Q METHODOLOGY AS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR BIOLOGY GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS PARTICIPATING IN AN INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

© 2013
AMY B. HOLLINGSWORTH
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Q METHODOLOGY AS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR BIOLOGY
GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS PARTICIPATING IN AN
INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Amy B. Hollingsworth
November 1, 2013
i

Q METHODOLOGY AS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR BIOLOGY
GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS PARTICIPATING IN AN
INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM
Amy B. Hollingsworth
Dissertation
Approved: Accepted:
______________________________ ______________________________
Co-Chair Department Chair
Jennifer L. Milam, Ph.D. Susan J. Olson, Ph.D.
______________________________ ______________________________
Co-Chair/ Methodologist Dean of the College
Susan E. Ramlo, Ph.D. Susan G. Clark, Ph.D., J.D.
______________________________ ______________________________
Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School
Robert Joel Duff, Ph.D. Dr. George R. Newkome
______________________________ ______________________________
Committee Member Date
Gary M. Holliday, Ph.D.
ii
______________________________
Committee Member
John B. Nicholas, Ph.D.

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate how Q Methodology can be used as a
needs assessment tool for a Biology graduate teaching assistant (GTA) instructional
training program. GTAs are used as the instructors of an increasingly diverse population
of undergraduate students. GTAs are a diverse population of students with varying
amounts of pedagogical preparation, research abilities, and motivation to complete their
graduate study. They are often expected to prepare and grade exams, write their own
syllabi, design course curriculum, prepare and present lectures, monitor student progress,
hold office hours, and assign final grades, all with minimal faculty supervision. Although
not all GTAs will become professors, many will, and the teaching assistantship remains
the major preparation for their roles as faculty members. Since the majority of science
professors have been GTAs, this instructional training program is of critical importance.
Approaches to developing instructional training programs for GTAs vary from
departmental workshops to campus-wide instructional seminars. Program evaluation is an
intrinsic part of assuring that such programs best serve GTA needs, and that GTAs can
best fulfill their roles in their respective departments. Q Methodology offers a number of
potential advantages over traditional survey techniques for assessing needs of GTAs
throughout their graduate school career, allowing program supervisors to evaluate and
modify the program relative to GTA needs. Q Methodology allows the researcher to
identify and interpret various viewpoints the GTAs hold in regard to graduate school.
This is not only important to the supervisors of GTA instructional programs, but to the
iii
GTAs.

This Q Methodology study led to three GTA viewpoints (“The Emerging
Teacher,” “The Preferred Researcher,” and “The Anxious GTA”) that provide insight
about GTA and programmatic needs. Q Methodology can provide predictor profiles, or
“typologies” that are more useful than simple variables and demographic information for
the classification of people, especially within program evaluat ion (Newman & Ramlo,
2011). “The Anxious GTA” viewpoint, which suggests a group of GTAs who may be at
risk for failure in their degree program, may be further investigated for retention and
program completion. The results of this study will be used to consider potential changes
or updates to the existing training program that may include scaffolding, differentiation,
peer or faculty mentoring, or self-directed learning strategies.
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................ iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................x
List of Definitions ............................................................................................................... 1
Prologue .............................................................................................................................. 5
Researcher Positionality.................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................................ 9
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................................................................................. 9
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 9
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 13
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 16
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 17
General Research Questions ......................................................................................... 21
Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 22
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 23
Chapter II .......................................................................................................................... 24
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................................................. 24
Why go to graduate school?.......................................................................................... 24
The Usage of Graduate Teaching Assistants in Higher Education ............................... 27
Teaching “Assistant” or Course Instructor? .................................................................. 29
Instructional Training Programs for GTAs ................................................................... 31
Graduate School and the Socialization of Academics .................................................. 34
Conflicting Priorities in a Graduate School Program ................................................... 40
National Training Programs vs. Locally Developed Training Programs ..................... 42
The Modern Academic Workplace ............................................................................... 44
Evaluating Graduate Teaching Assistant Training Programs ....................................... 45
Q Methodology ............................................................................................................. 50
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 57
vi

CHAPTER III ................................................................................................................... 58
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................ 58
Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................... 58
General Research Questions ......................................................................................... 59
Rationale for the Research Design................................................................................ 60
Basic Procedures of Q Methodology ............................................................................ 64
Setting ........................................................................................................................... 71
The P-Set....................................................................................................................... 74
The Concourse .............................................................................................................. 76
SRQ – Self Reflection Questionnaire ....................................................................... 78
The Perceptions of Graduate School Survey ............................................................ 80
Statements from the Literature.................................................................................. 82
Q Sample....................................................................................................................... 83
Q Sort ............................................................................................................................ 84
The Pilot Study ............................................................................................................. 86
Data Collection Procedures........................................................................................... 87
Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................. 88
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 89
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 90
CHAPTER IV ................................................................................................................... 91
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 91
Descriptive Demographics ............................................................................................ 91
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 95
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 97
Analysis and Interpretation ........................................................................................... 98
Factor 1 ................................................................................................................... 108
Factor 2 ................................................................................................................... 114
Factor 3 ................................................................................................................... 121
Consensus Statements ................................................................................................. 127
Results of Testing the Research Hypotheses .............................................................. 130
General Research Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................. 130
vii

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 133
CHAPTER V................................................................................................................... 134
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS .............................................. 134
Summary of the Study ................................................................................................ 134
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................ 137
Statement of the Procedures........................................................................................ 138
The Research Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 140
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 142
General Research Questions ................................................................................... 142
Implications................................................................................................................. 155
Differentiating the Instructional Training Program ................................................ 155
Q Methodology as a Self-Diagnostic Tool ............................................................. 156
Collective Mentoring .............................................................................................. 158
Promises and Challenges of Q Methodology.......................................................... 159
Suggested Further Research........................................................................................ 164
Summary ..................................................................................................................... 168
References ....................................................................................................................... 169
Appendices...................................................................................................................... 204
Appendix 1: Concourse Development ........................................................................ 205
Appendix 2: Q Sample ................................................................................................ 215
Appendix 3: Conditions of Instruction ....................................................................... 218
Appendix 4: IRB Informed Consent Letter ................................................................ 221
Appendix 5: IRB Exemption Request......................................................................... 223
Appendix 6: IRB Exemption ...................................................................................... 227
viii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 1 – P-Set Demographics.......................................................................................... 75
Table 2 - Development of the Concourse and Q Sample.................................................. 77
Table 3 - Demographic Characteristics of GTAs completing the SRQ ............................ 79
Table 4 - Demographic Characteristics of TAs Completing the “Perceptions of Graduate
School Survey” ................................................................................................................. 82
Table 5 – Demographics of New and Experienced Biology GTA ................................... 94
Table 6 - Coding System for Study Participants............................................................... 96
Table 7 - Factor Matrix with X Indicating a Defining Sort .............................................. 99
Table 8 - Factor Values for Each Statement ................................................................... 102
Table 9 - Eight Most-Like My View Statements for Factor 1 "The Emerging Teacher"
with a † indicating a Distinguishing Statement. ............................................................. 108
Table 10 - Eight Least-Like My View Statements for Factor 1 "The Emerging Teacher"
Table 11 - Distinguishing Statements for Factor 1 " The Emerging Teacher ". ............. 110
Table 12 - Post-Sort Interview Responses for Factor 1 .................................................. 111
Table 13 - Eight Most-Like My View Statements for Factor 2 "The Preferred Researcher”
Table 14 - Eight Least-Like My View Statements for Factor 2 "The Preferred
Researcher” with a † indicating a Distinguishing Statement. ......................................... 115
Table 15 - Distinguishing Statements for Factor 2 "The Preferred Researcher". ........... 115
Table 16 - Post-Sort Interview Responses for Factor 2 “The Preferred Researchers” ... 118
Table 17 - Eight Most-Like My View Statements for Factor 3 “The Anxious GTA” with
a † indicating a Distinguishing Statement. ..................................................................... 122
ix

Table 18 - Eight Least-Like My View Statements for Factor 3 “The Anxious GTA” with
a † indicating a Distinguishing Statement. ..................................................................... 122
Table 19 - Distinguishing Statements for Factor 3 “The Anxious GTA.”...................... 123
Table 20 - Post-Sort Interview Responses for Factor 3 “The Anxious GTA.”............... 126
Table 21 - Consensus Statements – Statements in Common Amongst Factors ............. 128
Table 22 – Number of Q-Sorts Included in Each Factor ................................................ 131
Table 23 – Breakdown of Number of Q-Sorts Included in Each Factor ........................ 141
x

