questions to PCTs shape their experiences in part one of TEAC 530, PCTs experience

his questions as either spontaneous or premeditated and prefaced. The former can catch PCTs off

guard, leading to silence because PCTs do not know the answer. The latter of these creates

opportunities for PCTs and Dr. Brown to engage in short dialogues about a given topic. Taking

both types of interactions together (i.e., PCTs’ questions to Dr. Brown; Dr. Brown’s questions to

PCTs) and how they both shape PCTs’ experiences in part one of the seminar, data and analysis

suggest PCTs experience them as opportunities to quickly ask questions, clarify ideas, respond to

Dr. Brown’s queries when possible, and sometimes engage in short dialogue around his

questions. However, PCTs experience these interactions briefly and under the careful

management of Dr. Brown. PCTs understand and conform to his management. They consistently

observe Dr. Brown continue his lecturing after he answers their questions. Furthermore, after Dr.

Brown asks PCTs questions, regardless of whether PCTs respond or not, PCTs consistently wait

for Dr. Brown to resume control of the class. Overall, the question-answer interactions

highlighted throughout reinforce how PCTs typically experience part one of TEAC 530, as

transactional and efficient.

PCT and Instructor Interactions in the Transitional Periods of TEAC 530

Interactions between Dr. Brown and PCTs during the transitional periods between part

one of TEAC 530 and part two fall into two categories: (a) Dr. Brown inviting PCTs to do

something, and PCTs’ reactions, and (b) Dr. Brown providing PCTs instructions and PCTs’

reactions.

The first category of interactions in transitional periods are Dr. Brown inviting PCTs to

do something and PCTs responding. As highlighted throughout this chapter, every second TEAC

530 session of a given semester contains formal student introductions. Also established

throughout this chapter is the assertion that transitional periods containing introductions are,

compared to other transitional periods, uneventful and slow. In one such transitional period in

early September, 2015, Dr. Brown invites PCTs to get food after completion of the introduction

activity. There is a delay in with the food delivery in this specific session, meaning Dr. Brown’s

invitation constitutes PCTs’ first opportunity to eat in this session. Most PCTs take Dr. Brown up

on his offer, quietly getting up from their seats, walking to the food table, and helping

themselves to food. Overall, Dr. Brown extends his invitation to the class to get food once he

reaches an appropriate stopping point in the class to do so. PCTs show their interpretation of his

114

invitation through their body language, getting up and helping themselves to food. PCTs are

getting food because Dr. Brown, through his invitation, makes this social behavior acceptable

(first tenet of SI).

As additional PCTs help themselves to food, there is reinforcement of the social message

that now is an appropriate time to eat, leading to a majority of the class getting up from their

seats to get food. PCTs observing their colleagues get food signals that doing so acceptably fits

within the social parameters of this moment in class. As such, more PCTs follow the lead of their

colleagues (second tenet of SI). Overall, the social dynamic in class evolves from work to

leisure, with Dr. Brown’s invitation causing PCTs to, one-by-one, get up and help themselves to

food (third tenet of SI). Regarding Dr. Brown’s invitation, since consumption of food in the

seminar is voluntary, his statement to PCTs is truly an invitation, not an obligatory request.

However, considering his well-established role in the eyes of PCTs as the manager of TEAC

530, and thus manager of transitional periods, his invitation to PCTs after completion of the

introduction activity is likely necessary for PCTs to comfortably and without hesitation help

themselves to food. In a sense, Dr. Brown provides PCTs permission to help themselves to food.

In this case, his invitation influences PCTs’ behavior and interactions (fourth tenet of SI). The

above analysis and social dynamics also apply to the relatively eventful transitional period in

Vignette 3. In it, Dr. Brown invites PCTs to get second helpings of food just as soon as he

finishes his lecture (i.e., “…I bet there's still more food to eat if you need to eat more food.”).

Again, PCTs comply through their bodily actions, getting up from their seats and serving

themselves food.

Since a key aspect of the transitional periods is to segue PCTs from the first part of

TEAC 530 to the second part, Dr. Brown commonly provides PCTs with instructions to help

prepare them for what lies ahead. In a relatively uneventful transitional period from a session

about CATs in mid-March, 2016, Dr. Brown provides PCTs with packets connecting to an

activity later in the class. His instructions to PCTs are simply to read the packets quietly. PCTs

follow his instructions and do so while eating. Dr. Brown also provides instructions to PCTs as

they read packets in the more eventful transitional period in Vignette 3. Specifically, after

passing the packets out, he states, “As you read these and think about whether you would put this

or something just like this on your own syllabus, think about how students would react.” A few

moments after Dr. Brown states these instructions, the class makes a few jokes about food,

115

leading to a general atmosphere of PCTs socializing. However, one student not partaking in this

socializing looks up at Dr. Brown quizzically. She asks him, “Dr. Brown, for each of these, we're

saying…we're answering them as questions…?” He replies, “Yeah. Are you allowed to put that

on your syllabus? Is it a fair thing?” The student says, “Ok,” and lowers her head back to the

packet. During this exchange between Dr. Brown and the student, the class gradually gets quiet

and begins to read their packets.

Overall, in the session featuring CATs, Dr. Brown provides PCTs simple instructions to

read their packets and they comply through the action of reading quietly. PCTs follow Dr.

Brown’s instructions out of deference to his authority over the class, and also likely due to their

own personal interest in the activity (first tenet of SI; fourth tenet of SI). The session depicted in

Vignette 3 shows Dr. Brown providing PCTs more detailed instructions. After providing these

instructions, PCTs briefly joke amongst themselves about food, and the joking soon segues into

socializing. Thus, PCTs initially interpret this time in class as an opportunity to be social with

each other, even though Dr. Brown provides them instructions for a task he presumably wants

them to start right away. PCTs, at first, are more responsive to the prospect of socializing than

Dr. Brown’s instructions (first tenet of SI). However, PCTs’ interpretation of this time in class

begins to change, starting when the student asks Dr. Brown for clarification of his instructions.

When he answers her questions about the instructions, his voice is loud enough for other PCTs to

hear; this is when the class begins to get quieter. Also, as described in the Section Two

subsection about transitional periods, as Dr. Brown addresses this student’s question about his

instructions, he starts walking towards the rectangular table where PCTs sit. The closer Dr.

Brown gets to the table, the quieter PCTs become, eventually falling silent and appearing to start

their work once he finally arrives. In sum, after PCTs’ socializing, their interpretation of this part

of the transitional period in this session morphs into a more serious disposition, starting with

when a student asks for clarification of instructions and switching into complete seriousness once

Dr. Brown is standing near the table. Through these interactions, the nature of the session

evolves for PCTs (second tenet of SI; third tenet of SI). As argued in the Section Two subsection

about transitional periods (and here), Dr. Brown’s established role as the manager of TEAC 530

explains PCTs’ reaction to his presence. PCTs show him deference, and change their

interactions, due to their perception of his authority (fourth tenet of SI).

116

Analysis of PCT and instructor interactions in transitional periods. Regarding Dr.

Brown inviting PCTs to do something, and PCTs’ reactions, both the transitional period

featuring the introductions activity and from Vignette 3 show Dr. Brown inviting PCTs to get

food, and PCTs responding with their body language. A common thread between the two

examples is PCTs only get food during the transitional periods when Dr. Brown provides an

invitation. His invitations turn the action of getting food into a socially acceptable behavior for

PCTs. The invitations essentially serve as permission for PCTs to get up from their seats for the

act of getting food. Dr. Brown’s role as the manager of TEAC 530, something embedded within

the general social consciousness of PCTs, means that for PCTs to help themselves to food

comfortably and without hesitation, they need Dr. Brown’s permission first. Dr. Brown’s

invitations, or permission, to PCTs to get food provides PCTs with the option to pursue this

action in class. Without Dr. Brown’s permission, PCTs may be more reluctant to get food. This

is indicative of a larger dynamic between PCTs and Dr. Brown, where PCTs, as the students in

this relationship, rely on the instructor to create the space for them to act.

In addition to invitations, Dr. Brown also commonly provides PCTs instructions in the

transitional periods of TEAC 530. The example from the session featuring CATs shows Dr.

Brown giving instructions to PCTs and PCTs following them. In Vignette 3, however, after Dr.

Brown gives PCTs relatively extensive instructions about reading a packet, PCTs do not initially

comply. Instead, they socialize with each other and exchange jokes. PCTs engage in this

behavior because they have the opportunity to do so, corroborating the notion that transitional

periods in TEAC 530 enable them to interact more than in the first part of the seminar.

Furthermore, PCTs’ socializing shows that the prospect of doing so at this point in the session is

more appealing than immediately following Dr. Brown’s instructions, even though socializing

carries the social risk of noncompliance with the instructor. It is possible that PCTs simply

having the opportunity to socialize is enough of an incentive to engage in this behavior because

such an opportunity does not occur regularly in transitional periods, or at any other points, either

in TEAC 530 or in their daily lives as graduate students. Eventually, PCTs yield to the social

pressure to cease socializing and begin working. This process starts with the clarifying question

regarding Dr. Brown’s instructions asked by a PCT peer. The sound of Dr. Brown’s voice

addressing the question corresponds with less socializing amongst PCTs in class. PCTs’

socializing diminishes further the more Dr. Brown vocally clarifies his instructions and the closer

117

Dr. Brown walks to the rectangular table. Once Dr. Brown reaches the table, PCTs are silent and

appear to be working and following his instructions. This series of interactions showcases PCTs’

perception of Dr. Brown’s authoritative and managerial role in the transitional periods of TEAC

530. In sum, PCTs in the transitional periods of the seminar follow Dr. Brown’s instructions,

even though they sometimes temporarily subvert them in favor of socializing.

Overall, Dr. Brown is the actor who initiates interactions between himself and PCTs in

the transitional periods of TEAC 530. He is the one who invites, provides permission, and

provides instructions. This makes him the main driver of action in these interactions. Ultimately,

PCTs take up Dr. Brown on his invitations for food, or rather, receive and take his permission to

help themselves to food. PCTs also comply with Dr. Brown’s instructions, even if slowly. The

interactions initiated by Dr. Brown keep the class under control. They also show Dr. Brown as

the authority figure in this part of the seminar, and students regard him as such. Though PCTs

have more opportunities for interactions, in general, during the transitional periods compared to

part one of the seminar, Dr. Brown is still at the forefront of managing the class. Regarding Dr.

Brown’s invitations, or permissions, to PCTs, and PCTs’ responses to them, these specific

interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in the transitional periods of TEAC 530 such that they

reinforce in PCTs that they are the passive students and Dr. Brown the active instructor. In

particular, Dr. Brown dictates when students will engage in a task, and students comply. Since

transitional periods are short, these types of interactions are necessary to maintain an efficient

seminar, one that will fit within the 60-minute time frame. Interactions featuring Dr. Brown’s

instructions to PCTs, and PCTs’ responses, shape PCTs’ experiences in the transitional periods

of the seminar similarly to interactions stemming from Dr. Brown’s invitations. PCTs comply

with Dr. Brown’s instructions, creating a general social experience of student adherence to the

instructor’s wishes.

As highlighted in Section Two of this chapter, how PCTs’ interactions with each other

shaped their experiences of transitional periods varied due to the relatively unpredictable nature

of these periods compared to the first and second parts of TEAC 530. However, regarding the

PCTs’ interactions with the instructor, the unpredictability of the transitional periods did not

influence the nature of these interactions. Consistently, these interactions generated a common

social experience of student adherence to the instructor’s wishes, regardless of the eventfulness

of a transitional period. However, the eventfulness of a transitional period did influence the

118

volume of interactions between PCTs and the instructor. Namely, more eventful periods yielded

more interactions between the two groups. Considering the managerial role Dr. Brown plays in

transitional periods, it is necessary for him to interact more with PCTs, thereby corroborating the

more active instructor, less active student social relationship in these periods. This contrasts with

that of Section Two, which showed no relationship between the degree to which a transitional

period is busy, or relatively uneventful, and whether PCTs engage in greater or fewer

interactions with each other.

PCT and Instructor Interactions in Part Two of TEAC 530

Extended dialogues and humorous exchanges are key interactions between PCTs and Dr.

Brown in part two of TEAC 530. What follows are descriptions and analyses of these specific

interactions.

Extended dialogues between Dr. Brown and PCTs in part two of TEAC 530 typically

feature both parties engaging in a back-and-forth exchange of ideas and points. These dialogues

often contain facilitation of rich and dynamic conversations about various topics on collegiate

instruction by Dr. Brown. Vignette 4 provides an illustration of this kind of dialogue and

facilitation. In Vignette 4, Julie poses to her peers the question of how they would handle her

student, who was inappropriately expressing their frustrations in her class, if they were in Julie’s

position. Specifically, Julie solicits her peers’ ideas for addressing these behaviors preemptively

in the form of policy on a syllabus. The dialogue emanating from Julie’s question starts with Dr.

Brown, who provides his own suggestion before Julie’s peers respond. He states that instructors

and students in small or medium-sized classes can work together to create a mutually agreed

upon list of rules or guidelines for classroom etiquette. At the end of his suggestion, Dr. Brown

asks to hear students’ perspectives. By interjecting with his opinion first, Dr. Brown wields his

authority as manager of the seminar and lead facilitator of the upcoming dialogue. From his

initial comment, all other comments and accompanying interactions will follow (fourth tenet of

SI).

To Dr. Brown’s request, Serena speaks first, offering the idea that emphasizing desired

behaviors in a classroom on a syllabus will more likely yield such behaviors, rather than listing a

series of behaviors that students should not do. Dr. Brown verbally agrees with Serena, then, he

asks her what kinds of desired behaviors would she want students to exhibit. Serena replies with

a list, and Dr. Brown adds to her reply, stating it could be useful to verbally remind a class about

119

civility, especially if the topic at hand is controversial. This exchange between Dr. Brown and

Serena illustrates Serena’s willingness to respond and comply to Dr. Brown’s request for PCTs’

perspectives; Serena is the compliant student and Dr. Brown the authority-wielding instructor

(first tenet of SI). Next, Marie contributes the idea that it is helpful for instructors to remember

their students are human and can have days where they are not well, emotionally or otherwise.

Dr. Brown responds, saying Marie’s idea goes both ways: sometimes faculty members have

tough days too. In his exchanges with Serena and Marie, Dr. Brown firmly establishes, and thus

signals to PCTs, a pattern of consistently interjecting between PCTs’ points. His facilitation style

in this dialogue and thus the facilitation style for this session further solidifies the role of PCTs in

the seminar as distinct from that of Dr. Brown (second tenet of SI). Overall, in Vignette 4, Dr.

Brown inserts his perspectives alongside PCTs and facilitates a focused and meaningful

discussion. Specifically, he addresses Julie’s query to her peers, asks Serena to expand upon her

list of desired behaviors, and adds to Marie’s idea regarding how students may not always have

good days in class. Dr. Brown’s contributions reiterate his role as the manager of TEAC 530,

organizing and delegating this conversation, and thus shaping the nature of interactions in the

classroom (fourth tenet of SI).

Another example of an extended dialogue facilitated by Dr. Brown takes place in part

two of a TEAC 530 session in early February, 2016. The dialogue is about teaching philosophies,

the topic guiding this particular session. As the class finishes reading different examples of

philosophies, Dr. Brown asks PCTs their opinions about them. Several offer critiques of the

philosophies in response to Dr. Brown’s inquiry. Similar to Vignette 4, Dr. Brown requests

PCTs’ perspectives and PCTs comply with his requests. PCTs act towards Dr. Brown’s requests

in a manner suggesting they want to participate in this dialogue (first tenet of SI). This also

showcases a dynamic in which PCTs are reacting to the wishes of the instructor. In other words,

this dialogue begins by illustrating the typical instructor-student relationship, in which students

are responsive to the instructor running the class (fourth tenet of SI). As the dialogue continues,

Dr. Brown and PCTs go back and forth, each sharing their perspectives on philosophies.

Eventually, the dialogue tilts more towards Dr. Brown talking and providing his own analysis of

the philosophy statements. PCTs still engage in the dialogue and analyze the statements, but Dr.

Brown’s voice now dominates. In the extended dialogue in Vignette 4, the volume of

participation between Dr. Brown and PCTs remains relatively equal. The extended dialogue in

120

this session in February differs in that respect. Ultimately, this extended dialogue transforms

from one containing relatively equal participation to one in which Dr. Brown is more active than

PCTs. PCTs react accordingly by speaking less and listening to Dr. Brown more (third tenet of

SI). Though the Vignette 4 dialogue differs from the dialogue in the February session in terms of

equitable participation, a quality they both share is the reinforcement of Dr. Brown’s role as both

manager of TEAC 530 and experienced collegiate-level instructor, and how his role in this

capacity shapes interactions in part two of seminar sessions (fourth tenet of SI).