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
Figure 1 - "GTA Preparedness" based upon Cho et. al..................................................... 20
Figure 2 - The Five Stages of GEM (based upon McNeil et al., 2005) ............................ 48
Figure 3 - Sample Grid...................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4 - Sample Grid Showing “Normalized” or Gaussian Distribution ...................... 68
Figure 5 – Conditions of Instruction for “GTA Perceptions of Graduate School Q Sort . 85
Figure 6 - Distribution Grid for “GTA Perceptions of Graduate School Q Sort” ............ 86
Figure 7 – Representative Sort for Factor 1 .................................................................... 106
xi

LIST OF DEFINITIONS
Age Measured chronologically, in years; self-reported by participants.
1
Biology Lab
Coordinator
A staff member in The Department of Biology in a large, research-focus,
degree granting university, whose primary duty is to supervise
Biology GTAs while teaching undergraduate Biology laboratories.
Biology Lead Faculty
Member
A faculty member in The Department of Biology in a large, research-focused,
degree granting university, who directs the teaching education
of new Biology GTAs.
Career Track Following a professionally developed path towards a desired career.
Concourse The flow of communicability surrounding any topic (Brown, 1993). The
collection of all the possible statements the respondents can make about
the subject at hand (Van Exel & De Graaf, 2005).
Condition of
Instruction
Provided by the researcher, this is a set of instructions, used by a
participant, for sorting the Q Sort cards from his or her own point of
view (Brown, 1993; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Van Exel & de Graaf,
2005).
Country of origin -
United States GTAs
A graduate level student born in and primarily educated in The United
States. Self-reported.
Country of origin -
International GTAs
A graduate level student born in and primarily educated in a country
other than The United States. Self-reported.

2
Experience, in
semesters
A division constituting half of the regular academic year, lasting
typically from 15 to 18weeks (“the definition of semester,” n.d.). Self-reported.
Experienced Biology
GTA
A graduate level student who is seeking a master’s or doctoral degree
through The Department of Biology in a large, research-focused,
degree-granting university, with more than one year of formal teaching
experience, and who teaches an undergraduate- level laboratory for
approximately 20-hours a week in exchange for a fee-remission. This
GTA has completed an "Effective Teaching" GTA training program.
Gender Self-identification with roles and expectations attributed to men and
women in a given society (Phillips, 2005).
New Biology GTA A graduate level student who is seeking a master’s or doctoral degree
through The Department of Biology in a large, research-focused,
degree-granting university, with less than one year of formal teaching
experience, and who teaches an undergraduate- level laboratory for
approximately 20-hours a week in exchange for a fee-remission. This
GTA is currently enrolled in an "Effective Teaching" GTA training
program.
Professional
Development
The development of a person in his or her professional roles. More
specifically, “Teacher professional development is the professional
growth a teacher achieves as a result of gaining increased experience
and examining his or her teaching systematically” (Glatthorn, 1995, p.

3
41).
P - Set The purposefully chosen set of participants, also called the sorters, or
the respondents (Brown, 1993).
Q Methodology A methodological tool that provides an objective way to measure
subjectivity. (Newman & Ramlo, 2011; Brown, 1980; Stephenson,
1953)
Q Sample The set of statements, selected from the concourse, which represent the
communicability of the topic; the respondents will sort these statements
into a grid, based on the condition of instruction (Newman & Ramlo,
2011; Brown, 1980; Stephenson, 1953).
Q Sort The process of distributing the Q Sample into a researcher provided
grid. The statements are administered in the form of a pack of randomly
numbered cards (one statement to a card) with which the person is
instructed to sort according to "condition of instruction (Brown, 1993).
Teaching experience,
Formal
Teaching in an educational setting such as a university or training
institution, with a set curriculum, which is leading towards a
certification or degree (Dib, 1988).
Teaching experience,
Informal
Teaching that occurs alongside formal teaching, such as tutoring,
afterschool, or informal learning situations, with a flexible curriculum,
that does not lead towards a degree or certification (Dib, 1988).
Theoretical Sorting A process where a study participant sorts their statements, according to

the conditions of instruction, based upon their own beliefs of how
another participant would sort.
4

PROLOGUE
Researcher Positionality
In September of 2000, having just graduated from my undergraduate university with a
degree in Biology, I moved from my small hometown in North Eastern Ohio, to Eagle Pass,
Texas, a Mexican border town. Even though I had not had a single education class, I was hired at
the local high school. At the age of 22, with no formal teacher training, I began teaching an 11th
grade Chemistry class. I was expected to teach 100 primarily Spanish-speaking students,
classified “at-risk” due to low socioeconomic status. I was only two to four years older than most
of them. My degree in Biology couldn’t have begun to prepare me for teaching. I taught
Chemistry the same way I had been taught Chemistry - “chalk and talk.”
Every morning during my first period “teacher prep time,” my colleague and I would sit
down in his classroom, eat breakfast tacos made by his lovely wife, and write lectures, find
worksheets, or figure out problems. He handed me what I was going to teach for the day, every
morning. Some days, my teaching was terrible. My students were difficult to understand,
because they were so unlike me. I wondered if they were learning, and I questioned whether I
should be teaching at all. Other days, I felt breakthroughs where they “got it,” we had fun
actively engaging in the laboratories, and I counseled them concerning problems in their lives. I
would advise them on getting into college, classes with other teachers, frustrations with their
parents, or achieving their dreams. Outwardly, it appeared I was “successful at teaching.” But
5
were my students successful at learning?
I continued teaching high school for ten years. After completing a teaching certification
program and a Master’s Degree in Education while teaching full time, I was offered a position in
my hometown writing Biology curriculum, working with Biology graduate teaching assistants as

the laboratory coordinator of the Natural Science Biology lab, and teaching at the college level.
While working at the university, I could also pursue a Ph.D. I became a graduate student in
Curriculum and Instruction, working alongside graduate student TAs in Biology.
I recognized in these GTAs many of the same feelings, insecurities, frustrations, and
fears that I had as an untrained high school teacher. Just as I was expected by the school district
to become a trained secondary teacher, GTAs are expected to utilize their teaching opportunities
to transform into a college instructor – whether that is their planned career path or not. Just as I
faced my students with no instructional training, so do these GTAs. However when I taught high
school, I was expected to take pedagogy courses to train as a teacher. Those courses were
invaluable in developing my skills in instruction, engaging with students, and classroom
management. These GTAs face their own students with no formal training, little feedback on
their teaching, and a feeling of “What am I doing here?” They just hope to survive the semester.
I recognize GTAs’ struggles, and make note of the challenges they face as they work with
undergraduate students, teach the lab, work with their advisors, take their own classes, do
original research, write theses and dissertations, and attempt to juggle it all with a personal life.
Each GTA comes to me with a unique story, a different path, and an individualized perspective
on graduate school. I have observed GTAs who were paralyzed with fear each time they faced
the class as well as those who were so brazenly cocky they saw their students as “stupid
undergrads.” GTAs with a “know-it-all” attitude often ended up with their classes revolting
against them. I wish I could hand them some equation, some formula for teaching that works for
all GTAs, which would answer all their questions before they ever faced with a student of their
own. Their faculty mentors often express that “all professors felt this way when they were
6

GTAs” and that the GTAs must face this awkward, frustrating experience of teaching just as they
7
did, and will either “sink or swim.”
Graduate school is hugely uncomfortable, for so many reasons, and I recognize this as I
struggle through graduate school myself. You just don’t know what you don’t know. It’s as
challenging for me as I know it is for my GTAs. In striving to make at least some parts of
graduate school less painful for them, I have come to understand the transformative graduate
school process for myself. Though I am a “participant observer” in my research, I also feel I
have been given a huge gift in my own doctoral program. While I have been researching the
challenges of masters and doctoral Biology students and looking at ways to increase their
teaching effectiveness and program completion, I have become a better teacher myself, and have
completed my own program.
My positionality, perspectives, and biography undoubtedly affect my work with Biology
GTAs on an everyday basis, and have affected my fieldwork. I am incapable of extracting myself
from my research, and I arguably should not try. I embrace my position as participant, my
shifting subjectivity, and my situated knowledge. My enthusiasm for teaching, research, and
science co-mingle inextricably. Q Methodology, which I have been drawn to for my research, is
inherently linked to who I am. Biology research is empirical, looking at how systems interact,
observing how organisms communicate with others, and within their environment. The scientist
in me wants to make observations, collect data, and do statistical analyses. The social scientist in
me wants thick, rich descriptions that persist in qualitative research. The perspectives of GTAs
and faculty who work with them have driven my research, and drive my daily life. Q
Methodology, a mixed method, allows me to study people’s subjectivities, or viewpoints, in a
way that pays homage to both my social sciences and hard sciences backgrounds. My research is

my attempt to provide instructional training for GTAs that is meaningful, relevant, and positively
8
impacts all the stakeholders involved.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
The purpose of this chapter is to present the problem, purpose of the study, and research
questions. In addition, the researcher discusses the significance of the study. A brief review of
the literature provides introductory information related to the six major topics of this study: The
history of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) in higher education, the use of GTAs as course
instructors, the varying aspects of GTA instructional training programs, GTA socialization as
future faculty, needs assessments in program evaluation, and Q Methodology. Finally, the
9
delimitations of the study are stated.
Introduction
Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) are frequently utilized as instructors in
undergraduate classrooms and science laboratories (Kendall & Schussler, 2012; Luft, Kurdziel,
Roehrig, & Turner, 2004; Nyquist & et al., 1991). GTAs provide universities a cost-effective
form of instructor while the GTAs are being simultaneously socialized into the roles of teacher,
researcher, and scholar (Carroll, 1980; Garland, 1983). GTAs represent a diverse population of
masters and doctoral-level students, with varying amounts of pedagogical preparation, research
abilities, and motivation to complete their graduate study (Boyle & Boice, 1998). GTAs who are
not adequately prepared to engage in teaching activities may display a wide range of behaviors,
from an overblown confidence in their abilities (Golde & Dore, 2001), to frustration and
insecurity (Eison & Vanderford, 1993). The main preparation for new faculty has been teaching
assistantships, so they are limited in their teaching repertoire by the nature of their particular
assignment—usually in a discussion section or laboratory for a large lecture class, often without
supervision or adequate mentoring (Luft et al., 2004; Nyquist & Woodford, 2000).

Instructional training programs for professionally developing graduate teaching assistants
vary extensively from institution to institution, and even between departments at the same
institution (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000; Parrett, 1987; Stockdale & Wochok, 1974). Calls for
instructional training programs for teaching assistants in the sciences (Carroll, 1980; Luft et al.,
2004), and more specifically in biology (Rushin et al., 1997; Tanner & Allen, 2006) have created
a continual demand for pedagogical training, in addition to content area mastery.
Responses to the calls for instructional training programs have included national projects
such as “Re-Envisioning the Ph.D.” (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000), the “Preparing Future
Faculty” project (Pruitt-Logan, Gaff, & Jentoft, 2002), and the “Responsive Ph.D.” project
(Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, 2000). These projects focus broadly on
improving the outcomes of Ph.D. degree programs (Gilbert, Balatti, Turner, & Whitehouse,
2004). These large-scale projects are dependent on external grant funding, and though
institutions may retain certain aspects of these programs after the grant ends, their sustained
existence after the termination of funding has proved difficult (Ferren, Gaff, & Clayton-
10
Pedersen, 2002).
Locally developed GTA instructional training programs are much more common in
graduate schools or disciplinary departments, and are described at length in Chapter II. These
programs are led by graduate school or disciplinary faculty or GTA supervisors, and vary widely
in programmatic elements and effectiveness (Carroll, 1980; Parrett, 1987; Thornburg, Wood, &
Davis, 2000). Programs range from half day university-wide orientation sessions that introduce
new GTAs to university policies but provide no departmental training, to multiday university-wide
training, department-specific training, or even university-wide training coupled with full-semester
courses and seminars on teaching methods offered by specific departments (Rushin et

al., 1997). Thus the amount and type of professional development made available to GTAs
remains highly variable in higher education institutions.
Whether the GTA instructional training program emerges nationally, from the graduate
school, or the individual disciplinary department, the evaluation of that program is a complex and
necessary part of any type of professional development (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, &
Yoon, 2001; Guskey, 1994). Program evaluation is an intrinsic part of any program or project
because it is used to both measure the effectiveness of that program or project as well as
investigate ways to increase that effectiveness (Newman & Ramlo, 2011). The literature
surrounding GTA training programs describes GTAs as having varying programmatic needs
based on numerous factors – prior formal or informal teaching experience, familiarity with
content, exposure to prior instructional training, demographic variables, career aspirations,
international status, etc. GTA programs often group cohorts of GTAs together for training
(Muzaka, 2009) – all masters students or all doctoral students in one department, all the GTAs in
a department or graduate school at the beginning of their program, all the GTAs teaching a
common laboratory course, etc. – the combinations are numerous. One of the first steps in
effective program evaluation is assessing the needs of the particular set of participants in that
program (Chen, 2005; McNeil, Newman, & Steinhauser, 2005).
A needs assessment is a “systematic set of procedures for the purpose of setting priorities
and making decisions about a program or organizational improvement and allocation of
resources. The priorities are based on identified needs (Witkin, 1995).” A need is a discrepancy
or gap between “what is,” or the present state of affairs in regards to the group and situation of
interest, and “what should be,” or a desired state of affairs. A needs assessment seeks to
determine such discrepancies, examine their nature, and set priorities for future action (Kaufman,
11

Rojas, & Mayer, 1993; Kaufman & Valentine, 1989; Leigh, Watkins, Platt, & Kaufman, 2000).
In order to do a needs assessment, there must be a needs assessment tool.
There are challenges to designing a needs assessment tool for instructional training
programs. GTA needs assessment tools for instructional training programs have usually been
modified teaching inventories (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Kohn,
Lafreniere, & Gurevich, 1990; Prieto & Altmaier, 1994; Renzulli & Smith, 1978), Likert-style
questionnaires (Cho, Sohoni, & French, 2010; Sohoni, Cho, & French, 2013), or basic
demographic surveys. These instruments may not provide useful or adequate understandings of
the various viewpoints that exist among GTAs about their needs in an instructional training
program. Classification of GTAs based on typologies, or predictor profiles, may be more useful
for program evaluation, because typically a program does not have the same level of
effectiveness for the entire population it serves (McNeil et al., 2005). Typologies may also be
helpful in determining the combination of criteria that would accurately predict the success of at-risk
students in graduate education (Nelson, Nelson, & Malone, 2000). Q Methodology offers a
number of potential advantages for assessing needs of GTAs throughout their graduate school
career – Q Methodology can be used with small numbers of individuals, within a group, and
completed anonymously (Peritore, 1989; Prasad, 2001). Q Methodology does not demand the
large number of participants that a Likert-style survey requires (Cummins & Gullone, 2000).
Because the literature about GTAs frequently refers to GTAs in different disciplines or different
types of schools, the needs of GTAs in other disciplines are not necessarily the needs of this
specific group of Biology GTAs. Q Methodology allows the researcher to determine the various
perspectives and consensus within the group (Ramlo, 2008).
12

Q Methodology was first described by William Stephenson in 1935 in “Correlating
Persons Instead of Tests (Stephenson, 1935).” He described how Q Methodology allows
researchers to identify, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the various viewpoints within a
group and the number of people within the group who hold these viewpoints (Ramlo, 2008). Q
Methodology provides a foundation for the systematic study of subjectivity, a person’s
“viewpoint, opinion, beliefs, attitude, and the like (Brown, 1993).”
Typically, in a Q Methodological study, sorters are presented with a sample of statements
about some topic, called the Q Sample. Respondents, called the P-set, are asked to rank-order the
statements from their individual point of view, according to some preference, judgment or
feeling about them, mostly using a quasi-normal distribution (Van Exel & de Graaf, 2005). By Q
Sorting, people give their subjective meaning to the statements, and by doing so reveal their
subjective viewpoint (Smith, 2001) or personal profile (Brouwer, 1999). Q Methodology allows
the researcher to identify and interpret various viewpoints, such as viewpoints held by GTAs in
regard to graduate school. These viewpoints may be important to both the supervisors of GTA
13
instructional programs and to the GTAs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that Q Methodology can be used as an
effective needs assessment tool for a Biology graduate teaching assistant (GTA) instructional
training program. Q Methodology offers a number of potential advantages in program evaluation
over traditional survey techniques for assessing needs of GTAs throughout their graduate school
career. Ramlo (2008) described how Q Methodology “is an appropriate choice whenever a
researcher wishes to determine the various perspectives and consensus within a group regarding
any topic.” GTAs often express frustration with balancing the challenges of teaching, working