Dr. Brown, PCTs, and humorous exchanges. Part two of TEAC 530 sessions generally

contain application activities requiring both Dr. Brown and PCTs to engage with each other. This

mutual engagement, combined with the relative casualness of TEAC 530 as a whole, creates

conditions for humorous exchanges between Dr. Brown and PCTs in part two of the seminar. In

Vignette 4, during a whole-class discussion about syllabus policies, Serena responds to a prompt

by Dr. Brown and provides her perspective on how a collegiate instructor can create a civil

atmosphere in the classroom:

Asserting civility or respect as a classroom norm is important, and I think I have seen that

on many syllabi. But, I think it's more effective when it's asserting the type of behavior

that is rewarded or expected rather than, here's a list of things you shouldn't do. Like,

framing it in this is the execution, this is how I plan to treat you, and this is what I expect

from you as students, rather than, like, here's the list of don'ts, because then someone

could do something disrespectful that isn't on the list, and be like, well, it wasn't on the

list, like, doesn't matter.

Immediately after Serena finishes her thought, Dr. Brown jumps in and says, “It doesn't actually

say you can't raise your middle finger.” Everybody in class bursts into laughter in response. As

the laughter reaches its climax and begins to wane, Dr. Brown asks, “So, what would be the kind

of things that you would put as a positive? What do you want students to do instead of what do

you not want them [to do]?” It takes a few moments for the laughter to die down enough for

Serena to answer his question. Once the laughter completely subsides, she answers. Overall, this

humorous exchange starts seriously, with Dr. Brown asking Serena her opinion about the topic of

the seminar. Serena answers, providing her opinion. This part of the exchange aligns with how

dialogues between Dr. Brown and PCTs typically go: Dr. Brown actively facilitating the

conversation and PCTs responding. PCTs show their interest in engaging in dialogues with Dr.

121

Brown by virtue of their responses (first tenet of SI). Nevertheless, this exchange illuminates a

common social dynamic of this seminar: the instructor instructs, and students, as they are

supposed to, react to the instruction (fourth tenet of SI). After Serena responds to Dr. Brown, Dr.

Brown makes a joke and the entire class laughs for a few short moments. During those moments,

Dr. Brown immediately attempts to steer the class back to attention on the topic at hand by

asking Serena two follow up questions. She answers his questions after the laughter finishes.

PCTs’ laughter in response to Dr. Brown’s joke is a natural response; his joke is funny, therefore

PCTs laugh (first tenet of SI). Yet, Dr. Brown exerts his authority and refocuses the class as

quickly as possible through his questions to Serena. This prevents the class from laughing for too

long, losing focus, or taking control of the class. By exerting his authority, Dr. Brown shapes

PCTs’ behavior and interactions (fourth tenet of SI).

In part two of a different session from early-September 2015 about teaching philosophies,

PCTs and Dr. Brown engage in a whole-class conversation. To start, Dr. Brown asks PCTs,

regarding the sample philosophies they just read, “What do you want to talk about? What do you

like about the formatting?” A short conversation between Dr. Brown and a student ensues about

strategies for formatting. After their exchange, Dr. Brown asks a follow up question: “What do

you do to make your philosophy individualistic?” A student replies, “you can insert a picture of

your kitty.” The entire class laughs at this joke for a short period. When the laughter starts to die

down, Dr. Brown asks what else the class thinks, in addition to using a picture of one’s cat. In

response, the class is quiet. Dr. Brown fills the silence by suggesting PCTs use their individual

stories to make their philosophical statements more memorable. Overall, this case shares some

similarities with the example from Vignette 4. Like the example from Vignette 4, Dr. Brown is

facilitating the class conversation leading up to the joke. He asks PCTs questions to which they

respond. By responding, PCTs show their desire to engage in the conversation (first tenet of SI).

This case also illustrates the dynamic of an instructor who is in charge and students who react to

the instructor’s requests. Thus, Dr. Brown’s role as manager shapes PCTs’ behavior and

interactions (fourth tenet of SI). Another similarity to the example from Vignette 4 is, after the

joke, Dr. Brown attempts to retain control of the class by immediately asking PCTs a follow-up

question. PCTs do not answer this follow-up question and the class falls silent in response to it,

possibly because the joke distracts them. Thus, perhaps in an effort to get the class back on track,

Dr. Brown answers his own question to keep his facilitation of the class dialogue afloat.

122

A notable difference between the Vignette 4 case and the present one is a student, not Dr.

Brown, makes the joke in class. The student makes a joke as an answer to a serious question

from Dr. Brown. After the class laughs, Dr. Brown quickly asks questions in an attempt to

reassume control of the facilitated dialogue. Considering the relatively casual nature of TEAC

530, coupled with the higher degree of activity afforded to PCTs in part two of the seminar, this

student calculates that there will be minimal social consequences to making a quick joke. They

make the joke thinking the costs will be low (first tenet of SI). Ultimately this proves true, as the

student experiences no retribution from Dr. Brown. However, Dr. Brown’s response by working

to retain control of the class after the joke shows PCTs that, though it may be acceptable to make

a joke during class, it is important that class generally be serious and focused on the topic at

hand. Dr. Brown’s response ultimately resets the disposition of the class to a serious one. Though

the class becomes, at one point humorous as a result of social interactions (second tenet of SI), it

evolves into seriousness (third tenet of SI). Dr. Brown’s questions also stifle further

opportunities for humorous exchanges. Thus, by asking these questions in his role as manager,

he shapes PCTs’ interactions (fourth tenet of SI).

Analysis of extended dialogues and humorous exchanges. A key characteristic of part

two of TEAC 530 is that PCTs have more opportunities to be active, with both their peers and

Dr. Brown. However, Dr. Brown is still the primary actor in, and manager of, part two of the

seminar. This pattern presents itself in examples of extended dialogues between PCTs and Dr.

Brown. The first example is from Vignette 4, where Julie asks her peers a question regarding

how they would address inappropriate student behaviors through policies on a classroom

syllabus. Her question leads to an extended dialogue with both Dr. Brown and Julie’s peers,

Serena and Marie. Extended dialogues of this nature are typical in the second parts of TEAC

530. Dr. Brown asserts his managerial role as instructor and facilitates this dialogue by asking

Serena to expand on her points while injecting his own perspectives after Marie speaks. This

creates a focused and thoughtful dialogue. Though Serena and Marie are unable to reply to

Julie’s question directly, they express their thoughts on the topic, showing they have interest in

it. By sharing their thoughts with Julie and the class, the whole group hears different perspectives

on the issue. As a result of Julie’s question, and Dr. Brown-facilitated responses from Serena and

Marie, PCTs build knowledge about teaching together through dialogue. Dr. Brown’s facilitation

shows he is the central figure managing the dialogue, but PCTs also have space to discuss topics

123

as well. Therefore, both groups build a common social experience of making meaning of

complex issues about collegiate teaching.

Genevieve shares an experience corroborating this assertion. She recalls her learning as a

result of an extended dialogue facilitated by Dr. Brown in part two of a session about creating

policies for syllabi, the same type of session woven throughout Chapter Four. She states:

It was a scenario, if…[a student missed]…your exam [because]…their car broke down…

would you allow them to take your exam again? Or take it later? And there was a

conversation that stemmed from that. And, I just realized at that moment I knew where I

laid within that, where I could see being flexible and stuff like that. But hearing someone

saying, ‘Absolutely not, they could have done X, Y, and Z before,’ or, ‘Yes, we could

make arrangements’ and stuff like that…[made me recognize] everyone has their own

philosophy in teaching.

By listening to this dialogue, Genevieve receives different perspectives about approaches to this

scenario, and in the process, recognizes her own approach. In her recognition, she knows

something about her teaching she previously does not: she might be more lenient in matters of

missing classes. In sum, through this facilitated extended dialogue, PCTs share their diverse

perspectives and create a common social experience of learning about, and making meaning of,

collegiate classroom policies. Dr. Brown facilitates this extended dialogue, but PCTs can

nevertheless express their thoughts and opinions. As a result, Genevieve builds knowledge in the

form of learning more about herself as a collegiate instructor.

The case from the early February, 2016 session about teaching philosophies in which Dr.

Brown ultimately speaks more than PCTs during the facilitated dialogue, yields less

opportunities for PCTs to disseminate their diverse perspectives about teaching philosophies to

colleagues. Though PCTs likely learn from Dr. Brown in this session, fewer perspectives

injected by PCTs’ peers mean fewer chances for PCTs to reflect on these perspectives and

recognize their own possible approaches to instruction like Genevieve does. Naturally, Dr.

Brown speaking more in this case stems from his role as manager of TEAC 530 and facilitator of

extended dialogues in part two of the seminar. Considering the short 60-minute time structure of

the seminar, coupled with the close proximity part two has towards the end of class, it is possible

Dr. Brown feels the need to take control of the seminar to finish on time. Another possibility is

Dr. Brown wants to disseminate his knowledge about teaching philosophies to PCTs, given his

124

longstanding experience as a faculty member; perhaps PCTs have less to say on this topic given

their relative inexperience. To this point, Dolores notes that an advantage of extended dialogues

with Dr. Brown is PCTs receive perspectives from an instructor with both expertise and

experience in collegiate instruction. Dolores explains: “In [TEAC] 530…Dr. Brown was much

more of an expert than I will ever become…[he is] imparting…knowledge and wisdom to you,

really in a manner that was from the heart and that you can understand.” Regardless of the

reason, since Dr. Brown’s role as manager and facilitator of extended dialogues is clear to PCTs,

PCTs will yield to Dr. Brown when he speaks and assume a diminished role in their own

speaking.

Regarding humorous exchanges in part two of TEAC 530, the exchange from Vignette 4

starts seriously and then becomes humorous due to Dr. Brown’s joke. It becomes serious again

as Dr. Brown redirects the class back to the topic of the class discussion. Since Dr. Brown works

quickly to return the class back to the topic, it is initially uncertain as to why he tells this joke at

all. However, deeper analysis of field notes shows Dr. Brown frequently jokes in, and

throughout, TEAC 530 sessions. He tells jokes which yield PCT reactions similar to the example

from Vignette 4 in sessions from early September, 2015, late-October, 2015, early-February,

2016, and early-May, 2016. These jokes occur randomly in terms of the parts of these respective

sessions (i.e., part one, transitional periods, part two). Considering how Dr. Brown clearly

assumes the role of manager in the majority of TEAC 530 sessions, it is possible he frequently

tells jokes to keep PCTs engaged. Such an approach would help keep PCTs’ attention, for

example, during a lecture in the first part of a seminar or during an extended dialogue in part two

of a session. Occasionally mixing in jokes could keep PCTs engrossed and enable Dr. Brown to

make sure they are still following him during times in sessions when he is more active and when

PCTs are less active. Returning to Vignette 4, Dr. Brown’s desire to reconvene the class quickly

after his joke fits with the above logic for telling jokes. He tells the joke to make sure PCTs are

still paying attention within the extended dialogue. PCTs laugh, signaling to Dr. Brown that he

has their attention. Then, Dr. Brown moves to refocus PCTs’ attention to the topic under

discussion. Lastly, in working to make the class serious again, Dr. Brown’s refocusing sends the

message that he is still the manager of the extended dialogue.

The humorous exchange from the early-September 2015 session about teaching

philosophies shared notable, but somewhat predictable, similarities with the exchange from

125

Vignette 4. Specifically, like Vignette 4, Dr. Brown facilitates the extended dialogue occurring in

class before the joke. As discussed earlier in this chapter, extended dialogues in part two of the

seminar usually take place with Dr. Brown as the facilitator. Another similarity to Vignette 4 is,

after the joke and PCTs’ laughter, Dr. Brown works to get the class back under control by asking

PCTs a follow-up question. PCTs do not answer the question, possibly because the joke distracts

them, so Dr. Brown answers it himself, likely to jumpstart the class dialogue again. Overall, in

facilitating extended dialogues and bringing the class back to order, Dr. Brown’s role is that of

manager. The key difference between Vignette 4 and this session is a student, not Dr. Brown,

makes the joke. PCTs sometimes make jokes or act silly in TEAC 530, though they do not

initiate humor as frequently as Dr. Brown. Considering the relatively casual and sometimes

humorous nature of TEAC 530, coupled with the higher degree of activity afforded to PCTs in

part two of the seminar, the student who makes the joke calculates there will be minimal social

consequences to their actions. Ultimately this proves true, as the student experiences no

retribution from Dr. Brown for joking. However, Dr. Brown’s response by working to retain

control of the class after the joke shows PCTs that, though it may be acceptable to make a joke

during class, it is important that class generally be serious and focused on the topic at hand. Dr.

Brown’s response ultimately resets the disposition of the class to a serious one.

An alternative interpretation is that the student’s joke could be a form of resistance to Dr.

Brown’s consistent control over the facilitated dialogues in part two of TEAC 530. By joking,

the student temporarily disrupts Dr. Brown’s control. Dr. Brown’s response of regrouping the

class by asking them a question after the joke demonstrates an attempt to regain control. PCTs’

silence after his question could be further resistance, illustrating a tension between PCTs and Dr.

Brown for control over the facilitated dialogue in this seminar.

In sum, the examples from Vignette 4 and the early-September 2015 session highlight

how PCTs and Dr. Brown can generate common social experiences of humor followed by a

return to seriousness and focus on a particular topic during extended dialogues. Yet, it is likely

Dr. Brown and PCTs have different motivations for injecting humor into part two of the seminar:

Dr. Brown does so to help PCTs pay attention and maintain the focus of the class; PCTs do so to

create a short break from Dr. Brown’s management of the seminar.

Conclusion: PCTs’ and instructor interactions in part two of TEAC 530. Returning

to the research question guiding this section, how do PCT and instructor interactions, with

126

respect to the extended dialogues in part two of TEAC 530, shape PCTs’ experiences in this part

of the seminar? Dr. Brown almost always facilitates extended dialogues, which in some cases

enables PCTs to both learn from Dr. Brown and their peers in these dialogues. However, there

are instances in which Dr. Brown’s perspectives are more prominent in these dialogues. This

prevents PCTs from hearing from their peers, but also exposes PCTs more to Dr. Brown’s

experiences and expertise. PCTs experience these dialogues as generally educative, but

occasionally limiting due to Dr. Brown’s management of them.

Humorous exchanges between PCTs and the instructor in part two of the seminar shape

PCTs’ experiences in this part of the seminar. Jokes can come from either Dr. Brown and PCTs,

though Dr. Brown tells them more frequently. Dr. Brown’s jokes possibly work toward making

sure PCTs are paying attention. By telling jokes and getting PCTs to laugh, he gets PCTs’

attention. After PCTs’ laughter subsides, he refocuses the class. PCTs tell jokes likely because

the relative casualness of, and occasional humor in, TEAC 530 signals to them there will be

minimal social consequences for doing so. It is also possible PCTs tell jokes as a form of

resistance to Dr. Brown’s consistent control of the seminar. Telling a joke creates laughter,

which gives PCTs a brief reprieve from Dr. Brown’s management of the class and provides a

moment of entertainment before Dr. Brown works to regroup PCTs’ focus on the topic of

discussion. In sum, regardless of the source of humor, PCTs experience humor in this part of the

seminar in that they always laugh at jokes in class and Dr. Brown, as manager of the seminar,

always works to refocus the class back to the topic at hand. However, Dr. Brown and PCTs

likely make jokes to serve different purposes. Dr. Brown tells jokes to keep PCTs’ attention and

refocus class; PCTs tell jokes to create a temporary distraction and reprieve from Dr. Brown’s

seminar management. Overall, taking both the extended dialogues and humorous exchanges

together, interactions between PCTs and Dr. Brown in part two of TEAC 530 shape PCTs’

experiences of part two such that they experience them as educative, casual enough to be

occasionally humorous, but ultimately managed carefully by Dr. Brown.

Summary: Section Three

Section Three of this chapter contained three subsections: one emphasizing PCT and

instructor interactions in part one of TEAC 530, one examining these interactions in the

transitional periods of the seminar, and one examining these interactions in part two of the

seminar. Each subsection described and analyzed how PCT and instructor interactions shaped

127

PCTs’ experiences in one of the three parts of TEAC 530. To summarize, key interactions in part

one of TEAC 530 involved PCTs asking questions to Dr. Brown and Dr. Brown’s responses to

them, and Dr. Brown’s questions to PCTs and PCTs’ responses to them. Regarding the former, it

was common for PCTs to ask Dr. Brown questions during his lectures in part one of the seminar.

Dr. Brown typically answered these questions economically and then returned to lecturing,

creating a transactional interaction between the two groups: PCTs ask, Dr. Brown answers, Dr.

Brown continues lecturing, the class continues. Rarely, PCTs’ questions sparked a conversation

between Dr. Brown and the inquiring PCT. On these occasions, the question-answer dynamic

resembled something more dialogue-based rather than simply a transaction. However,

conversations stemming from PCT questions almost always involved just the inquiring PCT and

Dr. Brown speaking; seldom did these interactions segue into larger, whole-class conversations.

This was likely due to Dr. Brown’s need, as manager of TEAC 530, to efficiently complete his

lectures within a reasonable time span to accommodate the 60-minute time structure of the

seminar. Regarding Dr. Brown’s questions to PCTs in part one of TEAC 530, the types of

questions he typically asked were either spontaneous or planned. Spontaneous questions yielded

few answers from PCTs, likely because they did not have time to think carefully about possible

answers or simply did not know the answers. Planned questions from Dr. Brown yielded more

answers and greater discussion from PCTs. Dr. Brown’s questions, whether spontaneous or

planned, always led to periods of silence after PCTs answered, or did not, answer them. This

silence symbolized PCTs yielding to Dr. Brown so he could continue lecturing. The consistent

pattern of lecturing in part one of TEAC 530, combined with PCTs’ perception of Dr. Brown as

manager of the seminar, contributed to PCTs’ deference in these cases. Overall, PCT and

instructor interactions in part one of TEAC 530, with specific emphasis on PCTs’ questions to

Dr. Brown, and Dr. Brown’s questions to PCTs, shaped PCTs’ experiences in this part such that

it provided them opportunities to quickly ask questions, clarify ideas, respond to Dr. Brown’s

queries when possible, and sometimes engage in short dialogue around his questions.

Furthermore, it reinforced how PCTs typically experienced part one: as transactional and

efficient.

Interactions between PCTs and the instructor in the transitional periods of TEAC 530

primarily consisted of Dr. Brown inviting PCTs to do something and PCTs’ reactions, and Dr.

Brown providing PCTs instructions and PCTs’ reactions. With invitations, Dr. Brown commonly

128

invited PCTs to get food. In turn, PCTs generally responded with their body language by getting

up from their seats, walking over to the food table, and serving themselves. Notable about these

invitations was PCTs only got food during the transitional periods when Dr. Brown invited them.

Therefore, Dr. Brown’s invitations served as permission to get food and provided PCTs with the

option to engage in this behavior. Without his invitations, PCTs would likely not have freely

gotten themselves food. Regarding Dr. Brown providing instructions to PCTs during transitional

periods, PCTs generally followed them. However, in one case, PCTs opted to socialize with each

other instead of following instructions right away; PCTs temporarily subverted the instructions in

favor of socializing. It took additional, combined social pressure from Dr. Brown and a PCT for

the rest of the class to ultimately comply. Overall, when analyzing interactions between PCTs

and Dr. Brown in the transitional periods of TEAC 530, it was clear Dr. Brown was the actor

initiating them. He invited, or provided permission, to PCTs for food, and provided PCTs

instructions. In response, PCTs acknowledged and acted upon his permission for food and

complied with his instructions. Thus, Dr. Brown was the main driver of action in these

interactions in this part of the seminar. His actions kept the class under control and signaled to

PCTs he was the authority figure. PCTs regarded him as such. Dr. Brown’s invitations and

instructions to PCTs shaped their experiences in this part of the seminar such that it created a

general social experience of PCT adherence to Dr. Brown’s requests.

Finally, notable interactions between PCTs and the instructor in part two of TEAC 530

were extended dialogues with PCTs facilitated by Dr. Brown and humorous exchanges between

PCTs and Dr. Brown. Dr. Brown facilitated extended dialogues in this part of the seminar so the

class could discuss issues about collegiate instruction stemming from application activities. PCTs

often engaged thoroughly in dialogues, providing diverse perspectives on given topics. As

facilitator, Dr. Brown interjected his own perspectives with those of PCTs, which created rich,

common social experiences of building knowledge about teaching through dialogue. Dr.

Brown’s role as the facilitator also signaled to PCTs that he was the manager of these dialogues.

Occasionally Dr. Brown leveraged this role and spoke more than PCTs during dialogues, which

yielded fewer opportunities for PCTs to share their diverse perspectives on topics. Yet, it is

likely PCTs still learned from Dr. Brown’s perspectives considering his extensive experience as

a university instructor. Overall, extended dialogues facilitated by Dr. Brown created

opportunities for student learning.

129

Both Dr. Brown and PCTs were architects of humorous exchanges in part two of the

seminar. Such exchanges consisted of either Dr. Brown or PCTs telling a joke during a class

dialogue, laughter in response to the joke, and Dr. Brown working to refocus the class back to

the topic of the dialogue after the joke. When Dr. Brown told jokes, analysis through the

symbolic interactionist framework suggested his motivation for doing so was to keep PCTs’

attention. Conversely, when PCTs told jokes, analysis suggested their motivation was to create a

temporary reprieve from Dr. Brown’s management of dialogues. Taking the extended dialogues

and humorous exchanges together, these elements shaped PCTs’ experiences in part two of

TEAC 530 such that they experienced them as casual to the extent that occasional humor was

socially acceptable, but also educative, serious, and managed by Dr. Brown.

When taking PCT and instructor interactions in all three parts of TEAC 530 together,

notable patterns emerge. First, the time limitations of the seminar structure dictate Dr. Brown’s

managerial authority in the seminar and PCTs consistently yielding to Dr. Brown’s managerial

authority. After he asks questions in part one of the seminar, PCTs quietly wait for him to

continue lecturing. Additionally, PCTs essentially seek Dr. Brown’s permission to help

themselves to second helpings of food during transitional periods. Although PCTs yield to Dr.

Brown, they often do so while showing a degree of resistance, creating a noticeable tension

between these social actors. Resistance comes in the form of socializing with peers after Dr.

Brown provides instructions, or telling jokes to temporarily disrupt an extended dialogue

facilitation. Lastly, as noted in Section Two of this chapter, when PCTs have opportunities to

engage in dialogue with each other, it creates clear opportunities for them to learn about

collegiate teaching from each other. Further discussion of these patterns will take place in

Chapter Six.

Chapter Five Summary, Themes, and Conclusion

Chapter Five addressed the three research questions guiding this study:

1. How do Midwestern State University prospective college teachers (PCTs) experience

formal teaching preparation for higher education in TEAC 530, a collegiate teaching

preparation seminar?

2. How do peer-to-peer interactions shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC 530?

3. How do interactions between PCTs and the instructor shape PCTs’ experiences in TEAC

530?

130

To address these questions, Chapter Five built on descriptive vignettes two, three, and four from

Chapter Four, corroborating them with descriptions of other TEAC 530 sessions, contrasting

them with descriptions of other TEAC 530 sessions, and drawing upon them for analysis.

Specifically, this chapter drew upon fieldnotes from 21 TEAC 530 sessions, interview data with

seven participants, and relevant documents related to the seminar. The chapter broke into three

separate sections, each focusing on one question. For example:

• Section One emphasized how PCTs experience formal teaching preparation in TEAC

530.

• Section Two emphasized how peer-to-peer interactions shape PCT experiences within

TEAC 530.

• Section Three emphasized how interactions between PCTs and the instructor shape

PCTs’ experiences within TEAC 530.

Each section contained three subsections. The subsections highlighted how PCTs experienced

TEAC 530 in its respective parts: part one, transitional periods, and part two. Each section

utilized a symbolic interactionist theoretical framework to guide analysis throughout. Analysis in

this chapter linked tenets of symbolic interactionism directly to sessions highlighted from the

vignettes and additional fieldnotes. Following the explicit connections of sessions to theory were

written sections devoted to further analysis.

Section One

Revisiting analysis from Section One, PCTs experienced part one of the seminar as

stable, predictable, and transactional. Dr. Brown provided PCTs with collegiate pedagogy

content through lecture and PowerPoint and, in response, PCTs in most cases passively took

notes on this content. How PCTs experienced transitional parts of TEAC 530 varied based on the

degree of eventfulness in these periods. PCTs experienced less eventful periods as more

predictable and stable, whereas they experienced busier periods as more random and

unpredictable. This unpredictability possibly contributed to disorientation amongst PCTs due to

multiple, cognitively demanding activities happening within a short time span. Regardless,

transitional periods always bridged the gap between the content from part one of the seminar to

the application activities in part two. PCTs experienced part two of the seminar as relatively

predictable such that Dr. Brown regularly facilitated activities in which students applied their

knowledge in groups or individually. Taking the three parts of the seminar together, PCTs

131

experienced TEAC 530 as relatively predictable and stable and, with few exceptions, Dr. Brown

was at the center of all three parts of the seminar. Though Dr. Brown significantly managed the

three parts, PCTs became slightly more active in dictating aspects of the seminar as it moved into

the transitional periods and part two.

Section Two

This section focused on how PCTs’ peer-to-peer interactions shaped their experiences

within TEAC 530. In part one of the seminar, PCTs engaged in few interactions with each other

because of the predominance of lecture and PowerPoint as instructional methods from Dr.

Brown. Most interactions consisted of PCTs observing their peers take notes and listening to

lectures, which ultimately led to PCTs adhering to, and copying, this behavior. Occasionally,

some sessions enabled PCTs to interact more. More interactions and fewer constraints in these

sessions enabled PCTs to guide activities and conversations towards getting to know their peers

better and discussing graduate student life. However, fewer interactions between peers

dominated part one of TEAC 530 class sessions and shaped PCTs’ experiences of this part of the

seminar as stable, structured, predictable, educative, and perhaps limiting in terms of autonomy

towards preferred interactions.

PCT peer interactions in transitional periods differed with every session. One session

allowed for relatively open and unstructured PCT peer interactions. This granted PCTs some

control over the session, which led them to socialize over food. However, transitional periods

containing formal, highly structured peer introductions created rigid and scripted interactions

which failed to provide PCTs with control over shaping these sessions. Consistent patterns for

how PCTs’ peer interactions shaped their experiences in transitional periods were difficult to

discern given the varied nature of such periods. Nevertheless, transitional periods, like parts one

and two of TEAC 530, generally featured Dr. Brown as the manager of action in these periods.

Thus, PCTs’ peer interactions in transitional periods were usually brief or planned by Dr. Brown.

In part two of the seminar, specific types of PCT peer interactions garnered experiences

which led to PCTs learning about collegiate instruction as a group. For instance, when PCT peers

showed each other attentive body language, this facilitated conditions in which they could learn

together. PCTs’ body language became attentive when they could discuss topics salient to their

professional interests and when they simply had enough time to engage each other with their

body language. PCTs’ body language towards each other became less attentive when they

132

discussed topics less obviously salient to their professional interests or when activities in class

overlapped and interfered with PCTs’ ability to pay attention to their peers. Another type of peer

interaction which garnered experiences leading to learning about collegiate instruction as a group

were PCT co-constructed dialogues. Though quite rare, these dialogues enabled PCTs to interact

with each other directly with few interjections from Dr. Brown. Overall, they unambiguously

showcased PCTs’ interest in their own learning about college teaching and their interest in peers’

perspectives.

Section Three

From this section, notable interactions in part one of TEAC 530 were PCTs asking

questions to Dr. Brown, Dr. Brown’s responses to them, Dr. Brown’s questions to PCTs, and

PCTs’ responses to them. PCTs often asked Dr. Brown questions during his lectures in part one

of the seminar. Dr. Brown almost always answered their questions quickly and then returned to

lecturing. The pattern of PCTs asking, Dr. Brown answering, and Dr. Brown continuing his

lecture, represented transactional-like exchanges in these interactions. Rarely did PCTs’

questions lead to lengthy conversations between Dr. Brown and PCTs. When Dr. Brown asked

PCTs questions in part one of TEAC 530, they were either spontaneously asked or planned. The

former led to few answers from PCTs, either because they had little time to prepare an answer, or

they simply did not know the answer. Planned questions led to more answers and discussion

from PCTs. However, regardless of whether Dr. Brown’s questions were spontaneous or

planned, and whether PCTs answered them or not, these interactions always ended with periods

of silence. This silence symbolized PCTs yielding to Dr. Brown so he could continue lecturing.

Overall, PCT and instructor interactions in part one of TEAC 530 shaped PCTs’ experiences in

this part such that it provided them space to ask questions, clarify ideas, respond to Dr. Brown’s

questions when possible, and rarely engage in short dialogue around Dr. Brown’s questions.

Also, it reinforced how PCTs typically experienced part one: as transactional and efficient.

PCT and instructor interactions in the transitional periods of TEAC 530 primarily

consisted of Dr. Brown inviting PCTs to do something, providing PCTs class instructions, and

PCTs’ reactions to both. Regarding invitations, Dr. Brown often invited PCTs to get food and

PCTs usually responded with their body language by getting up from their seats and serving

themselves at the food table. PCTs only got food during the transitional periods when Dr. Brown

invited them, which suggested Dr. Brown’s invitations served as permission to get food and

133

provided PCTs with the option to engage in this behavior. When Dr. Brown provided PCTs

instructions during transitional periods, PCTs almost always followed them. However, there was

an instance in which PCTs temporarily subverted the instructions in favor of socializing. Only

after social pressure from peers and Dr. Brown did PCTs ultimately comply. Overall, Dr. Brown

typically initiated interactions with PCTs during transitional periods. This aided him in keeping

class under control and signaled to PCTs he was the authority figure. Thus, PCT and instructor

interactions in the transitional periods of TEAC 530 shaped PCTs’ experiences in this part such

that it created a general social experience of PCT adherence to Dr. Brown’s requests.

Lastly, key interactions between PCTs and the instructor in part two of TEAC 530 were

extended dialogues and humorous exchanges. Dr. Brown facilitated extended dialogues with

PCTs, which centered on issues about collegiate instruction. PCTs frequently engaged in

dialogues, which exposed them to multiple perspectives on given topics. As Dr. Brown

facilitated dialogues, he added his own perspectives with those of PCTs, creating a rich social

experience of building knowledge about teaching through dialogue. Though there were occasions

in which Dr. Brown spoke more than PCTs during dialogues, limiting PCTs’ ability to learn

from their peers, it is likely PCTs still learned from Dr. Brown’s perspectives considering his

extensive experience as a university instructor. Overall, extended dialogues facilitated by Dr.

Brown created opportunities for student learning. Regarding humorous exchanges, both Dr.

Brown and PCTs occasionally told jokes in part two of TEAC 530 during dialogues. The class

always responded with laughter to jokes and Dr. Brown always worked to refocus the class back

to the previous topic after a joke. The motivation for telling jokes likely differed between Dr.

Brown and PCTs. When Dr. Brown told jokes, analysis suggested he did so to keep PCTs’

attention. Contrariwise, when PCTs told jokes, analysis implied it was to create a temporary

break from Dr. Brown’s management of dialogues. Together, the extended dialogues and

humorous exchanges shaped PCTs’ experiences in part two of TEAC 530 such that PCTs

experienced them as casual enough for occasional humor, but also serious enough to be

educative and carefully managed by Dr. Brown.

Themes Derived from Interactions and Conclusion

In this chapter, several themes emerged from analysis. This section will highlight these

themes. Further discussion of the themes and how they connect to the broader context of TEAC

530 appears in Chapter Six. To review, Chapter Four and Section One of this chapter concluded

134

that, in general, PCTs experienced TEAC 530 as predictable and stable. Contributing to this

predictability and stability was Dr. Brown’s consistent managerial role in all three parts of the

seminar. Chapters Four and Five consistently showed that the 60-minute time structure of TEAC

530 influenced Dr. Brown to carefully manage the seminar due to the need to accommodate a

significant amount of information and activities within that time frame. By managing the three

parts, Dr. Brown worked toward creating a seminar that was both efficient and educative for

PCTs. Analysis of interactions in TEAC 530 between PCT peers and between PCTs and Dr.

Brown provided more nuance into how PCTs experienced this seminar. Close study of the

interactions of these social actors unveiled understandings that go beyond the established notions

that TEAC 530 is predictable and stable. Three themes encompass these understandings:

• Dr. Brown’s management of the seminar shapes PCTs’ behavior in it.

• There are tensions between Dr. Brown and PCTs regarding Dr. Brown’s management of

the seminar.