with undergraduate students, rigorous graduate classes, learning to do research, and having a
personal life (Boyle & Boice, 1998; Drake, 2011; Gaff, 2002; Tice, Gaff, & Pruitt-Logan, 1998).
They are often expected to prepare and grade exams, write their own syllabi, design the course
curriculum, order textbooks, prepare and present lectures, monitor student progress, and assign
final grades, all with minimal faculty supervision (Mueller, Perlman, McCann, & McFadden,
1997; Nyquist, Abbott, & Wulff, 1989). In addition to the academic responsibilities that GTAs
assume, they are also called on to hold office hours (Mueller et al., 1997), which typically
involves assuming an advising role - guiding students on topics such as mastery of course
material, academic concerns, applying to graduate school, and even counseling students through
personal problems (Moore, 1991). As instructors of undergraduates , GTAs must make
instructional, curricular, and assessment decisions in their courses (Luft et al., 2004). GTAs are
not serving as merely “teaching assistants,” GTAs are often responsible for the much of the
instruction at the undergraduate level at major universities in the United States (Allen & Rueter,
14
1990).
The challenges that GTAs experience in graduate school evolve from the beginning of
their program to the culmination of a thesis or dissertation (Muzaka, 2009). GTAs may begin
their programs with serious doubts about their levels of content knowledge or abilities to teach,
which may evolve into frustrations about demands on their time, pressures to publish, and
difficulties with research. While many faculty and administrators posit the purpose of doctoral
education to be the preparation to conduct original research (e.g., Council of Graduate Schools,
1990), others contend that the purposes of doctoral education should be further reaching,
including the training to teach (Adams, 2002; Gaff, 2002a) as well as the development of generic
or transferable skills such as public speaking, writing for different types of audiences, teaching,

how to think about problems and dig into the literature unaided, time-management, and people-management
skills (Crebert, Bates, Bell, Patrick, & Cragnolini, 2004; Cryer, 1998; Gilbert,
Balatti, Turner, & Whitehouse, 2004). These skills are necessary for both teaching, and the labor
market outside of academia (Atwell, 1996; Golde & Walker, 2006; Jones, 2003). While their
institutions may articulate messages about the importance of the teaching mission, their advisors,
particularly in STEM fields, may urge them to avoid spending too much time on anything
besides research-related activities (Austin et al., 2009).
Virtually all graduate students receive their Ph.D.'s from a research university (Cassuto,
2011). They get their first classroom experience there, and their dissertations are mainly guided
by professors whose research occupies a prominent place in their work lives. The graduate
student works his or her way from outsider to the profession, to full member, under the
mentorship of their advisors (Filstad, 2004). But because most academic jobs aren't at research
universities (e.g. liberal arts college, for-profit schools, 2-year colleges, community colleges),
those other jobs look jarringly different to graduate students than the positions held by their role
models (Cassuto, 2011). Graduate students express concern about their lack of explicit feedback
15
about their development (Austin et al., 2009).
Whereas at one time, biology GTAs would have transitioned from graduate school to
biology researcher, the labor market in higher education is changing from tenure-track positions
to teaching-intensive positions (Anwar, 2013; Carpenter, 2010; Jones, 2003). GTAs often
struggle to gain the skills that help them to be successful in either an academic career or in
industry (Austin & Wulff, 2004; Cassuto, 2012; Hayes, 2007). As GTAs confront the challenges
of graduate school, it is important for their supervisors to evaluate the specific cohort’s needs and
modify the GTA program in relation to them.

Socialization in graduate school refers to the process through which individuals gain the
knowledge, skills, and values necessary for successful entry into a professional career requiring
an advanced level of specialized knowledge and skills (Gardner, 2005; Weidman, Twale, &
Stein, 2001). Socialization is also described as the process through which an individual learns to
adopt the values, skills, attitudes, norms, and knowledge needed for membership in a given
society, group, or organization (Merton, 1968; Tierney, 1997; Van Maanen, 1976). The
socialization of graduate students is an unusual double socialization. New students are
simultaneously directly socialized into the role of graduate student, while being given
preparatory socialization into the role of future faculty in a research institution (Golde, 2002).
There has been a concerted effort by faculty in disciplinary fields and in graduate schools
to continually address whether graduates are prepared adequately to perform the roles for which
they have been socialized, so that the graduate program can make appropriate adjustments. It is
desirable, but not always present, that there be regular opportunities for the voices of graduate
students to be heard, so that their perspective informs program development (Weidman et al.,
16
2001).
Statement of the Problem
Despite the wealth of literature concerning elements of instructional training programs
for GTAs at the national, institutional, or departmental level, typically a program does not have
the same level of effectiveness for the entire population it serves (McNeil et al., 2005). The first
step in program evaluation – using a needs assessment tool to identify participant needs – is often
missing or incomplete. This study demonstrated how Q Methodology can be used as a needs
assessment tool in a Biology GTA instructional training program. Q Methodology can provide

predictor typologies that are more useful than simple variables and demographic information for
the classification of people, especially within program evaluation (Newman & Ramlo, 2011).
The researcher used Q Methodology to investigate new and experienced biology GTA
views of graduate school, including their views about teaching, learning, students, research, and
challenges to persisting in their program. Multiple survey instruments were used to gather initial
information about the participants and their views about their biology graduate program. The
concourse, discussed in Chapter III, for this study included a collection of statements made by
GTAs in a Self-Reflection Questionnaire, a “Perceptions of Graduate School Survey,” a graduate
student discussion forum (“Grad School Life,” 2012), and everyday conversations and emails
made between Biology GTAs and their supervisors. A Q Sample was selected from this
concourse. A pilot study with new Biology GTAs demonstrated the viability of the research
design and instrument and led to three viewpoints (“The Confident Teachers,” “The Preferred
Researchers,” and “GTA to Professor”). The research study was expanded to include both new
and experienced GTAs. The results of this study may be used to consider potential changes or
17
updates to the existing training program.
Significance of the Study
While the number of pre-service orientation programs, in-service workshops, seminars,
apprenticeship programs, intern programs, and extern programs for GTAs have increased in the
last 50 years (Carroll, 1980), the crucial step of conducting a needs assessment to assess GTA
need in their instructional training programs is often missing or incomplete. A review of the
literature revealed that GTA needs in a program are often collected using modified teacher
inventories (Angelo & Cross, 1993; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Kohn et al., 1990; Prieto &
Altmaier, 1994; Renzulli & Smith, 1978), Likert-style surveys (Cho et al., 2010; Gorsuch, 2003),

using simple demographic variables – or are not assessed at all (Shannon, Twale, & Moore,
18
1998; Worthen, 1992).
The most commonly used formal needs assessment tools used for GTA “teaching needs”
are modified secondary teaching inventories. These have included The Learning Styles Inventory
(LSI) (Renzulli & Smith, 1978), The Teaching Goals Inventory (TGI) (Angelo & Cross, 1993),
The Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) (Gibson & Dembo, 1984), The Self-Efficacy Toward
Teaching Inventory (SETI) (Prieto & Altmaier, 1994), and The Inventory of College Students'
Recent Life Experiences (ICSRLE) (Kohn et al., 1990). This is problematic, however, because
higher education instructors are vastly different than high school teachers (Marston, 2010).
GTAs will have different needs in an instructional training program than secondary school
teachers.
Likert-style surveys have been criticized for issues related to construct validity, scale
construction, the large number of respondents needed, and reliability (Cummins & Gullone,
2000). The Likert scale is used to measure attitudes and opinions through statements as each
subject expresses his/her agreement with the contents of the statements by choosing one
alternative: strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, strongly disagree (Lalla, Facchinetti, &
Mastroleo, 2005). The closed question format obliges respondents to choose only from among
the available options that may not match their actual opinions or attitudes. What distinguishes
between strongly agree, and agree? Will the respondent always choose agree, or can the choice
vary based on certain factors? These inconsistencies leads to an increase in missing data and a
possible drift toward the social acceptability of the answers varying between individuals, over
space, and time (Orvik, 1972).