• There are specific conditions which foster learning in PCTs.

Theme 1: Dr. Brown’s management of the seminar significantly shaped PCTs’

behavior in TEAC 530. His management of part one in most sessions primarily entailed lecture

and PowerPoint instructional methods and short, transaction-like answers to PCTs’ questions. In

other words, Dr. Brown’s management in this part created conditions in which he was the most

active social actor. This shaped PCTs’ behavior such that it made them more passive during his

instruction and in question-answer interactions. Dr. Brown managed transitional periods in the

seminar similarly to part one. Specifically, in the transitional periods in some sessions he created

and oversaw highly structured peer introduction activities. In numerous other sessions, Dr.

Brown consistently gave PCTs instructions for tasks. Finally, Dr. Brown occasionally invited

PCTs to help themselves to more food. These actions shaped PCTs’ behavior in that, regarding

the introduction activities, PCTs always carefully complied with the parameters in Dr. Brown’s

instructions. With general instructions from Dr. Brown, PCTs followed them with few

exceptions. Lastly, Dr. Brown’s invitations to PCTs for food in transitional periods essentially

served as providing them permission, or providing them with the option, to get additional

helpings of food. Without Dr. Brown’s invitations, it is not likely PCTs would simply get up to

help themselves.

135

In contrast to how Dr. Brown’s instructor-heavy seminar management shaped PCTs’

behavior, his tendency to occasionally allow for student management of course activities also

influenced PCTs’ behavior. For example, in part two of a TEAC 530 session, PCTs engaged in a

direct, co-constructed dialogue with their peers. This started spontaneously and against Dr.

Brown’s original instructions when he temporarily left the classroom to run an errand. Upon his

return, he witnessed PCTs’ dialogue and let them finish without interfering. Other examples

include numerous extended dialogues facilitated by Dr. Brown in part two of seminar sessions.

Though Dr. Brown’s perspectives were always present in these dialogues, PCTs consistently

engaged with each other over a variety of collegiate pedagogy topics. Overall, by providing

PCTs more autonomy with student-centered management of the seminar, Dr. Brown shaped

PCTs’ behavior such that they connected more with their peers.

Theme 2: Instructor’s rigid management created tension. Dr. Brown’s management

of TEAC 530 was constant, present in all three parts of the seminar. Observation and analysis of

interactions showed how this created tensions between Dr. Brown and PCTs, as PCTs sometimes

pushed back against Dr. Brown’s management. In rare exceptions, when part one of the seminar

did not emphasize lecture and PowerPoint, PCTs could interact with each other more. During

these interactions, they often steered conversations (i.e., whole-class, small group, individual)

away from class content and more towards getting to know each other better or the challenges of

graduate school. Thus, when given a degree of autonomy, PCTs subtly pushed back against the

consistent focus on work in class. Another scenario highlighting tension between PCTs and Dr.

Brown occurred during a transitional period of a session in which Dr. Brown provided PCTs

instructions for a task. In response, PCTs started to socialize with each other and continued to do

so until Dr. Brown and a peer (perhaps inadvertently) applied social pressure in the form of

starting the task in front of the class. This made PCTs conform to the instructions and start

working. In this case, PCTs pushed the social limits of the class by initially resisting Dr. Brown’s

instructions, creating a degree of tension. Perhaps sensing this resistance and tension, Dr. Brown

and a PCT peer collaborated to begin working. Humorous exchanges in part two of TEAC 530

sessions also exemplified tension between both social actors. Analysis suggested that when PCTs

told jokes in class during extended dialogues, it was to create short breaks from Dr. Brown’s

management of them. By joking, PCTs gently pushed against their instructor’s authority. In

136

response, Dr. Brown always worked to regroup the class after the initial laughter, thus generating

tension over who had authority over the classroom.

Theme 3: There are specific conditions which foster learning in PCTs. Lastly,

observation and analysis of interactions unveiled specific conditions which fostered PCTs’

learning. These conditions were most obvious in part two of TEAC 530 sessions. For example, in

an extended dialogue in which a PCT asked a peer a question about working with undergraduate

students, PCTs in class collectively showed engaged body language towards this question; PCTs

signaled their interest in this topic and their desire to learn more about it. Thus, PCTs engaged

with topics which were personally or professionally relevant to them. Highlighting such topics

created conditions and opportunities for their learning. Also featured in part two of seminar

sessions were extended dialogues, those facilitated by Dr. Brown (common) and those co-

constructed by PCTs themselves (rare). Both types of dialogues unambiguously created

conditions for PCTs’ learning. Dialogues exposed PCTs to the unique perspectives of their peers

and the perspectives of their experienced instructor. There was evidence PCTs, through their

interactions in dialogues, learned more about themselves as future instructors and learned from

Dr. Brown’s experiences.

Overall, this section reviewed interaction-derived themes that captured the nuances of

how PCTs experienced TEAC 530 in all of its parts. Chapter Six will build on this and other

analyses from Chapter Five. Specifically, Chapter Six will connect the content from Five to the

broader context of TEAC 530, connect content to extant literature and theory, highlight

implications for professional practice, and highlight implications for future research.

137

Chapter Six: Discussion and Implications

This chapter divides into four parts. The first is a review of the broader context of TEAC

530. Inclusion of this section is necessary since it ties in with the subsequent sections, which: a)

connect the themes, results, and analysis from this study to the seminar context and, b) evaluate

the seminar. Chapter Six concludes by addressing connections from this work to extant literature,

pathways for future research, and implications for professional practice.

Review of the Context of TEAC 530

Before drawing connections between the broader context of TEAC 530 and the results,

analyses, and themes from this study, it is first necessary to provide a review of relevant

contextual information. As described in Chapter Three, the TLC at Midwestern State University

hosts TEAC 530. Midwestern State University is a medium-sized, public institution with a

national reputation for strong undergraduate teaching. Primarily an undergraduate institution,

Midwestern State University has a graduate student population of roughly 2,400. Midwestern

State offers over 60 master's degrees, 13 doctoral degrees, and 10 graduate certificates, and

nearly all graduate students complete their coursework on the main campus (Midwestern State

University, 2016a). In 2015, roughly 17% of the 4,247 part and full-time instructors on the

Midwestern State main campus were graduate TAs (Midwestern State University Office of

Institutional Research, 2016). Thus, graduate TAs during the course of this study had, and

continue to have, a notable instructional presence on campus. The Midwestern State University

TLC, in addition to individual academic departments, is a venue where these graduate TAs can

receive formal preparation for their instruction. In addition to hosting TEAC 530, the TLC also

hosts two graduate student-centered, university-wide teaching preparation programs: the

Graduate Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP) and Certificate in Collegiate Instruction.

TEAC 530 works towards meeting requirements for both programs, so graduate TAs enrolled in

the GIIP – Gold Track or Certificate program must take the seminar. GIIP – Silver Track

requirements fall outside of the scope of TEAC 530 and thus do not merit further discussion.

Both programs are open to all Midwestern State University graduate students, regardless of

graduate students’ academic discipline, whether they are actively teaching or not, and whether

they are going to teach in the future. Graduate students can apply to the programs if they have

interest in joining (which presumably means they have interest in collegiate instruction). For

example, the GIIP has an online application; criteria for selection into GIIP evaluates students’

138

interest in exploring pedagogy in higher education, desire to learn from peers in other academic

disciplines, and dedication to quality teaching. Though the application displays these criteria,

addressing them in the application is not required (Midwestern State University Teaching and

Learning Center, 2017).

It is not necessary for a graduate student to be part of the GIIP – Gold Track or

Certificate to enroll in TEAC 530. Regardless, many students join one or both programs. TEAC

530 ties into both programs, thereby necessitating short contextual descriptions of both. The

stated outcomes of the GIIP – Gold Track, and thus also TEAC 530 given the seminar’s

prominent role in this program, are as follows:

• Enhance the collegiate teaching proficiency of Midwestern State graduate TAs for the

purposes of increasing TA satisfaction.

• Deliver content that establishes a framework of teaching skills for TAs interested in

academic careers.

• Cultivate an interdisciplinary academic community among Midwestern State TAs.

• Assist graduate TAs in advancing Midwestern State’s mission of excellence in

undergraduate teaching (Brown, 2015b).

To complete the GIIP – Gold Track, students must attend eight presentations or seminars related

to collegiate teaching and learning in one semester. Since enrollment and completion of TEAC

530 is a requirement of the Gold Track, it counts toward this eight-presentation requirement, as it

addresses five different topics related to college teaching and learning. As such, it provides Gold

Track students with up to five of the eight required sessions. To acquire the three additional

required sessions, students can attend outside sessions offered through college teaching

conferences or other pedagogical sessions offered by the TLC. Outside sessions are subject to the

approval of Dr. Brown. Aside from completing TEAC 530, fulfilling all its requirements, and

attending three approved outside sessions, the only additional requirements for Gold Track

students are to write a 150-word summary of their overall experience in GIIP and attend a

closing ceremony (Brown, 2015a). Students successfully finishing these tasks meet Gold Track

requirements and receive $200 for professional development, which can apply to expenses such

as conference travel or books (Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center,

2015b). The Certificate is a graduate, 12 credit-hour program that, compared to the GIIP – Gold

Track, provides a greater degree of content about collegiate pedagogy for graduate students.

139

Graduate students must apply and be accepted into the certificate program. TEAC 530 is the first

of a sequence of three required, one-credit hour seminars offered by the TLC that work toward

completion of the certificate.

Regarding the specific parameters of TEAC 530, it is a one-credit hour elective seminar

that meets six times per semester, with the final meeting reserved for the presentation of projects

and discussion of outside sessions. As such, final sessions do not count towards the GIIP – Gold

Track eight presentation/session requirement. Every session is one hour long and includes a free

meal (Brown, 2015a). There are two sections of the seminar in both the fall and spring semesters.

TEAC 530 meets twice a week on different days and at different times, likely so students have

multiple options for their schedules. Students can move back and forth between TEAC 530

sessions for added flexibility; they are not bound to one session on a given day of the week

(Brown, 2015a). Though students can attend both sessions in a given week, only one counts

towards their GIIP session requirements because they are the same session topic. During data

collection, in the 2015-2016 academic year, average student attendance per session in TEAC 530

in fall was 11, and in spring was nine. Though not exact, these figures extrapolate out to roughly

50 enrollees in the seminar during that academic year. Attendance in the seminar is mandatory.

According to syllabi for TEAC 530, over the course of its five sessions in a semester, the

seminar addresses topics such as classroom policies, small group and discussion techniques,

assessment for student learning, preparing for the academic job market, and creating a teaching

portfolio (Brown, 2015a). The grading structure of the seminar is credit/no credit. Specifically, if

students are active in their participation and make progress towards the assignments, they receive

credit; if not, they do not receive credit (Brown, 2015a). There are only two assignments for the

seminar: a) one-page reflection papers for each TEAC 530 session and each required outside

session, that discuss the content of these sessions and what students learned, and (b) a teaching

project. Each assignment counts towards 50% of the grade for the seminar. The teaching project

must be something tangible, like a mock course syllabus or teaching philosophy statement.

However, students have a degree of autonomy over the nature of the project, just as long as it

centers on collegiate teaching and learning. Regardless of what they decide to create, students

must write a project proposal for Dr. Brown’s approval several weeks in advance of its due date,

which is always at the end of the semester. A final requirement for the project is a one-to-two-

page reflection gauging the strengths and weaknesses of the project (Brown, 2015a). In terms of

140

who attended TEAC 530, in the sessions in the 2015-2016 academic year, there was a relatively

even split between master’s and Ph.D. degree-seeking students. Students represented numerous

academic disciplines, such as Theatre, Psychology, Student Affairs/Higher Education,

Architecture, Chemistry, Biology, Political Science, Physics, and Kinesiology. Similar to the

racial profile of Midwestern State University as an institution, most students in these sessions

were White, although there were a couple of Asian, Black, and Latino students present.

Regarding gender distribution, there were generally more women than men in attendance.

Connecting the Themes, Results, and Analysis to the Context of TEAC 530

A key connection established and reiterated throughout this dissertation are the

connections between the 60-minute time structure of TEAC 530, Dr. Brown’s ever-present role

in managing all three parts of it, and how these elements shape PCTs’ experiences in the

seminar. The time structure of TEAC 530 is a key piece of contextual information about the

seminar, connecting closely to Theme 1: Dr. Brown’s management of the seminar significantly

shaped PCTs’ behavior in TEAC 530. Specifically, the relatively short 60-minute time-period of

the seminar dictates how Dr. Brown can implement his instruction of it. He must manage the

seminar fastidiously by providing a sufficient degree of content about teaching at the beginning

of sessions so PCTs can apply this content during the second parts of sessions. This leads to

teaching through lecture during part one of TEAC 530 sessions, as this is an efficient method of

conveying information. Efficiently teaching content creates time during the second parts of

sessions to engage in application activities. Moreover, the 60-minute time structure in TEAC 530

necessitates that throughout all three parts of the seminar, Dr. Brown is the manager and primary

social actor.

The time structure of the seminar shapes Dr. Brown’s behaviors, which in turn shapes

PCTs’ behaviors. Timing in the seminar dictates how Dr. Brown interacts with PCTs and what

interactions he can permit between PCTs and their peers. He must simultaneously balance these

duties with the additional duty of helping PCTs meet the aforementioned outcomes of the

seminar. Thus, the timing of TEAC 530 yields the interactions within the seminar that ultimately

shape how PCTs experience it. For example, PCTs generally experienced part one of the seminar

as stable, predictable, and transactional. This stemmed from the predominance of lecture and

PowerPoints from Dr. Brown. These instructional methods led to PCTs taking notes, observing

their peers doing the same, asking short questions to Dr. Brown, and receiving short answers.

141

Outside of these behaviors, there were few notable interactions between PCT peers and between

Dr. Brown and PCTs, creating the stable, predictable, and transactional social atmosphere. Yet,

in the background of these social behaviors is the seminar time structure. With the short amount

of time in seminar sessions, in almost all cases Dr. Brown must lecture so he can cover the

necessary content in a timely manner. There is little time for long dialogues with PCTs or

lengthy answers to questions. With Dr. Brown at the center of class lecturing and actively

managing the class, PCTs can do little else except remain mostly passive. Overall, the time

structure of TEAC 530 influences Dr. Brown’s behaviors, which sets the foundation for minimal

social interactions between actors in the sessions, creating a distinctly stable, predictable, and

transactional social experience for PCTs in part one of the seminar.

Another notable connection between contextual information about TEAC 530 and the

themes, results, and analysis of this study are the influence of the rewards of the seminar and

PCTs’ behavior. In particular, how might food, money, and credentialing serve as incentives for

passivity among PCTs? As noted throughout this study, Dr. Brown’s role in the seminar is that of

manager, meaning he is often the most active individual in sessions. Thus, PCTs are generally

more passive. However, other factors may contribute to PCTs’ passivity. Service of food in

sessions is one possibility. Though data suggests food in TEAC 530 facilitates socializing and

community among PCT peers, it could also facilitate obedience. Food consumption always

happens at the beginning of sessions. PCTs recognize this and construct a routine in which they

enter class, put their belongings down at a seat next to the table, walk over and serve themselves

food, and then sit back down to eat. As they eat, they take notes on Dr. Brown’s lectures. This

routine creates a degree of order at the beginning of sessions. PCTs eating food during the first

parts of sessions maintains this order, as their energies are on food, listening, and notetaking

rather than socializing. In other words, the food reinforces PCTs’ passiveness in part one of

TEAC 530.

The prospect of receiving $200 in professional development funds and a certificate of

completion after fulfilling the necessary tasks of the GIIP – Gold Track, and thus TEAC 530, are

other possible factors contributing to PCTs’ passiveness. Receiving $200 for professional

development is undoubtedly a significant perk for graduate students, especially with the

excessive costs of travel for attending conferences. Similarly, receiving a credential for collegiate

instruction could potentially enhance the job marketability of graduate students interested in

142

academic positions. With these rewards awaiting PCTs once they finish the seminar and other

requirements, it stands to reason they disincentivize PCTs from causing difficulties. Namely,

PCTs are more likely to follow directions in sessions, fulfill their obligations outside of sessions,

and remain compliant so as not to sow any discontent that might jeopardize their rewards.

Applying these possibilities back to the data, there was an incident in which, during a transitional

period PCTs temporarily subverted Dr. Brown’s instructions for an activity in favor of

socializing. Only when Dr. Brown and a PCT implicitly applied social pressure on the class by

talking about the activity aloud did the class abandon their socializing in favor of starting the

activity. A possible root cause of this interaction, specifically the pressure PCTs experienced

from Dr. Brown and their peer that caused PCTs to comply, was the outside chance that

prolonged noncompliance with Dr. Brown’s instructions could set a bad precedent.