The only specific GTA needs assessment tool was a survey developed by Cho et al.
(2010) “to capture to what extent GTAs, faculty, and undergraduate engineering students rate the
importance of typical GTA roles and responsibilities. “ The Likert-style survey included 24
items, which were later grouped into four categories. The four categories were 1) GTA
preparation, 2) Instructional Practices, 3) Engagement with Students, and 4) Classroom
Management. The survey takers were asked to “rate the importance of typical GTA roles and
responsibilities” from “not at all important” to “critically important.”
In the first category, “GTA Preparedness,” GTAs indicated that all the items were
between “critically important” and “important” (See Figure 1). GTAs continued to mark all the
statements as close to “critically important” for the entire survey. The faculty rated all the items
as “important,” but not “critically important.” This survey provides questionable value when
participants have no frame of reference for prioritizing the statements, or can mark all the
19
statements in one fashion.
Q Methodology allows researchers to identify, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the
various opinions within a group, and the number of individuals who hold those opinions
(McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Stephenson, 1953). Thus, Q Methodology is an appropriate choice
whenever a researcher wishes to determine the various perspectives and consensus within a
group (Brown, 1980). Q Methodology is similar to the Likert -style survey in that the distribution
on the grid typically ranges from least like my view to most like my view (Ramlo, 2008).
However, it differs from Likert-style surveys in that Q Methodology involves participants
physically sorting items relative to each other into a normalized or Gaussian distribution, based
upon that participant’s opinion within a particular setting, known as the condition of instruction
(Brown, 1993; 1980; McKeown & Thomas, 1988; Ramlo & Nicholas, 2009).

GTA Competence Rating by GTAs and Faculty
Item Category/Statement Rating by
Likert (1967) assumed that every statement is equally important to the overall attitude.
McKeown (2001) criticized this type of survey, in that the individuality of the respondents may
be lost, due to the averaging of scores. Q Methodology is self-referential, meaning that the
sorting refers to one’s own world view, or subjectivity (McKeown & Thomas, 1988). Rather
than simply indicating agreement or disagreement with statements, GTAs, when doing a Q Sort,
are asked to sort the statements in relation to the other statements in the Q Sample. After the
GTAs have completed their Q Sorts, factor analysis is performed. The resulting analyses and
tables will provide insight about the various viewpoints held by GTAs in their training program.
Identifying and incorporating perspectives of GTAs into their development program by
performing a needs assessment is an important first step in enhancing the effectiveness of the
20
GTA
Rating by
Faculty
Being familiar with the syllabus 4.30 3.28
Being familiar with the course objective 4.22 3.33
Being familiar with the course materials 4.32 3.67
Knowing answers to student questions 4.19 3.50
Knowing what is expected of the GTA 4.17 3.50
Dressing appropriately 4.08 3.65
Holding regular office hours 4.54 3.94
Figure 1 - "GTA Preparedness" based upon Cho et. al.

training programs for GTAs. Fuller(1969) suggested that to ensure effective teacher development
programs, it is critical to accurately assess teacher concerns. In addition, teacher training or
professional development programs that do not reflect the needs and interests of participants are
unlikely to motivate them (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002), which in turn can result in the failure
to attain the program’s educational goals and objectives (Cho et al., 2010). This speaks directly
to the importance of need assessment tools designed to identify what motivates and concerns
teachers, or in this case GTAs, in advance of developing training programs.
If a program is to be useful to its stakeholders—in this case, the Biology GTAs—it is
important to keep their expectations in mind. For graduate students to become proficient in the
skills desired from academia, they must be given opportunities to develop their teaching skills,
abilities, and knowledge with the same guidance and practice that is afforded to the development
of a quality researcher (Golde & Dore, 2001).Because stakeholder needs vary at different stages
in the program (Chen, 2005), identifying GTA needs as they progress from new to experienced
GTA allows for program supervisors to identify and modify program elements relative to GTA
21
needs.
General Research Questions
1. What are the various viewpoints that exist among Biology GTAs about their graduate
school experiences?
2. What are the various viewpoints of the supervisors of graduate GTAs in The Department
of Biology relative to those of the GTAs?
3. What consensus exists among the GTAs in The Department of Biology about their
graduate school experiences?
4. How do the views differ between new GTAs versus experienced GTAs?

5. Do the varying views and consensus of GTAs about their graduate school experiences
provide sufficient information for a needs assessment that informs the existing training
22
program?
Delimitations
The researcher did not consider the content knowledge held by the GTAs. A degree in
Biology was considered to demonstrate Biology content knowledge. Demographic information
such as race was not considered important to this study, however age, gender, graduate status,
teaching experience, and nationality may be considered in the final analysis. The demographic
information and success rate from undergraduate students taught by GTAs was not included in
the study. The researcher did not sort with GTAs from other disciplines.
The various viewpoints obtained in this study are not considered to be generalizable to
different groups of GTAs or Biology supervisor populations, as Q Methodology results are not
considered to be generalizable to the larger population. Because this study used Q Methodology
as a needs assessment, the study was exploratory in nature, the viewpoints or typologies
uncovered by this study are not generalizable to larger GTA populations. Small numbers of
participants Q Sorting is not a problem because the primary purpose is to identify typologies, not
to test the typology's proportional distribution within the larger population (Valenta & Wigger,
1997). Within this study, the researcher is solely interested in the GTA population within this
department at this time.
Summary
Because GTAs are frequently used in college classrooms as the instructors for the course
or laboratory, their preparation for that role is immensely important. Instructional training
programs for GTAs vary across institutions. GTA programs must meet the needs of a diverse

population of graduate students. Not only do GTAs teach, but they are also being socialized into
their potential roles as future faculty and/or researchers. This study demonstrates how Q
Methodology can be used as a needs assessment tool in a Biology GTA instructional training
program. This study aims to answer the following questions:
1. What are the various viewpoints that exist among Biology GTAs about their graduate
23
school experiences?
2. What are the various viewpoints of the supervisors of graduate GTAs in The Department
of Biology relative to those of the GTAs?
3. What consensus exists among the GTAs in The Department of Biology about their
graduate school experiences?
4. How do the views differ between new GTAs versus experienced GTAs?
5. Do the varying views and consensus of GTAs about their graduate school experiences
provide sufficient information for a needs assessment that informs the existing training program?

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The purpose of this chapter is to present a comprehensive review of the literature related
to this study. The literature review explores the motives and distinguishing characteristics of
graduate students and provides a historical overview of the use of Graduate Teaching Assistants
(GTAs) as instructors of undergraduates in the university system across The United States. This
chapter also contains a discussion of the shifting nature of the academic workplace and considers
the role of graduate school as socialization into academia. The details of various types of GTA
training programs are described. Finally, the chapter offers a deeper understanding of the role of
program evaluation in graduate education, and explains the use of Q Methodology as a
24
framework for the study.
Why go to graduate school?
Graduate school often gives students a chance to pursue theories they may hold, gather
recognition for their talents, or upgrade an outdated education (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, &
Renn, 2009). Graduate degrees also offer the chance for changing careers, whether out of desire
or necessity (Mason, Goulden, & Frasch, 2009). A graduate degree typically offers students
greater earning power and advancement in their careers (Astin, 1997). Some students enjoy
traveling opportunities, teaching opportunities, and the chance to do original research. Others
attend because they desire to be a part of a research team and to work on advanced and
multifaceted projects (Malaney, 1987). There are also students who do not know what to do with
their undergraduate degree, and decide to pursue graduate school because they lack employment
opportunities. Interest in postgraduate study is influenced by psychological and sociological
factors such as parental education, socioeconomic status (SES), and role models (Betz &

Fitzgerald, 1987). Graduate students may receive free tuition and/or a stipend for being a GTA.
Quite often, graduate students have multiple reasons for attending graduate school.
Admission criteria vary, but graduate schools and graduate programs in the sciences
generally look for a minimum B average in upper division work, acceptable performance on the
GRE, favorable letters of recommendation, and evidence of motivation and commitment to
graduate study (Smith, 2012). Noteworthy graduate programs require outstanding faculty with
national or international reputations in research and scholarship. “Critical masses” of faculty are
also necessary for excellence in graduate education. The best graduate (especially doctoral)
programs include course requirements in other areas. Cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary
programs offer unique opportunities, and allow graduate students to advance with combined
majors, giving them a competitive career edge. Graduate students may spend two to three years
in graduate school for a master’s degree, or five to seven years for a doctorate (Kuther, 2013).
Once students enter graduate school, they are often met with unique challenges (Golde,
2005). Graduate school is often highly competitive, and emotionally exhausting (Jacobs & Dodd,
2003). It may be difficult to prioritize responsibilities when it comes to teaching, research,
studies, and balancing academics with a personal life (Ward & Wolf-Wendel, 2004; Ward,
1998). There may be stress in relationships, or due to finances (Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992).
Writing a thesis or dissertation is extremely challenging, and may take longer than the student
expects (Bowman, Bowman, & DeLucia, 1990; Ohashi, Ohashi, & Paltridge, 2008). Working
with advisors or research teams is challenging, and may make students feel frustrated,
overwhelmed, isolated, or out-of-touch. The student may not be prepared for the specialized
writing demanded for research and publication (Bloom, 1981).
25