A third and final notable connection between contextual information about TEAC 530

and the themes, results, and analysis of this study is the control Dr. Brown has over seminar

content and its possible contribution to tensions between him and PCTs in seminar sessions. As

described earlier in the review of the seminar contextual information, Dr. Brown dictates the

selection of TEAC 530 topics, and by extension, the content emanating from those topics. Thus,

with the exception of the final sessions of the semester where PCTs have some freedom to

discuss either their projects or outside sessions, whatever topics and content Dr. Brown chooses

is what PCTs will learn about. Dr. Brown’s control over seminar content connects to the results

that generated Theme 2: There are tensions between Dr. Brown and PCTs regarding Dr. Brown’s

management of the seminar. Specifically, exploration of interactions between PCTs’ peers

illustrates that some of these tensions relate to PCTs having less control over seminar content.

For example, in part one of a session about small group and discussion techniques, a session in

which PCTs have more opportunities to interact compared to part one of a typical session, PCTs

worked together in small groups to complete a task assigned by Dr. Brown. Though PCTs in the

groups initially addressed the required task, their conversations and actions slowly drifted toward

socializing and getting to know each other better. Thus, PCTs’ interactions facilitated their

socializing. In a case of a final session of the semester, a session type in which PCTs have more

choices regarding the content in which they can engage (i.e., their projects or outside sessions),

PCTs started the class discussion talking about their outside sessions, only to eventually move

the conversation to the topics of graduate student life and imposter syndrome. Out of PCTs’

143

interactions came the shift in the conversation topic. In each example, PCTs in their interactions,

at first, conform to the content parameters set by Dr. Brown, only to shift the content toward

matters salient to them. Though PCTs’ actions do not constitute an explicit act of defiance, they

show an underlying tension between themselves and Dr. Brown concerning seminar content.

Through their interactions with their peers, PCTs attempt to take back a degree of control over

the seminar content, illuminating a small, but significant tension with Dr. Brown’s management

of the seminar.

Evaluating TEAC 530

Adding to the connections established in the previous section between contextual

information about TEAC 530 and the themes, results, and analysis of this study, this section

features a research-based evaluation of TEAC 530. In particular, it evaluates the extent to which

the stated outcomes of the GIIP – Gold Track, and thus also TEAC 530, connect with this

study’s themes, results, and analysis. It is important to note this study emphasized the process of

PCTs’ formal teaching preparation and not PCTs’ learning outcomes. This study focused on how

PCTs experienced TEAC 530. Therefore, what follows is not a surefire evaluation utilizing

statistical measurements to determine PCTs’ learning outcomes in the seminar. Rather, it is an

evaluation in which I, the researcher, use empirical data and analysis derived from this study to

speculate as to the extent to which TEAC 530 meets these outcomes for PCTs. Also, where

appropriate, I will consider PCTs’ feelings during their time taking TEAC 530.

The First and Second (or Second and First) Stated Outcomes

For the purposes of ease of continuity, this section will address the stated outcomes of the

GIIP – Gold Track/TEAC 530 slightly out of order, analyzing the second outcome first, and the

first outcome second. Discussion of the third and fourth outcome will occur in regular numerical

order. The second outcome of the GIIP – Gold Track/TEAC 530 is to deliver content that

establishes a framework of teaching skills for TAs interested in academic careers (Brown,

2015b). The language in this outcome implies the program and seminar aims to prepare TAs to

become future teaching faculty in academia. There is some evidence PCTs are recipients of this

framework, particularly through the completion of the end-of-semester project. Todd, when

discussing the project, stated, “My syllabus for my class…that was my project for 530, and

having the guidelines [described in the seminar about]…the best way to make a syllabus, which

for somebody who's never done one before was, I mean, incredibly beneficial.” Syllabus

144

construction is an essential task for teaching faculty members, a task with which Todd now has

experience and can carry forward into his future. Similarly, Ella described the utility of the end-

of-semester project in TEAC 530. She stated, “What I'm doing…[is]…creating…the laboratory

in biochemistry. [It is] basically gonna be implemented in…two weeks, which is very exciting!

So, I'm going to be an instructor for one day [::laughs::].” Thus, Ella is using the seminar project

as a vehicle to help prepare for her TA duties. Furthermore, the project engages Ella in an

activity that will prepare her for future teaching as a faculty member. Overall, through the

completion of the final TEAC 530 project, PCTs can begin building a framework for teaching

skills necessary for the future.

In contrast, the other main assignment in TEAC 530, the written reflections, may be less

effective in helping PCTs meet the second stated outcome. As conveyed above, reflections are

one-page papers PCTs write after each TEAC 530 session, and each required outside session,

that discusses the content of these sessions and what PCTs learned. Therefore, the reflections are

less tangible compared to the projects and thus may have limited utility in fostering teaching

skills in PCTs. At the end of the semester, Dr. Brown reads, grades, comments, and returns

PCTs’ reflections. Reflections never end up as topics for discussion in class. They are simply

between each individual PCT and Dr. Brown. Thus, PCTs ultimately only have access to Dr.

Brown’s perspectives on their thoughts about teaching. If PCTs could share their reflections with

peers, in class discussions or over some other medium, it could facilitate greater teaching skill

development through the trading of ideas, tools, and teaching techniques. Furthermore, sharing

reflections could transcend skill development, as PCTs would have opportunities to interact and

engage with each other’s perspectives, something the results, analysis, and third Theme (i.e.,

There are specific conditions which foster learning in PCTs) from this study showed as a helpful

in nurturing PCTs’ learning about teaching. Lastly, going beyond the assignments of TEAC 530,

it is appropriate to question if the sum of all the seminar sessions and accompanying GIIP – Gold

Track requirements provide enough opportunities for PCTs to gain a framework of teaching

skills necessary for collegiate instruction. Said differently, is it possible for PCTs to acquire the

depth of such a framework from eight mostly lecture-based one-hour pedagogy sessions, eight

written reflections, a project, and a 150-word summary of their overall experience over the

course of a single semester? Based on the participant-observations, interviews, and document

analysis conducted for this project, what TEAC 530 and the GIIP – Gold Track offers likely

145

provides a framework of teaching skills in PCTs, but whether it prepares PCTs for the challenges

and complexities of collegiate instruction past the basics is an open question. Further discussion

of this topic will occur at the end of this section.

The first outcome. Closely connected to the second stated outcome of TEAC 530/GIIP –

Gold Track is the first stated outcome: enhance the collegiate teaching proficiency of

Midwestern State graduate TAs for the purposes of increasing TA satisfaction (Brown 2015b).

To gauge whether the program and seminar meets its first outcome, it is necessary to break the

outcome into two parts. Part one relates to the whether the program and seminar enhances

collegiate teaching proficiency, and part two relates to whether increases in proficiency from the

program and seminar increases TA satisfaction. Regarding proficiency, much of the evidence

confirming that TEAC 530 establishes a framework of teaching skills in PCTs also suggests the

seminar and program enhances PCTs’ collegiate teaching proficiency. Between the seminar

assignments and additional GIIP – Gold Track requirements, it is likely PCTs experience

increased proficiency. However, the extent to which PCTs experience these increases likely

varies from individual to individual based on what teaching proficiencies PCTs already bring

into the seminar. Since any graduate student can enroll in TEAC 530, whether they are already

teaching, serving as a TA, or neither, means PCTs do not have uniform prior teaching

knowledge. For example, Ella was a middle school teacher before attending graduate school at

Midwestern State and thus already had familiarity with certain teaching tools. She recalls

working with a PCT peer in TEAC 530:

So, we were asked to do concept maps individually, and then we were asked to compare

them, and then we came together. My concept map was pretty organized, like, how I was

taught how to do a concept map. And then…[my partner’s]…was just like, one word and

two lines going to other two words, and she was like, yeah this is embarrassing. I don't

know how to do a concept map.

In her story, Ella illustrates her prior knowledge on how to make concept maps and contrasts it

with the struggles of her peer. Ella’s story shows the differing degrees of teaching proficiencies

PCTs bring into TEAC 530. Taking this story, and her story in the previous section about using

the final project for the seminar as a way to help her prepare as a TA, it is reasonable to conclude

that Ella felt TEAC 530 was both helpful and possibly at times boring due to her existing

knowledge of concept maps.

146

In a slightly different, though still notable case, Lantern took a collegiate pedagogy

course through his department while also taking TEAC 530. When asked to compare the courses,

he stated, “[The departmental] class is more systematic. Basically, it covered…not all, but most

of the aspects of teaching. So, for TEAC 530…it overlaps with the [departmental] teaching

practicum.” According to Lantern’s experience, it is likely that the perspectives he gained from

his departmental class rendered some of the content from TEAC 530 redundant. Thus, like Ella,

it is likely Lantern, at times, felt bored in the seminar due to the presentation of superfluous

material. Overall, though there is evidence TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track enhances PCTs’

collegiate teaching proficiency, the fact that PCTs bring different proficiencies to the seminar, or

in the cases of Ella and Lantern degrees of prior knowledge, means the extent to which it

enhances PCTs’ proficiency varies. PCTs with no previous knowledge of teaching will

undoubtedly benefit from the seminar more; they will also be less likely to experience boredom

in the seminar. Conversely, having prior knowledge of teaching means the seminar and program

may not significantly enhance what PCTs already know about collegiate instruction; this could

also create feelings of boredom in these PCTs.

Regarding the second part of the first outcome, whether increases in proficiency from the

program and seminar increases TA satisfaction, results and analyses suggest it mostly does.

Participant-observations from fieldnotes showed little dissatisfaction in PCTs. Similarly,

interview data alluded to PCT satisfaction. For example, in the previous section Todd expressed

satisfaction learning how to make a syllabus for his end-of-semester project. The syllabus was

the first he ever made. Similar to Todd, London opined, “the [seminar was really] good [at]

getting us exposure to the relevant things to think about when it comes to teaching.” Due to

receiving exposure to the topics necessary for teaching, London articulates his satisfaction. In

terms of feelings, both Todd and London appear to express happiness with the seminar along

with their satisfaction. Only a few PCTs hinted at dissatisfaction. Most notable was Genevieve,

who was an instructor of record for her own class while taking TEAC 530. She stated, “I feel like

maybe the seminar helped me, …[but]…I wasn't having conversations of current issues that are

going on. They were very abstract issues…that, it might happen to you…[but], what is really

happening in the classroom?” In other words, the root of Genevieve’s discontent was that she

often could not connect the seminar content to the realities happening in her own classroom. The

seminar was not meeting her needs as an instructor, preventing her from gaining meaningful

147

increases in her teaching proficiency and thus, her satisfaction. Genevieve’s dissatisfaction likely

inspired feelings of unhappiness with the seminar. Overall, PCTs who experienced increases in

their teaching proficiency as a result of taking TEAC 530 also described feelings of satisfaction

and happiness. The opposite, feelings of dissatisfaction and unhappiness as a result of the

seminar not increasing teaching proficiency, were also present. Generally, when taking the two

parts of the first outcome together, the seminar mostly meets its first stated outcome.

Lastly, regarding the wording of the first outcome, use of the term satisfaction instead of

learning is a curious choice for a program and seminar that ultimately yields TAs who will need

to instill learning in their own current and future students. The word learn is also absent from the

other three outcomes. Thus, it is appropriate to question if graduate TA preparation programs,

like the GIIP – Gold Track and TEAC 530, that are not explicit in their goals to facilitate

learning in its participants can produce instructors who can facilitate learning in their own

students. Further discussion of this topic will occur at the end of this section.

The Third and Fourth Outcome

The third stated outcome of TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track is to cultivate an

interdisciplinary academic community among Midwestern State TAs (Brown, 2015b).

Specifically, the program and seminar seek to facilitate community development of TAs from

disparate academic departments. The fact TEAC 530 is interdisciplinary is a significant step

toward fulfilling this outcome. However, the results and analyses from this study paint a more

nebulous picture. Evidence supporting the idea that TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track fulfills this

outcome are results and analyses highlighting how, when PCT peers conveyed attentive body

language to each other, it facilitated conditions in which they could learn together (Theme 3).

Furthermore, similar opportunities arose in the rare instances of PCT co-constructed dialogues in

which PCTs interacted with peers without significant interjections from Dr. Brown. These cases

in which PCTs could learn together could also be cases in which they got to know each other

better, shared interests, bonded, and built community. Another factor supporting the notion that

TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track fulfills this outcome is the role of food. PCT socializing often

took place during the sharing and consumption of food. Socializing with peers is a significant

step toward cultivation of community. Buttressing this argument is a quote from Todd, first

shown in Chapter Five: “the food…when we eat we have a certain way we behave, and it

establishes a sense of community, it's a [way] of getting to know each other.” Overall, between

148

the interdisciplinary nature of TEAC 530, the occasional occurrence of conditions in which PCTs

could learn together in the seminar, and food coupled with socializing in the seminar, there is

evidence it cultivates feelings of an interdisciplinary academic community among Midwestern

State TAs.

Though there is evidence corroborating fulfillment of this outcome, there is also evidence

to the contrary. A prerequisite to building community is knowing the individuals within it.

However, PCTs do not always remember each other from one session to another. As described in

Chapter Five, there was an October session, the fourth session of the semester, in which PCTs

were reintroducing themselves to their peers. It was clear they did not remember each other from

the previous sessions. In a different session, as PCTs began working together in groups for an

application activity, Dr. Brown reminded them to reintroduce themselves to each other. The root

causes of PCTs not remembering their peers likely lies with the seminar scheduling, short

seminar time length, and naturally siloed graduate programs. Regarding scheduling, TEAC 530

meets six times in a semester, but not every week. Sometimes sessions are two weeks apart from

each other, lessening the continuity required for individuals to get to know each other intimately.

The one-hour time length of the seminar, coupled with the constant action in it, similarly

diminishes opportunities for PCTs to learn more about each other and form community bonds.

Finally, the general nature of siloed graduate programs inhibits chances for community building

outside of the seminar. Specifically, after PCTs leave the seminar they generally go back to their

individual disciplinary departments rather than spending time with PCT colleagues. Considering

the general busyness of graduate student life, this is unsurprising. Overall, there is some evidence

of cultivation of an interdisciplinary academic community among Midwestern State TAs as a

result of TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track. However, the depth of this community seems shallow,

even though PCTs are a distinctive subculture of students who share a similar identity (i.e., the

graduate student identity) and a similar experience (i.e., preparing to teach at the collegiate

level).

The final stated outcome of TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track is to assist graduate TAs in

advancing Midwestern State’s mission of excellence in undergraduate teaching (Brown, 2015b).

To reiterate, Midwestern State is an institution with a national reputation for strong

undergraduate teaching, on par with several elite institutions according to national rankings

(Midwestern State University, 2015b). Overall, it is difficult to evaluate whether the seminar and

149

program fulfill this outcome. However, it is clear TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track serves a key

institutional purpose: develop teaching excellence in TAs so the institution can seamlessly

continue to maintain its teaching prestige. Based on evaluation of the three previous outcomes,

there is evidence the seminar and program meet these ends. Yet, what this fourth stated outcome

lacks, as do the other three, is reference to the need for, or importance of, learning in TAs. The

following section discusses this matter further.

Conclusion

Considering the evidence-based evaluations of each stated outcome of TEAC 530/GIIP –

Gold Track, the extent to which the seminar and program meet these outcomes for PCTs is clear:

they generally do. Regarding the first outcome, it is likely TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track

enhances PCTs’ teaching proficiency, even though PCTs ultimately bring different proficiencies

into the seminar, thereby varying the degree to which individual PCTs experience enhancement

(and experience boredom). Also, relating to the satisfaction aspect of the first outcome, evidence

suggests the seminar and program increases PCTs’ satisfaction (and happiness) for those PCTs

who sense enhancement in their teaching as a result of taking TEAC 530. With the second

outcome, TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track likely provides a framework of teaching skills for PCTs,

but it is unclear as to whether that framework adequately prepares PCTs for the challenges and

complexities of collegiate instruction. For the third outcome, cultivation of an interdisciplinary

academic community among TAs, there is some evidence the seminar and program achieve this.

Yet, it is not clear if this community goes beyond surface-level connections into something

deeper and more meaningful for PCTs. Lastly, it is difficult to determine if the TEAC 530/GIIP –

Gold Track fulfilled the fourth outcome.

Based on an empirically-driven evaluation, the seminar and program generally meet its

outcomes for PCTs. However, there are other elements regarding these outcomes that require

attention. As discussed earlier, the notion that none of the stated outcomes of TEAC 530/GIIP –

Gold Track reference learning in TAs is surprising. On one hand, it is unreasonable to assume

that, because of the absence of the term learning in the outcomes, that PCTs do not learn

anything in the seminar or program. Data and analysis from this study show PCTs have

opportunities to learn at various points throughout TEAC 530. However, it is ironic that a

seminar and program devoted to preparing future faculty, faculty who will undoubtedly need to

instill learning in their future students, does not itself explicitly address learning as an outcome.

150

Instead, outcomes for PCTs in TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track reference teaching proficiency,

satisfaction, establishment of teaching frameworks, and community. There is also an implicit

emphasis on reputation management for Midwestern State. Particularly, the seminar and program

provide PCTs a credential, making them more marketable for employment and thereby reflecting

back positively on the institution. This reputation management also comes in the form of the

institution seeking to uphold and advance its national status for undergraduate teaching

excellence by having a seminar and program that addresses graduate students’ teaching.

Considering the challenges of collegiate instruction, are these outcomes and priorities enough for

PCTs to be successful as future teaching faculty members?

Connected to whether the stated outcomes of TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track are enough

for PCTs, it is also necessary to interrogate if the sum of TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track itself is

enough to ensure PCTs’ success as future collegiate instructors. Specifically, is it possible for

PCTs to acquire the depth necessary to address the challenges of collegiate instruction through

eight mostly lecture-based one-hour pedagogy sessions, eight written reflections, a project, and a

150-word summary of their overall experience over the course of a single semester? As

described earlier, data and analysis from this study shows the seminar and program help PCTs

establish a framework for teaching skills. Yet, there is evidence that aspects of the seminar are

not particularly memorable to PCTs. For example, PCTs do not always remember their peers

from one session to another. Data showcased PCTs re-introducing themselves to each other in a

session taking place after a few weeks between sessions. Thus, it is likely the time spacing in

between session meetings contributed to the need for re-introductions, coupled with the short 60-

minute time period of sessions featuring limited opportunities for peer interactions. Furthermore,

as highlighted in Chapter Three, when interviewed about notable interactions with peers and Dr.

Brown, PCTs struggled to recall them with detail, if they could remember any at all. It is possible

the time spacing between session meetings and the 60-minute time structure are factors in PCTs’

lack of recollections. In sum, if PCTs struggle to recall their peers, interactions with their peers,

and interactions with the instructor in TEAC 530, at least in part due to the seminar and program

timing and scheduling parameters, then it is possible PCTs are also not acquiring the depth from

TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track necessary to navigate the challenging landscape of college

teaching.

151

Overall, when weighing together several of the aforementioned elements of TEAC/GIIP

– Gold Track, a clear picture of the seminar and program emerges. First, the stated outcomes of

TEAC 530/GIIP - Gold Track do not specifically emphasize the notion of learning. Next, PCTs

struggle to recall their peers, interactions with their peers, and interactions with the instructor in

TEAC 530, at least in part due to the seminar and program timing and scheduling parameters.

Additionally, the topics in TEAC 530 sessions cover the basics of teaching, such as setting

classroom policies, assessment techniques, small group and discussion techniques, academic job

preparation, and creating a teaching portfolio (Brown, 2015a). Lastly, the outcomes and nature of

the seminar and program promote institutional reputation management. Taking all these elements

together, it appears that TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track prioritizes the training of PCTs to be

collegiate instructors more so than prioritizing deep learning about teaching. Considering the

design of the program and seminar, its purpose is to train (and credential) a high volume of TAs

to be competent in teaching. What the program and seminar deliver provides PCTs with enough

information and direction to enter the classroom and not feel lost. As iterated in this section,

there is some irony in this fact: teaching preparation that instills relatively shallow learning about

teaching in future faculty, even though those future faculty will be expected to instill deep

learning in their future students. It is unclear whether PCTs can ultimately be successful

collegiate instructors after engaging in TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track. Specifically, the

complexities of teaching yield what Linsky and Heifetz (2002) describe as adaptive challenges,

or issues for which there are no clear, straightforward, or obvious solutions. Such challenges

might include addressing academic dishonesty, motivating students, or conflict management

between students. The technical training TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track provides to PCTs may

not equip them with the capacities necessary to address adaptive challenges in teaching.

Regarding what this evaluation means for programming in graduate student development and

faculty development, seminars and programs similar to TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track in terms

of its goals for participants and methods for implementation may only provide a level of depth on

par with technical training. Programming addressing the adaptive challenges of teaching requires

different goals, organization, and implementation. The section below highlighting implications

for practice attempts to articulate ways in which programming similar to TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold

Track can work towards achieving ends beyond training.

152

Nevertheless, the program and seminar serve an important purpose at Midwestern State

with respect to TA preparation. The relative ease with which students can enroll in it, coupled

with the relatively high number of graduate students it reaches, means TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold

Track provides introductory teaching preparation to a lot of graduate students. Having this level

of preparation is far superior to having none. My personal experiences as a graduate student TA,

alluded to in Chapters One and Three, can attest to that. In terms of engaging in deeper learning

about collegiate instruction, PCTs can turn to the Certificate for Collegiate Instruction offered

through the Midwestern State TLC. Though enrolling in the Certificate requires an application

for admission and is thus not as accessible as TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track, this 12 credit-hour

program in which PCTs take both general and discipline-specific pedagogy courses and complete

a mentored discipline-specific teaching project provides the learning depth necessary to tackle

the adaptive challenges of collegiate instruction. Though it may not be possible for graduate

students to fit an entire graduate certificate into their respective plans of study, it is likely such a

certificate on teaching is necessary to establish a strong foundation for successful collegiate

instruction.

Implications for Research and Practice

Results and analysis from this study corroborate and add to the extant literature on

teaching preparation for graduate TAs, as well as provide a path forward for future research.

Also, insights derived from this study provide recommendations for practice for those who work

with and support graduate TAs preparing to teach in higher education. The first part of this

section ties results and analysis back to the literature and discusses implications for future

research. Part two of this section focuses on implications for practice.

Connections to Literature and Future Research

A key gap in the literature on graduate TA teaching preparation is the lack of systematic

studies on individual graduate pedagogy preparation courses housed in centralized locations (i.e.,

college/university teaching and learning centers). Two notable studies on graduate pedagogy

courses explored descriptive information on both centralized and department-specific courses

(Chandler, 2011; Schönwetter et al., 2008). Results from both studies served as a snapshot of the

institutional locations, assignment types, grading methods, and topics of formal teaching

preparation courses for graduate students. More recent studies investigated and described

information about all department-specific graduate pedagogy courses on a single university

153

campus (O’Loughlin, Kearns, Sherwood-Laughlin, & Robinson, 2017). Additionally, other

studies emphasized particular elements within department-specific courses, such as rubrics for

writing teaching statements (Kearns, Sullivan, O’Loughlin, & Braun, 2010), how a pedagogy

course influences students’ self-awareness as teachers (Griffith, O’Loughlin, Kearns, Braun, &

Heacock, 2010), and the impact of integrating a Scholarship of Teaching and Learning approach

into a course (Auten & Twigg, 2015). This current study takes a different approach compared to

the aforementioned works. It thoroughly examines one seminar (TEAC 530) housed in a

centralized location (i.e., the Midwestern State TLC) at one institution in great depth, featuring

thick descriptions of how the seminar operates and how PCTs experience it. Therefore, this

study’s approach adds to the gap in the extant literature on individual pedagogy courses housed

in centralized locations. This study is also unique in that it does not specifically focus on broad

characteristics of TEAC 530’s content (i.e., assignment types, grading methods) or one nuanced

element of the course (i.e., rubrics for writing teaching statements). Rather, it aims to gauge

PCTs’ experiences and interactions within the context of the course’s content and nuanced

elements. In other words, the current study attempts to consider numerous aspects of TEAC 530

(i.e., content, scheduling, timing, PCTs’ experiences, social interactions) simultaneously.

Results and analysis from this research intersects with existing research on TA peer

interactions. The literature on this topic showed that when TAs engaged in generic interactions,

which broadly meant TAs being in contact or communicating with each other in graduate school,

it increased their socialization (i.e., when an individual becomes part of a community) to

graduate school in general (Austin, 2002; Mena et al., 2013; Myers, 1996) and to teaching in

higher education (Austin, 2002; Myers, 1996). Regarding more structured TA peer interactions,

the literature on TA peer mentoring, wherein novice TAs and veteran TAs go to meetings about

teaching together and novice TAs watch veterans teach, suggested such mentoring created

opportunities for these peers to learn from and support each other. Peer mentoring also facilitated

TA socialization to graduate school (Bollis-Pecci & Walker, 1999; Boyle & Boice, 1998). Peer

interactions in TEAC 530 were often more structured than the generic interactions described

above. For example, PCT peers often worked together in pairs or groups to complete in-seminar

activities. However, PCT interactions were also not structured such that PCTs were formal

mentors to each other. Nevertheless, results and analysis from this study corroborate findings

from the above research. There was evidence PCTs developed community, albeit a somewhat

154

shallow one, around notions of, and preparation for, teaching in higher education. On the

occasions in which PCTs could interact with their peers, either through attentive body language

or in co-constructed dialogues, their interest in the perspectives of their peers regarding teaching

was clear. Overall, in these interactions, PCTs showed the desire to learn from each other and

socialize with each other about collegiate instruction.

A way in which this study adds to the extant literature on TA peer interactions is through

its description and analysis of micro-interactions, or the nuanced social interactions, between TA

peers. Existing studies generally examined larger scale interactions between TA peers, such as

TA peer mentoring. Through this study’s symbolic interactionist analytical lens, a lens which

highlights how individuals act in relation to each other, greater understanding of the meanings of

TA peers’ nuanced interactions within the context of a teaching preparation seminar were

possible. For example, in a transitional period of TEAC 530 when Dr. Brown invited PCTs to get

more food, as individual PCTs got up to do so, there was a reinforcement of the social message

that this was the moment to get food. This led to a majority of PCTs getting up from their seats to

serve themselves. In an additional example, during the first part of several TEAC 530 sessions,

PCTs would reinforce, through their body language and actions toward each other, that

notetaking and paying attention to Dr. Brown during lectures were the appropriate social

behaviors during that time. Regarding the meanings of these interactions within the context of

TEAC 530, PCTs’ peer interactions in these examples reflected the limited opportunities for in-

depth social interactions in the seminar. To reiterate, TEAC 530 was carefully and efficiently

managed by an ever-present instructor in Dr. Brown, thereby curbing chances for sustained peer

interactions. PCTs’ peer interactions also reinforced PCTs’ own conformity to the seminar’s

rigid parameters. In other words, the social cues PCTs’ took from their peers encouraged

continued passivity; the passivity originated from the structure and management of the seminar.

Overall, this dissertation’s close study of nuanced TA peer interactions is unique to the present

literature on this topic. Understandings of nuanced TA peer interactions could have implications

for the design and structure of pedagogy preparation courses like TEAC 530.

Compared to TA peer interactions, there is far less current literature on interactions of

any kind between TAs and instructors of teaching preparation coursework. Among the current

literature, a study on a formal teaching preparation course for Biology graduate students co-

taught by three faculty members showed that this teaching approach to the course led to graduate

155

students feeling supported and well attended to by the instructors (Marbach-Ad et al., 2010).

Additional studies showed that informal TA and faculty interactions outside of formal teaching

preparation course settings led to increases in TAs’ socialization to graduate school (Austin,

2002; Mena et al., 2013). Results and analysis from the current study adds to this body of

literature. For instance, there was evidence that interactions such as extended dialogues between

the instructor and PCTs created the conditions necessary for PCTs’ learning. These dialogues

exposed PCTs to their instructor’s teaching experiences, enabling PCTs to learn from these

experiences as well as reflect on their own future teaching. It is possible these dialogues also

facilitated PCTs’ socialization to graduate school and teaching in higher education. This

possibility creates the potential for TA and faculty interactions within formal teaching

preparation course settings to contribute to TAs’ socialization. Additionally, study of nuanced

social interactions between PCTs and the instructor within TEAC 530 highlighted PCTs’

deference to the instructor’s authority, the fact that the instructor had influence over PCTs’

behavior in the seminar, and occasional tensions over control of the seminar between both social

actors.

Many studies in the present body of literature on graduate TA teaching preparation are

outcomes-based, focusing on the product of TA’s preparation in coursework and programming.

In this body of research, common outcomes of formal teaching preparation programs are

diminished anxiety over teaching, greater desire for TAs (as instructors) to help their own

students, and self-efficacy (Boman, 2013; Dimitrov et al., 2013; Pelton 2014; Roach, 2003;

Salinas et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 2008; Williams, 1991). Far fewer studies emphasized the

process of graduate TA teaching preparation. The current study attempted to showcase this

process through careful examination of TEAC 530, a one-credit hour formal graduate teaching

preparation seminar. In particular, this study inquired into how TAs experienced their

preparation and how interactions between their peers and their instructor shaped the preparation

experience. To avoid redundancy, this section will not reiterate the specific findings, analysis,

and points of discussion summarizing this study. However, it is necessary to note a few key

points. First, breaking down TEAC 530 sessions into three distinct parts, describing these parts,

and analyzing PCTs’ experiences and interactions within them, sheds light into the process of

teaching preparation in individual sessions. Second, connecting aspects of individual sessions

like the 60-minute time structure, to larger contextual structures surrounding the seminar like the

156

frequency and scheduling of session meetings, creates awareness of the process of taking the

seminar over the course of a semester. In sum, understanding the process of TAs’ teaching

preparation highlights what it is like to be part of this preparation rather than what happens as a

result of it. Also, emphasis on process better illuminates how and why teaching preparation

coursework and programming instill certain outcomes in TAs. Said differently, understanding

the process of TA’s teaching preparation shows how and why preparation coursework and

programming achieves certain outcomes. Overall, this study’s process-oriented approach

provides a unique and complementary viewpoint to outcomes-based approaches. Focus on

process distinguishes this study from most other literature on TA teaching preparation.

Finally, this study creates pathways forward for future research on graduate TA

preparation. As described throughout this dissertation, TEAC 530 is one seminar that is part of

the larger curriculum of the Certificate for Collegiate Instruction. Current literature on certificate

programs focused on describing the composition of certificates in North America, examining

numbers of credit hours, assignment types, and mentoring opportunities (Kenny et al., 2014; von

Hoene, 2011). Fewer studies investigated student outcomes of certificate programs (Taylor et al.,

2008). One possible strand of future research, taking the same process-based approach as this

dissertation, would be to explore how graduate students experience teaching certificate

programs. Such a study could unveil what happens to certificate participants as they navigate

these programs and why they achieve (or do not achieve) certain outcomes.

Though there are far more studies on department-specific pedagogy seminars for

graduate students, it is still unclear the extent to which these studies, like this dissertation,

exclusively examine the process of such seminars; specifically, how do graduate students

experience them? Engaging in a process-based approach in department-specific pedagogy

courses would complement findings from this current study and illuminate what similarities or

differences exist between departmental courses and centralized courses. Additionally, the

discourse on graduate TA teaching preparation would benefit from more longitudinal approaches

that chronicle the experiences of graduate TAs, starting when they begin their preparation for

collegiate instruction and continuing as they transition into the academy as instructors (or in

other roles, elsewhere). These types of studies, focusing on students’ development and

trajectories from the beginning of their formal teaching preparation onward, and interrogating the

extent to which their formal preparation informs their development and trajectories, could lend

157

perspective into the long-term impact of formal collegiate teaching preparation. One recent study

took this approach, examining the career choices and attitudes of graduate students who were

part of a five-week preparing future faculty seminar at a single institution between 2007 and

2013. Among other results, the authors reported that what helped participants most from the

seminar in terms of their job searching and career development was writing teaching philosophy

statements, visiting different types of colleges and universities, and having discussions with

faculty members about work life at various types of institutions. Participants also found

professional development around teaching, specifically techniques for active learning and course

design, generally beneficial (Schram, Pinder-Grover, & Turcic II, 2017). More studies such as

this will further advance knowledge on the long-term benefits of formal teaching preparation for

graduate TAs. Finally, research on interactions between graduate students from different

disciplinary backgrounds in teaching preparation programming, and how these interactions

impact students’ learning outcomes, is necessary considering how many preparation programs

and seminars (like TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track) are interdisciplinary in nature. Such works

could illuminate the benefits of students from different disciplines learning about teaching from

each other and point to potential cross-disciplinary partnerships, relationships, and collaborations

for the benefit of graduate students’ teaching preparation.