In the sciences, the organizational unit of the “lab” is critical to understanding life in the
departments (Golde & Dore, 2001). Each faculty member sits at the center of a small solar
system—graduate students at various stages and postdoctoral research fellows orbit around the
faculty advisor (often referred to as the P.I., or Principal Investigator, highlighting the primacy of
research). The faculty member both establishes the research direction and sustains the group by
garnering external funding for research expenses, stipends, and tuition. This organizational
structure in turn defines a number of key features of graduate student life. The lab is the site in
which research is carried out. There is an emphasis on knowledge acquisition in the lab (e.g.,
through lab meetings, subfield specific journal clubs, and informal interactions with lab mates)
rather than solely in classes. There is also an expectation that the dissertation research topic
relates to, stems from, and feeds back into the advisor’s research, highlighting the interconnected
nature of the research projects of lab mates. The faculty member provides the fledgling
researcher a topic for research and the stability of funding for the duration of graduate study
26
(Golde, 2005).
Whether a student persists through a graduate degree program is a well-studied
phenomenon. Girves and Wemmerus (1988) describe how department characteristics, student
characteristics, financial support, and student perceptions of their relationships with faculty
influence graduate student persistence. After the initial year, graduate grades, involvement in
one's program, satisfaction with the department, and alienation could contribute directly to
graduate student degree progress (Quist, 2011). There are distinct and unique challenges to
developing graduate programs that maximize completion rates while still allowing students to
recognize and acquire the skills they will need for future careers. Not only should GTAs be
afforded the chance to acquire the skills necessary to be successful in academia, but there also

exists the argument that GTAs need certain generic or transferable skills such as public speaking,
writing for different types of audiences, teaching, how to think about problems and dig into the
literature unaided, time-management, and people-management (Crebert, Bates, Bell, Patrick, &
Cragnolini, 2004; Cryer, 1998; Gilbert, Balatti, Turner, & Whitehouse, 2004).
The Usage of Graduate Teaching Assistants in Higher Education
Graduate students have not always served as instructors for courses, leaders of
recitations, and laboratory instructors. During Colonial times in The United States, the
student/professor relationship was often one of the faculty standing “in loco parentis,” where the
faculty not only supervised the student’s room and board, but his worship, recreation, and his
studies (Bush, 1969).The traditional university model was a religiously-affiliated clergy
preparatory school, modeled after Cambridge and Oxford in England (Brickman, 1972). As time
progressed, educational models evolved from being centered around a church, to centered around
a library. Thomas Jefferson (1743-1846), believed educating people was a good way to establish
an organized society. He believed schools should be paid for by the general public, so less
wealthy people could be educated as students (Grizzard, 2009).
The use of GTAs in higher education began in the late 1800s, as some universities began
offering fellowships (stipends offered to graduate students in exchange for advanced research) in
order to attract graduate students to the institution (Allen & Rueter, 1990). These “research
assistantships” were paid positions that both lessened the financial burdens of graduate school,
and allowed students to do advanced research. Gradually, GTA duties within the university were
expanded. In the 1890’s, GTAs progressed from research assistants to teaching assistants, and
services (such as grading, role-taking, and recitations) to the university beyond research were
increased to justify the payments to the graduate students (Drake, 2011). Higher education was
27

expanding rapidly (Schofer & Meyer, 2005), and filling the role of “university instructor” with
people qualified to lead was vital to the success of all higher education stakeholders (Davies,
28
Hides, & Casey, 2001).
With the end of World War II in 1945, a rapid influx of students began attending school
on the newly formed GI bill (Coomes, 2000). A flood of veterans enrolled in America’s colleges
and universities, accounting for approximately 70% of all male enrollment (Bound & Turner,
2002). The GI bill provided financial support to veterans wanting to reeducate themselves for
post-war employment (Gelber, 2005). This increase in undergraduate enrollment demanded
professors use graduate students as assistants to help with more administrative tasks (Hendrix,
1995). Eventually, graduate assistants shifted from being simple “assistants,” to teaching basic
undergraduate courses independently. This allowed professors to teach higher level classes and
focus on their research (McKeachie, 1990). Expanding enrollment demanded an increasing
number of instructors, and rather than trying to find faculty that did not yet exist, universities
hired flexible graduate students (Burmila, 2010).
This pivotal time in American history was monumental for higher education. Sidney
Burrell (1967) concludes that the G.I. Bill led to “what may have been the most important
educational and social transformation in American history” (p. 3). The G.I. Bill allowed a more
diverse population of students to attend college due to financial assistance, making college a
viable option for men from a range of socio-demographic backgrounds, including minorities,
first-generation Americans, and those from low-income households (Bound & Turner, 2002).
Colleges and universities needed instructors for this flood of new undergraduate students, and
they needed them immediately. While the GTA was an innovative approach to meeting the
demands of an ever-expanding undergraduate population, many GTAs were un(der)prepared to

teach – knowing little (if any) of good instructional practice, how to deal with students unlike
29
themselves, and curriculum development.
Teaching “Assistant” or Course Instructor?
There is often a disconnect between GTA knowledge and preparation, and their
prioritization of teaching and researching (Hendrix, 1995). Many students’ primary focus is
research, rather than instruction (Butler, Laumer, & Moore, 1993; Serow, 2000). Between the
1930s and 1960s, the idea of training GTAs in pedagogy gained support, as more institutions
began focusing on the need for their graduate instructors to be able to function successfully in the
college classroom (Drake, 2011). GTAs could serve as the sole instructor for one or more classes
a semester (Butler et al., 1993) or as the instructor of laboratory or discussion sections (Luft et
al., 2004; Travers, 1989). Administrators of university programs felt that GTAs should not only
show content mastery, but be able to teach that content effectively. At some universities, equal
preference was given to graduate students who could demonstrate instructional capabilities as
well as research competence (Butler, Laumer, & Moore, 1993).
GTAs today are being utilized by colleges and universities to teach a variety of courses,
in a variety of fields (Buerkel-Rothfuss & Fink, 1993; DeBoer, 1979; Marting, 1987). They now
commonly assume the teaching roles that once only faculty performed (Branstetter &
Handelsman, 2000). GTAs are often expected to prepare and grade exams, write their own
syllabi, design the course curriculum, order textbooks, prepare and present lectures, monitor
student progress, and assign final grades, all with minimal faculty supervision (Mueller et al.,
1997; Nyquist et al., 1989). In addition to the academic responsibilities that GTAs assume, they
are also called upon to hold office hours (Mueller et al., 1997), which typically involves
assuming an advising role - guiding undergraduate students on topics such as mastery of course

material, academic concerns, applying to graduate school, and even counseling students through
personal problems (Moore, 1991). As instructors of undergraduates, GTAs are not merely
teaching “assistants.” They must make instructional, curricular, and assessment decisions in
their courses (Luft et al., 2004). They assume the role of professor, not apprentice (Burmila,
2010) – and they face unique challenges in this role.
Amidst the ever-present fiscal restraints, limited or no-growth policies, and unpredictable
enrollment in universities nationwide, funding setbacks have further expanded the reliance on
GTAs for undergraduate education (Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2008). They play a prominent
role in undergraduate science education in most large research-oriented universities and colleges
in the United States by instructing the majority of the introductory laboratories and discussion
sections (Travers, 1989). Perkinson (1996) asserted that GTAs spend more time in the
undergraduate classroom than do full-time faculty. Because of age and status similarities,
undergraduate students frequently relate more strongly with GTAs than they do with professors
(Hendrix, 1995; Moore, 1991). In addition, research has suggested that educators who have the
most impact on students are those with whom students identify and have more out-of-classroom
interaction (e.g., (Gaff & Gaff, 1981). And, because of wavering undergraduate and graduate
enrollments, the need for new instructors cannot always be met with new faculty hires. GTAs
allow for flexibility that is crucial in meeting oscillating demand (Burmila, 2010). As GTAs play
an increasingly significant role in not just teaching, but in advising and mentoring
undergraduates, it is important to consider how this multifaceted socialization impacts GTA
development as graduate students and future academics.
30