Implications for Practice

Before discussing implications for practice based on results and analyses from this

dissertation, it is first important to reiterate this study’s nature and design. As a qualitative

ethnographic study focusing on one centralized pedagogy seminar at a single institution, results

from this work cannot be seamlessly generalized to various types of institutions with similar

types of seminars. Rather, the purpose of this type of study is “to understand, not generalize;”

ultimately, it is up to readers and practitioners to make their own judgments as to whether the

results and recommendations for practice stemming from this work have applicability to their

settings (Ruona, 2005, p. 247). From within the context of this study, below are

recommendations and implications for practice.

Based on results and analysis from this dissertation, one possible recommendation for

practice with centralized graduate pedagogy seminars, and the programs in which they are part,

is to alter the timing and scheduling of sessions. In TEAC 530, the 60-minute seminar time

structure created conditions in which PCTs were mostly passive and had limited opportunities

158

for in-depth interactions with peers and the instructor. This study showed extended dialogues

with both PCTs’ peers and the instructor fostered opportunities for PCTs to learn. However,

these types of dialogues were time consuming and the 60-minute time constraint of TEAC 530

made it difficult for extended dialogues to materialize and persist. Expanding the amount of time

in individual sessions from one hour to two hours would create more space for such dialogues. In

fact, TEAC 531 and TEAC 532, both required seminars for the Certificate in Collegiate

Instruction, feature rich dialogues between PCT peers, are both two hours in length, and are one-

credit hour seminars. This means it is possible for TEAC 530 to expand its time without

increasing its credit load.

Another possible recommendation for practice is to alter the scheduling of TEAC 530

within the GIIP – Gold Track so that individual sessions are closer in proximity to each other. As

highlighted throughout this study, the time in between the meetings of individual TEAC 530

sessions throughout a semester may span several weeks. It is possible these gaps in time between

sessions contributed to PCTs struggling to recall interactions with peers and Dr. Brown when

interviewed. Thus, time gaps likely diminish the continuity necessary for individuals to get to

know each other intimately and create a deep peer community. Creation of such community

would undoubtedly contribute to increased socialization to graduate school, teaching in higher

education, and possibly learning. Numerous formal teaching preparation programs and other

similar programs, whether centralized or department-specific, implement shorter (i.e., over the

course of a few weeks) seminar schedules, but in closer succession to one another (see Schram,

et al., 2017). Practitioners of seminars and programs like TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track could

study and weigh the potential benefits and consequences of such approaches.

Considering the tensions this current study identified between PCTs and Dr. Brown

regarding the former’s management of TEAC 530, and how some of these tensions related to

PCTs having less control over seminar content, a recommendation to remedy this issue is giving

more control to PCTs in the classroom. One way in which to do this is for an instructor and

students to co-create elements of the course together. Though graduate students new to teaching

may not necessarily know all of the essential topics for teaching preparation, co-constructing a

seminar as a learning partnership (Baxter Magolda, 2004a), where students can offer input based

on their prior knowledge and experiences, could yield greater student buy-in to the seminar and

facilitate greater learning and development (Baxter Magolda, 2004b). In this co-creation process,

159

the instructor can mandate that certain essential topics be covered in the seminar while graduate

students decide upon which topics they would like to prioritize. Related to this recommendation

is another recommendation: during the co-construction process, the instructor and students

prioritize learning about teaching as an explicit seminar outcome and decide what that means and

how to assess for it. Going through this exercise ensures two actions: a) graduate student TAs

will, in conjunction with their instructor, witness the process of connecting course outcomes to

assessment, a vital teaching practice, and b) create an assignment or action that has the potential

to instill deep learning in graduate student TAs so they are better equipped to handle the adaptive

challenges (i.e., issues for which there are no clear, straightforward, or obvious solutions) that

inevitably come with collegiate instruction (Linsky & Heifetz, 2002).

Lastly, practitioners of graduate TA teaching preparation programs and seminars should

seek out student affairs personnel as a resource. These personnel are generally experts in student

development and have the capacities to help graduate students improve their instruction. Student

affairs practitioners can also help graduate students themselves navigate the challenges of

graduate school. Regarding the improvement of TAs’ instruction, one possibility is for TA

development practitioners to team up with graduate student affairs personnel to discuss ways in

which TAs can better facilitate the learning and development of undergraduate students. In terms

of supporting graduate TAs, TA development practitioners and student affairs personnel can co-

create workshops or seminars on graduate career development.

Conclusion

After having carefully studied TEAC 530, it is necessary to pose the following question:

if I had the power to change the past, knowing what I know now about the seminar, would I go

back and make a greater effort to take it before teaching as a graduate student? In the opening

pages of this dissertation, I described learning about the TLC’s Certificate in Collegiate

Instruction and its accompanying seminars, one of which was TEAC 530. I was eligible to take

TEAC 530 in my first semester of graduate school and eventually apply for admission into the

Certificate; I opted not to enroll because of the busyness of my schedule. Looking back, I wish I

enrolled. This study illustrates how the seminar delivers enough information and direction to

PCTs so they can enter the classroom and not feel lost, but likely falls short of providing them

with the deep learning necessary to address the complexities of teaching. Nevertheless, the

seminar provides opportunities for PCTs to think about teaching with peers and an experienced

160

instructor and complete authentic projects designed to help in the classroom right away. Though

not perfect, these opportunities are helpful for novice instructors. In my case, the demands of

graduate school prevented me from pursuing this opportunity to develop my teaching acumen

before entering the post-secondary classroom.

A key element to the modified Blumerian SI theoretical framework guiding this study is

the notion of how wider social structures shape interactions. My experience of not enrolling in

TEAC 530 was due to the social structure of graduate school itself. Specifically, the nature of

graduate school in the present era is such that it requires an enormous amount of time. Between

taking courses, fulfilling research or teaching assistantship duties, conducting original research

and, in my case, adjusting to my first semester of school in a new place, there is little time for

any additional activities. To be successful within the structure of graduate school, graduate

students need to prioritize their time as efficiently as possible and make important decisions as to

what activities they can, or cannot, commit themselves to. For me to effectively navigate inside

this structure, I chose not to take TEAC 530. As a result, I was not present to engage in

interactions with peers who were also learning how to teach in higher education. Although

detailed exploration of the genesis of the current structure of graduate school is beyond the scope

of this dissertation, it is necessary to close this writing with a brief examination of why and how

this structure connects to several elements within TEAC 530.

The structure of graduate school shapes how TEAC 530 functions and helps explain why

it functions the way it does. Graduate school in the present era requires a lot of time and thus

necessitates that graduate students be efficient. Understanding this, the architects (i.e., the TLC)

of TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track work to accommodate graduate students by making the seminar

one-credit hour and sessions one hour long, a few times per semester. These aspects of the

seminar make it flexible, and therefore palatable for (some) graduate students constantly

occupied by work and short on time. The hour time frame of the seminar coupled with its

infrequent meetings means the seminar instructor, Dr. Brown, must be efficient in his instruction

to provide PCTs with as much vital information per session as possible. This leads him to

implement primarily lecture-based instruction punctuated by short discussion-based activities

that enable PCTs to make sense of lecture material. PCTs, as the recipients of these instructional

methods, possibly internalize them as their own; they learn how to teach for efficiency. Thus, the

structure of graduate school shapes the interactions in the seminar between PCTs and Dr. Brown

161

such that it creates these instructor/student outcomes. As such, within the structure of graduate

school, TEAC 530/GIIP – Gold Track generally meets its goals of enhancing the collegiate

teaching proficiency of PCTs and establishing a framework of teaching skills for PCTs.

However, the instructional methods PCTs receive, witness, and possibly internalize, together

with the goals for the seminar and program, do not necessarily cultivate deep learning in PCTs,

and by extension, will likely not aid PCTs with instilling deep learning in their future students.

How can a program and seminar that does not cultivate deep learning in PCTs prepare them to

cultivate such learning with their future students? Overall, the current structure of graduate

school, one in which graduate students are constantly busy and need to rely on efficiency, creates

the conditions for TEAC 530 to operate in the above described manner.

Naturally, the structure of graduate school exists within the larger structure of American

education itself. Several scholars argue American education exists today in an era of

neoliberalism (Dominguez, 2009; Giroux, 2015; Letizia, 2015), which “holds that market

mechanisms are the most efficient and surest means to distribute goods and services, including

traditional public services such as education” (Letizia, 2015, p. 1). Thus, adherents to a

neoliberal vision of education view educational institutions as profitmaking enterprises rather

than places that should receive government financial support for their role in developing

democratic-minded, well-informed citizens. Under neoliberalism, Giroux (2015) states:

“Education at all levels is increasingly defunded and defined as a site of training rather than as a

site of critical thought, dialogue, and critical pedagogy” (p. 104). This current neoliberal era

occupying the structure of American education as a whole undoubtedly impacts the structure of

graduate school as well. As funding for education across multiple levels dwindles, there are less

resources to hire personnel for essential functions, thereby requiring fewer individuals to do

more work. This pattern occurs in graduate school as well; departments hire graduate students to

teach and conduct research as less expensive alternatives to hiring full-time faculty. These duties

graduate students undertake, in addition to their regular academic responsibilities, increases their

work burdens and time commitments. Returning to TEAC 530/ GIIP – Gold Track, the design of

the seminar and program attempts to accommodate graduate students’ needs in light of the time

greedy structure of graduate school. Thus, efficiency is a key guiding principle to the functioning

of the seminar and program. Overall, the current neoliberal structure of American education

162

informs the structure of graduate school, which informs how and why TEAC 530 functions in the

manner it does.

In addition to the recommendations articulated earlier in this chapter, it is vital scholars

and practitioners of graduate student development consider how wider social structures

informing American education and graduate school impact the nature of seminars and

programming for graduate student teaching preparation. As highlighted in the conclusion to this

dissertation, social structures can shape the design and implementation of preparation seminars

and programming in ways that contribute to a de-emphasis of deep learning about teaching in

favor of efficient teacher training. To be successful in cultivating meaningful learning in their

future students, graduate students must go beyond training. They must learn about teaching in

ways that challenge their preconceived notions about teaching and learning, establish their

personal philosophies of teaching, and help them inspire critical thinking in others. Training and

emphasis on efficiency in teaching preparation instruction for graduate students will likely fall

short of these goals.

163

References

Austin, A. E. (2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization

to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education 73(1), 94-122.

Auten, J. G., & Twigg, M. M. (2015). Teaching and learning SoTL: Preparing future faculty in a

pedagogy course. Teaching & Learning Inquiry 3(1), 3-13.

Arcelus, V. J. (2008). In search of a break in the clouds: An ethnographic study of academic and

students affairs cultures. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses database. (UMI No. 3414294)

Atkinson, P. (2015). For ethnography. London: Sage.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004a). Learning partnerships model: A framework for promoting self-

authorship. In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships:

Theory and models for practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 37-62). Sterling, VA:

Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2004b). Self-authorship as the common goal for 21st century education.

In M. B. Baxter Magolda & P. M. King (Eds.), Learning partnerships: Theory and

models for practice to educate for self-authorship (pp. 1-35). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Birnbaum, M. G. (2013). The fronts students use: Facebook and the standardization of self-

presentations. Journal of College Student Development, 54(2), 155-171.

Blumer, H. (1969/1986). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Oakland, CA:

University of California Press.

Bollis-Pecci, T. S., & Walker, K. L. (1999). Peer mentoring perspectives in GTA training: A

conceptual road map. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 7(1), 27-37.

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.

Boman, J. S. (2014). Does reflective writing enhance training? An evaluation of a skills-based

teaching assistant training program. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning

Journal, 7(2), 1-18.

Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code

development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

164

Boyle, P., & Boice, B. (1998). Systematic mentoring for new faculty teachers and graduate

teaching assistants. Innovative Higher Education 22(3), 157-179.

BrckaLorenz, A. M. (2008). Doctoral students’ attitudes about collegiate teaching behaviors.

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

(UMI No. 3347201)

Brown, E. (2015a). TEAC 530 - Introduction to Collegiate Instruction [syllabus]. Midwestern

State University.

Brown, E. (2015b). TEAC 530 - Introduction to Collegiate Instruction. Retrieved from the

university website.

Chandler, E. O. (2011). Graduate and professional student development: The role of the

pedagogy course. In L. B. Border (Ed.), Studies in graduate and professional student

development: Mapping the range of graduate student professional development (pp. 69-

86). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Charon, J. M. (1992). Symbolic interactionism: An introduction, an interpretation, an integration

(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Chism, N. V. N. (1998). Preparing graduate students to teach: Past, present, and future. In M.

Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The Professional Development of Graduate

Teaching Assistants (pp. 1-17). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Cole, B. E. (2014). Student activism within Christian college cultures: A symbolic interactionist

perspective. Christian Higher Education, 13(5), 317-339.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a

codebook for the analysis of interview data: An example from a professional

development research project. Field Methods, 23(2), 136-155.

Dimitrov, N., Meadows, K., Kustra, E., Ackerson, T., Prada, L., Baker, N., Boulos, P., McIntyre,

G., & Potter, M. K. (2013). Assessing graduate teaching development programs for

impact on future faculty. Toronto: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

Dominguez, R. F. (2009). U.S. college student activism during an era of neoliberalism: A

qualitative study of students against sweatshops. The Australian Educational Researcher,

36(3), 125-138.

165

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.).

Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press

Fagen, A. P., & Suedkamp Wells, K. M. (2004). The 2000 national doctoral program survey: An

on-line study of students' voices. In D. H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates (Eds.),

Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp.

74-91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Ford, K. A. (2011). Doing fake masculinity, being real men: Present and future constructions of

self among Black college men. Symbolic Interaction, 34(1), 38-62.

Giroux, H. A. (2015). Democracy in crisis, the specter of authoritarianism, and the future of

higher education. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student

Affairs, 1(1), 101-113.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

Anchor.

Griffith, L. M., O’Loughlin, V. D., Kearns, K. D., Braun, M., & Heacock, I. (2010). A pedagogy

course’s influence on graduate students’ self-awareness as teacher-scholars. In L. B.

Border (Ed.), Studies in graduate and professional student development: Context and

content in the preparation of future faculty (pp. 59-82). Stillwater, OK: New Forums

Press.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: Staying alive through the dangers

of leading. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Hollar, K., Carlson, V., & Spencer, P. (2000). 1+1=3: Unanticipated benefits of a co-facilitation

model for training teaching assistants. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant

Development, 7(3), 173-181.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Kearns, K. D., Sullivan, C. S., O’Loughlin, V. D., & Braun, M. (2010). A scoring rubric for

teaching statements: A tool for inquiry into graduate student writing about teaching and

learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 21(1), 73-96.

166

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Kenny, N., Watson, G. P. L, & Watton, C. (2014). Exploring the context of Canadian graduate

student teaching certificates in university teaching. Canadian Journal of Higher

Education, 44(3), 1-19.

Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The insvisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges and

universities. ASHE Higher Education Report, 17(1). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Letizia, A. (2015). Revitalizing higher education and the commitment to the public good: A

literature review. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies,

11(2) [online journal].

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions,

and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of qualitative research (pp. 97-128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lockwood, S. A., Miller, A. J., & Cromie, M. M. (2014). Preparing future biology faculty: An

advanced professional development program for graduate students. The American

Biology Teacher, 76(1), 17-21.

Magolda, P. M., & Ebben Gross, K. (2009). It’s all about Jesus: Faith as an oppositional

collegiate subculture. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Marbach-Ad, G., Shields, P. A., Kent, B. W., Higgins, B., & Thompson, K. V. (2010). A prep

course for graduate teaching assistants: Building a community. In L. B. Border (Ed.),

Studies in graduate and professional student development: Context and content in the

preparation of future faculty (pp. 44-58). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Marincovich, M., Prostko, J., & Stout, F. (Eds.). (1998). The professional development of

graduate teaching assistants. Bolton, MA: Anker.

McSweeney, F. (2012). Student, practitioner, or both? Separation and integration of identities in

professional social care education. Social Work Education, 31(3), 364-382.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, & society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago,

IL: The University of Chicago Press.

167

Mena, I. B., Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2013). Socialization experiences resulting

from doctoral engineering teaching assistantships. The Journal of Higher Education,

84(2), 189-212.

Meyers, S. A., Livingston Lansu, M., Hundal, J. S., Lekkos, S. K., & Prieto, L. R. (2007).

Preparing new psychology instructors to teach undergraduates: Developing confidence

and competence. The Journal of Faculty Development, 21(1), 45-54.

Midwestern State University. (2014a). Enrollment. Retrieved from the university website.

Midwestern State University. (2014b). First-year class profile. Retrieved from the university

website.

Midwestern State University. (2015a). Greek guide for parents. Retrieved from the university

website.

Midwestern State University. (2015b). MSU Rankings. Retrieved from the university website.

Midwestern State University. (2015c). Quick facts. Retrieved from the university website.

Midwestern State University. (2016a). Academics. Retrieved from the university website.

Midwestern State University. (2016b). The graduate school. Retrieved from the university

website.

Midwestern State University. (2016c). Good teaching practices. Retrieved from the university

website.

Midwestern State University Graduate School. (n.d.). Graduate certificate in collegiate

instruction: Plan of study. Retrieved from the university website.

Midwestern State University Graduate School Orientation. (n.d.). Issues to consider as a

graduate TA. Midwestern State University.

Midwestern State University Office of Institutional Research. (2016). Fact book: Faculty and

staff. Retrieved from the university website.

Midwestern State University Policy Library. (2015). Graduate student policies: Academic

integrity. Retrieved from the university website.

Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center. (2015a). Graduate certificate in

collegiate instruction. Retrieved from the university website.

Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center. (2015b). Graduate instructor

improvement program. Retrieved from the university website.

168

Midwestern State University Teaching and Learning Center. (2017). GIIP application. Retrieved

from the university website.

Mintz, J. A. (1998). The role of centralized programs in preparing graduate students to teach. In

M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate

teaching assistants (pp. 19-40). Bolton, MA: Anker.

Myers, S. A. (1996). Newcomer GTA perceptions of socialization activities. Journal of

Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 4(1), 15-21.

New Forums Press. (2015). The journal of graduate teaching assistant development. Retrieved

from http://newforums.com/our-titles/journals/the-journal-of-graduate-teaching-assistant-

development/.

Nicolazzo, Z. (2015). “Just go in looking good”: The resilience, resistance, and kinship-building

of trans* college students. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations

and Theses database. (UMI No. 3688325)

Nyquist, J. D., Abbott, R. D., & Wulff, D. H. (Eds.). (1989). The challenge of TA training in the

1990s. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Nyquist, J. D., Woodford, B. J., & Rogers, D. L. (2004). Re-envisioning the Ph.D: A Challenge

for the Twenty‐First Century. In D. H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates (Eds.), Paths to

the professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 194-216).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

O’Loughlin, V. D., Kearns, K. D., Sherwood-Laughlin, C., & Robinson, J. M. (2017). How do

we train our future faculty to teach? A multidisciplinary comparison of graduate-level

pedagogy courses offered at a large midwestern university. College Teaching. Advance

online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2017.1333081

Park, J. J. (2013). When diversity drops: Race, religion, and affirmative action in higher

education. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Pelton, J. A. (2014). Assessing graduate teaching training programs: Can a teaching seminar

reduce anxiety and increase confidence? Teaching Sociology, 42(1), 40-49.

Petchauer, E. (2012). Hip-hop culture in college students’ lives: Elements, embodiment, and

higher edutainment. New York, NY: Routledge.

Prieto, L. R., & Meyers, S. A. (1999). Effects of training and supervision on the self-efficacy of

psychology graduate teaching assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 26(4), 264-266.

169

Prieto, L. R., Yamokosi, C. A., & Meyers, S. A. (2007). Teaching assistant training and

supervision: An examination of optimal delivery modes and skill emphases. The Journal

of Faculty Development, 21(1), 33-43.

Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Implications for the growing visibility of gay and bisexual male students

on campus. NASPA Journal, 34(4), 275-286.

Roach, K. D. (1998). Teaching assistant communication apprehension, willingness to

communicate, and state communication anxiety in the classroom. Communication

Research Reports, 15, 130-140.

Roach, K. D. (1999). The influence of teaching assistant willingness to communicate and

communication anxiety in the classroom. Communication Quarterly, 47, 166-182.

Roach, K. D. (2003). Teaching assistant anxiety and coping strategies in the classroom.

Communication Research Reports, 20, 81–89.

Robinson, J. B. (2000). New teaching assistants facilitate active learning in chemistry

laboratories: Promoting teaching assistant learning through formative assessment and

peer review. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant Development, 7(3), 147-162.

Robinson, K. S. (2016, September). Avoid the dentist! Strategies and resources for graduate

students preparing to teach [Weblog post]. Retrieved from

https://ashegrads.wordpress.com/blog/september-2016-blog-post/.

Ronkowski, S. A. (1998). The disciplinary/departmental context of TA training. In M.

Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate

teaching assistants (pp. 41-60). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Ruona, W. E. A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.),

Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 223-263). San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Salinas, M. F., Kozuh, G., & Seraphine, A. E. (1999). I think I can: Improving teaching self-

confidence of international teaching assistants. Journal of Graduate Teaching Assistant

Development, 6(3), 149-156.

Samura, M. (2015). Wrestling with expectations: An examination of how Asian American

college students negotiate personal, parental, and societal expectations. Journal of

College Student Development, 56(6), 602-618.

170

Schönwetter, D. J., Ellis, D. E., Taylor, K. L., & Koop, V. (2008). An exploration of the

landscape of graduate courses on college and university teaching in Canada and the USA.

In L. B. Border (Ed.), Studies in graduate and professional student development:

Defining the field (pp. 22-44). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Schram, L. N., Pinder-Grover, T., & Turcic II, S. (2017). Assessing the long-term impact of the

preparing future faculty seminar. To Improve the Academy, 36(2), 101-116.

Schwandt, T. A. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and

Winston.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Menlo Park, CA:

Benjamin/Cummings.

Stryker, S. (1987). The vitalization of symbolic interactionism. Social Psychology Quarterly,

50(1), 83-94.

Sweet, S. (1999). Understanding fraternity hazing: Insights from symbolic interactionist theory.

Journal of College Student Development, 40(4), 355-364.

Taylor, K. L., Schönwetter, D. E., Ellis, D. J., & Roberts, M. (2008). Profiling an approach to

evaluating the impact of two certification in university teaching programs for graduate

students. In L. B. Border (Ed.), Studies in graduate and professional student

development: Defining the field (pp. 45-75). Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.

Tice, S. L., Featherstone, P. H., & Johnson, H. C. (1998). TA certificate programs. In M.

Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The professional development of graduate

teaching assistants (pp. 263-274). Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

Tice, S. L., Gaff, J. G., & Pruitt - Logan, A. S. (1998). Preparing future faculty programs:

Beyond TA development. In M. Marincovich, J. Prostko, & F. Stout (Eds.), The

professional development of graduate teaching assistants (pp. 275-292). Bolton, MA:

Anker.

Tresch, J. (2001). On going native: Thomas Kuhn and anthropological method. Philosophy of the

Social Sciences, 31(3), 302-322.

Ueno, K., & Gentile, H. (2015). Moral identity in friendships between gay, lesbian, and bisexual

students and straight students in college. Symbolic Interaction, 38(1), 83-102.

171

Van Maanen, J. (2011). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL:

University of Chicago Press.

von Hoene, L. (2011). Graduate student teaching certificates: Survey of current programs. In L.

B. Border (Ed.), Studies in graduate and professional student development: Mapping the

range of graduate student professional development (pp. 101-123). Stillwater, OK: New

Forums Press.

Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview

studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Williams, L. S. (1991). The effects of a comprehensive teaching assistant training program on

teaching anxiety and effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 32, 585-598.

Woods, P. (1992). Symbolic interactionism: Theory and method. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L.

Milroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education (pp.

337-404). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Wulff, D. H., & Austin, A. E. (2004a). Future directions: Strategies to enhance paths to the

professoriate. In D. H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates (Eds.), Paths to the

professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (pp. 267-292).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Wulff, D. H., & Austin, A. E. (Eds.). (2004b). Paths to the professoriate: Strategies

for enriching the preparation of future faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Young, S. L., & Bippus, A. M. (2008). Assessment of graduate teacher assistant (GTA) training:

A case study of a training program and its impact on GTAs. Communication Teacher,

22(4), 116-129.

172

Appendices

Appendix A: Research Site Access Consent Form

How do Graduate Students Prepare to Teach? - An Ethnographic Study

Research Site Access Consent Form

Contact Information

Kirk S. Robinson

Ph.D. Candidate & Primary Investigator (PI)

robins75@miamioh.edu

(772) 321-9184

Office for the Advancement of Research and Scholarship

humansubjects@miamioh.edu

(513) 529-3600

Research Description:

You are invited to participate in a research project that seeks to understand how graduate

students prepare to teach college classes. The goals of this study are to solicit the following from

graduate students who are preparing to teach:

1) Life stories—including narratives about home and work

2) Perspectives about their preparation to teach college classes

3) Insights into how they see themselves as teachers

4) Perceptions about teaching in higher education

In addition to these goals, to get a better sense of the environments in which graduate students

are being prepared to teach, your consent is being requested so that I may have access to and

observe your:

(Circle one)

- Department or center

- Class/seminar

Conditions:

1. The information obtained during this research project may be used to accomplish

the aforementioned goals.

2. Any information that may reveal the identity of you, your department/center, or your

class/seminar will either be altered or omitted. The name(s) of you, your

department/center, or class/seminar will be kept confidential at all times. I will use

pseudonyms in all written reports. Data will only be made available in anonymous form

in any publications and presentations resulting from this study.

3. The names of any personnel associated with you, your department/center, or

class/seminar will either be altered or omitted. Their names will also be kept confidential

173

at all times. Again, I will use pseudonyms in all written reports and only make data

available in anonymous form in any publications and presentations resulting from

this study.

4. You are at least 18 years of age.

5. If you are serving as the gatekeeper to your department/center or class/seminar, you

may refuse my access at any time, without penalty.

6. If you are serving as a gatekeeper to your department/center or class/seminar,

you may stop the observation process and/or discontinue participation in the study at any

time. Your data will be returned to you at your request and, if applicable, to any

participants in the department/center or class/seminar at their requests.

7. If you allow me access to observe your department/center or class/seminar, I will initially

record notes using a pen and pad; these notes will eventually be transferred to a tablet

device/laptop with a word processing program. Notes will be securely stored in

electronic format by me. Paper notes will be shredded directly after transfer.

8. Your decision to participate or not participate in this study will not affect in any way your

status or employment standing at Miami University.

9. You understand that the Miami University Institutional Review Board has approved this

research study (certificate # 01520e).

10. For questions regarding this study, please contact the student PI, Kirk S. Robinson at

772-321-9184/robins75@miamioh.edu or his faculty advisor Dr. Mahauganee D. Shaw at

513-529-4750/shawmd2@MiamiOH.edu. For questions regarding your rights as a

research participant, please contact Miami University’s Research Compliance Office

at 513-529-3600 or humansubjects@miamioh.edu.

I read and understand the information included on this form. _______ [initial]

I agree to participate in this research study according to the terms stated above. _______ [initial]

I have received a copy of the Study Information Sheet and the Participant Informed Consent Form. _______ [initial]

I grant the investigator permission to quote me directly (using a pseudonym) in written reports. _______ [initial]

Participant’s Printed Name: ______________________________

Participant’s Signature: ______________________________ Date: ______________

Investigator’s Signature: _____________________________ Date: ______________

174

Appendix B: PCT Interview Protocols

Example Interview Protocol - Graduate Students Preparing to Teach (Round 1)

Questions:

1) Are you currently teaching/Have you taught any college-level classes? If so, which ones?

How are they going/did they go?

a) If not, do you plan to teach college-level classes in the future? If so, which ones/kinds

(either assigned or envisioned)?

2) Can you recount for me the series of events that led you to the TLC seminars?

3) What is it like taking this/these seminar(s)? Can you recount for me, step-by-step, how a

typical seminar goes?

4) What sort of emotions do you feel during one of these seminars? Do you feel invested?

Engaged? Disengaged? Relaxed? Stressed?

5) What are/were you looking to gain from the seminar(s)?

6) How do you feel the preparation seminar(s) you are taking is/are preparing (not preparing)

you?

a) How else, in addition to the GIIP, Certificate, and seminars are you preparing to teach?

7) Tell me how you think your department feels about graduate students teaching. Can you

think of an example of how your department has been supportive and/or unsupportive of

graduate student teaching?

a) What about your impressions of your academic field’s perceptions about graduate

students teaching?

8) Tell me how you think Midwestern State University feels about graduate students teaching.

Can you think of an example of how Midwestern has been supportive and/or unsupportive of

graduate student teaching?

175

Example Interview Protocol - Graduate Students Preparing to Teach (Round 2)

Questions:

1) During your time taking the seminars for GIIP or the Certificate, did you attend any sessions

or courses outside of the seminars that were required to complete requirements for GIIP or

the Certificate? Are you currently attending any such sessions or courses?

a) If so, can you describe one or more of these sessions or courses?

b) Did you find it (them) useful to your teaching preparation? How?

c) How did it (they) differ from a typical seminar session?

2) Last fall, an official Midwestern State University marketing booklet was mailed to

prospective undergraduate students. The booklet refers to graduate teaching assistants. Could

you view these images of text taken from part of the booklet and provide me with your

reaction?

3) How do you/How did you feel about your peers in the seminar(s)? What were your general

thoughts about them?

4) Tell me a story about an interaction (positive, negative, educational, etc.) you had with a peer

in the seminar(s)? What stood out in that interaction?

5) Can you recall something related to collegiate teaching you learned from your peers in the

seminar(s)? What stands out?

6) Have working and interacting with your peers in the seminar(s) changed the way you think

about collegiate teaching? If so, how?

7) How do you/How did you feel about the instructor of the seminar(s)? What were your

general thoughts about them?

8) Tell me a story about an interaction (positive, negative, educational, etc.) you had with the

instructor in the seminar(s)? What stood out in that interaction?

9) Can you recall something related to collegiate teaching you learned from your instructor in

the seminar(s)? What stands out?

10) Has working and interacting with the instructor of the seminar(s) changed the way you think

about collegiate teaching? If so, how?

176

Appendix C: Instructor Interview Protocols

Example Interview Protocol - Instructor of the Seminars for the Certificate in Collegiate

Instruction and the Graduate Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP) (Round 1)

Questions:

1. Can you describe for me your own personal educational journey and how that led to your

current position?

2. Did you ever teach as a graduate student? If so, what kind (if any) preparation did you

receive?

3. Can you describe for me the pathway that led you to be responsible for teaching the

preparation seminars for the Certificate and GIIP?

4. What other courses, in addition to the seminars for the Certificate and GIIP, do you

teach?

5. What were your initial feelings about teaching these seminars? Have those feelings

changed since you started teaching them?

6. What do you think is most important for graduate students to consider while they prepare

to teach? Do you think the seminars help fulfill this?

7. Can you recount for me how the following seminars typically go: TEAC 530, TEAC 531,

and TEAC 532?

8. How do you think graduate students perceive you as their instructor in the seminars?

9. How do you think graduate students perceive themselves as collegiate instructors?

10. What are the rewards and challenges working with graduate students?

11. What is your opinion of graduate students teaching courses in higher education?

177

Example Interview Protocol - Instructor of the Seminars for the Certificate in Collegiate

Instruction and the Graduate Instructor Improvement Program (GIIP) (Round 2)

Questions:

1) Tell me a story about an interaction (positive, negative, educational, etc.) you had with a

graduate student in the seminar(s)? What stood out in that interaction?

2) How do you typically interact with graduate students in the seminars?

3) Can you describe how students in the seminars interact with each other?

4) What kind of interactions, either between you and students or between the students

themselves, do you think are most beneficial for students?

5) Last fall, an official Midwestern State University marketing booklet was mailed to

prospective undergraduate students. The booklet refers to graduate teaching assistants.

Could you view these images of text taken from part of the booklet and provide me with

your reaction?

6) How much autonomy do you have over the content and structure of the seminars (i.e.,

what gets taught, how long the seminars last, how many credits the seminars are worth)?

7) In a scenario where you have complete autonomy over the seminars (i.e., over what gets

taught, how long the seminars last, how many credits the seminars are worth, etc.), is

there anything you would change about them?

8) How do you think faculty members at Midwestern State University, in general, perceive

graduate students teaching/co-teaching/assisting with teaching classes? What do you

think are the perceptions of undergraduates?

9) Tell me how you think Midwestern State University feels about graduate students

teaching. Can you think of an example of how Midwestern has been supportive and/or

unsupportive of graduate student teaching?