Instructional Training Programs for GTAs
Training Biology GTAs for the multiplicity of roles expected of them in the academic
community - graduate student, instructor, advisor, fledgling researcher – is complex (Bhavsar et
al., 2007). Biology faculty are not simply preparing future research Biologists, they are prepping
GTAs to meet the challenges of multiple roles – researcher, teacher, and academic. These
challenges are felt by all disciplines. Departments that compartmentalize GTAs with only
specialized disciplinary knowledge are not adequately preparing them for the possible careers
they could hold outside of academia (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004). Supervisors of GTA
professional development programs have to prepare GTAs to teach undergraduate students who
may be nothing like themselves (Howard, Buskist, & Stowell, 1993; Meitl, 2008), or who may
be taking a general education course and display no interest in the GTAs’ field. With so many
stakeholders in GTA success, the question of “who bears the responsibility of preparing GTAs to
31
teach” is a complex problem.
The first organized effort to provide this much-needed instructional training for GTAs
began in the 1930s with English instructors at the University of Chicago's Institute for
Administrative Offices (Marting, 1987). This program was developed because of complaints
about the inept instructors emerging from the graduate school, who needed further pedagogical
training in their content areas (Marting, 1987). It was then that the Institute's members decided
that content mastery alone was not enough to produce effective teaching assistants - pedagogical
training was needed. Likewise, calls for training programs for teaching assistants in the sciences
(Carroll, 1980; Luft et al., 2004), and more specifically in biology (Rushin et al., 1997; Tanner &
Allen, 2006) have created a continual demand for pedagogical training, in addition to content
area mastery.

Science graduate students have reported the most interest in teaching amongst all GTAs.
They display the most confidence in their ability to teach and advise students, in comparison
with their peers from other disciplines (Luft et al., 2004). A survey by Golde and Dore (2001) of
over 4000 doctoral students at 27 universities clearly documented that graduate students in the
sciences reported holding more teaching assistantships than did their peers in other disciplines.
However, these assistantships often consisted of limited placements, usually in laboratory
settings for a defined amount of time. Despite teaching more courses, only a third of the graduate
students in the sciences at most universities indicated they had participated in a teaching assistant
(GTA) training session to prepare them for their teaching duties.
Graduate students who are not adequately prepared to engage in teaching activities may
have an inflated confidence in their abilities (Golde & Dore, 2001; Rhodes, 1997). To assist
graduate students in becoming proficient instructors, they must be given quality opportunities to
develop their teaching skills, abilities, and knowledge with the same guidance and practice that is
afforded to the development of a quality researcher (Golde & Dore, 2001). However, because
teaching is often regarded as a second-tier profession in academic settings, graduate students in
the sciences may experience limited educational environments (Luft et al., 2004). It is well
documented that an emphasis on teaching is viewed as a secondary career in many academic
settings, such as in community colleges, at for-profit institutions, or as an adjunct instructor
(Shannon et al., 1998). GTAs in the sciences commonly regard teaching as a “fallback career,”
only to be embarked upon after a student fails to obtain a research position (Richardson & Watt,
32
2006).
GTAs may perceive teaching as a highly demanding career having a heavy workload,
high emotional demand (Hendrix, 1995), anxiety-provoking, and generally requiring hard work

(Deiro, 1996; Rhodes, 1997). At the same time, they may also perceive teaching as relatively low
in social status, paying a low salary, and reported experiences of quite strong social dissuasion
from a teaching career (Rhodes, 1997; Watt & Richardson, 2008). In addition, teaching
assistantships are awarded on the basis of academic potential, not teaching potential (DeBoer,
1979). Being thrust into an instructional role that they feel unprepared for, uncertain about, or
even resentful of, is not ideal for either graduate students or their students (Hendrix, 1995). No
matter what the perceptions of teaching GTAs hold, faculty who mentor and supervise GTAs
have a duty to prepare future science instructors (Gardner, 2010b; Rosen & Bates, 1967).
Instructional training necessitates an ongoing series of professional development courses
that span GTAs’ graduate school careers, rather than a one time, simple orientation. As Prieto
(1995) notes, less than half of all GTAs receive any type of supervision on an ongoing basis. As
Palmer (1993) notes, "we would be better teachers if we had one simple thing: a rich on-going
discourse about teaching and learning, not the perfunctory annual teaching-development
workshop, but a community of discourse that triangulates...from the many different angles
available from within the life of the faculty itself" (p. 9). Rather than learning to become
proficient researchers with pedagogy as an additive, GTAs need to learn how to become
exceptional teachers and use research to enhance their teaching and teaching to enhance their
research (Rhodes, 1997). Training can provide a safe environment to discuss alternative ways of
handling problems that may arise in and outside of the classroom (Andrews, 1983). Directors or
supervisors of these programs may act as "emotional mentor" by offering emotional support and
providing models of emotional display when GTAs are in the process of shaping their own
personal feeling rules. Supervisors, peers, and training in general can provide a supportive
33
community (Rhodes, 1997).

Graduate School and the Socialization of Academics
Socialization in graduate school refers to the process through which individuals gain the
knowledge, skills, and values necessary for successful entry into a professional career requiring
an advanced level of specialized knowledge and skills (Gardner, 2005; Weidman et al., 2001).
Socialization is also described as the process through which an individual learns to adopt the
values, skills, attitudes, norms, and knowledge needed for membership in a given society, group,
or organization (Braxton, Lambert, & Clark, 1995; Merton, 1968; Tierney, 1997; Van Maanen,
1976). Graduate schools aim to provide graduate students with knowledge of research
concerning the subject matter in their fields, and to make certain that these students can
independently demonstrate the research skills of their chosen field (Bess, 1978). Preparing GTAs
to assume the types of instructional roles and responsibilities of faculty members is an equally
integral part of graduate school (Nicklow, Marikunte, & Chevalier, 2007). Bess (1978) argues
that “since the source of college faculty is the graduate school, one way to generate faculty with
these orientations [skills] might be through changes in graduate education. ” Faculty members
play a myriad of roles in the socialization of doctoral students, including instructors in the
classroom, supervisors for students with assistantships, committee members for the thesis or
dissertation, advisor or chair of the research process, and even mentor (Isaac, Quinlan, &
Walker, 1992; Pease, 1967; Weidman & Stein, 2003). In this way, faculty members serve as
gatekeepers into and out of doctoral programs (Weidman et al., 2001).
Golde (2002) described the process of graduate school socialization as one “in which a
newcomer is made a member of a community—in the case of graduate students, the community
of an academic department in a particular discipline” (p. 56). She continued, “The socialization
of graduate students is an unusual double socialization. New students are simultaneously directly
34

socialized into the role of graduate student and are given preparatory socialization into a future
35
career in academia” (p. 56).
Graduate students are also being immersed in the culture of the discipline. Borrowing
from Merton (1968), Tierney (1997) stated, “Culture is the sum of activities in the organization,
and socialization is the process through which individuals acquire and incorporate an
understanding of those activities” (p. 4). He continued, “An organization’s culture, then, teaches
people how to behave, what to hope for, and what it means to succeed or fail. Some individuals
become competent, and others do not. The new recruit’s task is to learn the cultural processes in
the organization and figure out how to use them” (p. 4). The values, attitudes, and beliefs of the
culture, in this case, the academic culture, are often dictated by the discipline itself. Disciplines
have their own particular qualities, cultures, codes of conduct, values, and distinctive intellectual
tasks (Becher, 1981), which ultimately influence the experiences of the faculty, staff, and
students involved. Becher and Trowler (1989, p. 44) underscored this point: “We may
appropriately conceive of disciplines as having recognizable identities and particular cultural
attributes.” In order to navigate a Biology department, GTAs must acquire an understanding of
what the department members value, what faculty attitudes are towards the various activities the
GTAs will participate in, and the beliefs shared by the department (Rushin et al., 1997). The
GTA must quickly learn which undertakings will help them persist in the field, and which
activities deserve less attention. In the “publish or perish” world of academia, research and grant-obtaining
are highly prized, while teaching does not carry as many easily identifiable rewards
(Breen, Brew, Jenkins, & Lindsay, 2004; Sonnert, 1995; Vannini, 2006). Research expectations
for university faculty are so valued that research productivity has become the dominant and

sometimes the sole criterion for hiring, tenure, and promotion at research universities (Prince,
36
Felder, & Brent, 2007; Rushin et al., 1997).
Tierney and Bensimon (1996) suggest that the graduate school experience acts as an
agent of anticipatory socialization as the graduate student begins to understand the role of
faculty. Doctoral students observe faculty and the activity of the academic department and
subsequently form attitudes and opinions about life as an academic. As students assume their
roles as teaching assistants, they have some insight into the work roles of faculty members and
how to perform in those roles (Weimer et al., 1989). They are also attempting to “fit in” to their
new environment based on the disciplinary norms of their chosen field of study (Weidman et al.,
2001). What anticipatory socialization does not account for is the changing career trajectories of
GTAs. Though Biology GTAs may be able to see themselves stepping into the role of research
university faculty, they may not be able to see themselves stepping into the role of community
college instructor, adjunct, non-tenure track faculty, or liberal arts instructor.
New graduate students must investigate their place in the organization in order to glean
the necessary attributes that are important to the existing members (Tierney, 1997; Weidman &
Stein, 2003; Weidman et al., 2001). Newcomers or novices within the academic setting must
make sense of their new roles and begin to conform to the “normal behavior” as exhibited by
those around them (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). In attempting to conform to academic
surroundings, the graduate student is forced to make decisions as to which aspects of the
graduate school process assist the individual in socialization. Failure to understand the priorities
in academia may result in a negative experience while in graduate school, which may contribute
to a negative experience when pursuing a faculty career (Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Tierney,
1997). After what may be a long, difficult process of attempting to find a tenure-track position,

multiple rejections, and ultimately accepting a position outside academia, the socialization
process must include generic or transferable skills that help graduate students to be successful in
multiple types of careers, not just academia (Crebert et al., 2004; Gilbert et al., 2004; Stoner &
37
Milner, 2010).
Over 1 .5 million graduate students were enrolled in graduate programs, including
students pursuing both master’s and doctoral degrees, in 2005 (Brown, 2005), as compared to
1.73 million graduate students today (Rampell, 2012). As the number of graduate students
pursuing Ph.D.'s increases, academic job prospects are diminishing. Indeed, the number of
students receiving doctorates in biology increased from 3,803 in 1981 to 8,135 in 2011, while the
number of biological-science Ph.D. recipients in tenure-track positions dropped precipitously
from 55 percent in 1973 to 15 percent in 2006. Thus, a large majority of students are being
trained for faculty positions they will never obtain (Shea, 2013). American Society for Cell
Biology President Ron Vale (2013) wrote a column suggesting that an acceptable, if not good,
alternative career for science Ph.D.'s is to become elementary- or secondary-school science
teachers. Ph.D. programs have not prepared GTAs to be elementary or secondary school
teachers, however. Going this route often involves working in private or charter schools that do
not require certification, obtaining an emergency certification for an area of need, or a program
like “Teach For America (Berliner, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2005; Decker, Mayer, &
Glazerman, 2004).”
Other suggested career options besides academia or teaching have included science
policy, start-up businesses, science communication/writing, nonprofit work, science publishing,
patent law, technology transfer, and consulting (Columbia University, 2013). Institutions and
departments are slow to change. Even though it is widely recognized that GTAs need additional

training and that their chances of becoming a Biology faculty member are slim, they are not
being prepared for alternative careers. Virtually all graduate students receive their Ph.D.'s from a
research university (Cassuto, 2011). They get their first classroom experience there, and their
dissertations are mainly guided by professors whose research occupies a prominent place in their
work lives. The graduate student works his or her way from outsider to the profession, to full
member, under the mentorship of an advisor (Filstad, 2004). But because most academic jobs
aren't at research universities, those other jobs look jarringly different to graduate students than
the positions held by their mentors (Cassuto, 2011). Developing training programs that recognize
the importance of communication skills, transferrable skills, the scholarship of teaching, and
student success as pivotal and investment-worthy, while not sacrificing the research component
of a GTA program, are acknowledged as integral to GTA professional development (Boyer,
1991; Kreber, 2001, 2005; Tulane & Beckert, 2011).
While many posit the purpose of doctoral education to be the preparation to conduct
original research (e.g., (Council of Graduate Schools, 1990), others contend that Ph.D. programs
should be further reaching, including training to teach (Adams, 2002; Gaff, 2002a) and skills
necessary for the labor market outside of academia (Atwell, 1996; Golde & Walker, 2006; Jones,
2003). The Council of Graduate Schools (2004, p. 4) clearly delineated the independent nature of
doctoral education: “Beyond some beginning course work, the experience of each Ph.D. student
is individualized and varied. Ph.D. students bear a greater responsibility for defining the scope of
their educational experience than do other students. Further, the degree requires initiative and
creativity, and the award of the degree depends upon the individual performance of a student in
completing original research in the area of study.” The purpose of graduate school, therefore, is a
combination of what the graduate school offers, and what graduate students view as their needs.
38

Supervisors of GTAs could alleviate some of their anxiety by providing a clear picture of what
previous GTAs in their department, university, or discipline have struggled with, and a tool to
help them recognize how their own preconceptions will shape their education. A successful GTA
program should empower graduate students to maximize their strengths and correct their
39
weaknesses.
Some might suggest that it’s up to the discipline to decide what an advanced degree
means. Institutional context and culture uniquely influence the student experience (Kuh & Whitt,
1988). Perhaps only a Biology Department can attest to the characteristics of its master’s or
doctorate holders (de Valero, 2001; Ehrenberg, Jakubson, Groen, So, & Price, 2007; Weidman &
Stein, 2003). While a Master’s Degree in Biology usually involves two years of coursework and
a thesis, a Ph.D. in Biology usually involves a similar amount of coursework and an independent
research project demonstrating expertise in the field. A Ph.D. may take four to eight years to
complete (Kuther, 2013). By the culmination of their graduate school career, GTAs should
“know what to do” when it comes to teaching, students, and research in their given discipline
(Luft et al., 2004).
In the four to eight years graduate students spend in graduate school, under the guidance
of their faculty advisor, GTAs should be given the opportunity to improve on their teaching, but
a “sink or swim” philosophy is often employed (Friedrich & Powell, 1979; Myers, 1998; Russell,
2011; Trowler & Kreber, 2009). While academic advisors may provide guidance to graduate
students, they may also serve as a negative example of faculty lifestyles (Austin, 2002). Over
half of all doctoral students in the sciences drop out in their first year, due to poor career
outlooks, being a bad fit with a disciplinary department, or conflicts with advisors (Golde, 2002).
Theories of socialization have been connected to the issue of attrition in doctoral education, with

researchers often attributing poor or inappropriate socialization to a student’s decision to depart
the graduate program (Clark & Corcoran, 1986; Ellis, 2001; Gardner, 2007; Golde, 1998;
Lovitts, 2001). As newcomers to graduate school, the institution, the department, and the
laboratory, the process is inherently anxiety-producing, and the support offered to the GTA
40
varies greatly (Gardner, 2007, 2008).
Conflicting Priorities in a Graduate School Program
Holding a teaching assistant position may help graduate students pay for graduate school
(Austin, 2002); however, graduate students may be told by their advisors that research should be
their focus, and that teaching assistantships should not be held for multiple years because this
will jeopardize their careers (Jones, 1993). In the sciences, graduate students recognize the
prestige of a research assistant position, and note that a teaching assistant position holds less
value (Fox, 1983). In Serow’s (2000) study of faculty at research institutions, one natural
scientist said, “anyone not doing the right type and amount of research would “never be accepted
as a legitimate, card-carrying member of the faculty.” This culture in which GTAs exist places
them in a situation that is wrought with tension and difficult to change (Luft et al., 2004). GTAs
may enjoy teaching and perceive this work as important but may feel that their interest in
teaching does not contribute to their overall professional development as scientists (Ethington &
Pisani, 1993). A report published by the Association of American Colleges maintains that,
"Unless the reward system in higher education measures teaching performance as well as
research, all efforts to improve college teaching will be to no avail" (1985, p. 37).
At this juncture, GTAs are surrounded by a myriad of conflicting viewpoints, which may
affect their desire and ability to persist in their graduate programs (Tinto, 1991). As a student,
GTAs come to graduate school seeking to increase their content and disciplinary knowledge. As

teaching assistants, they may feel unprepared to teach (Boice, 1991), uncertain about the role of
teacher (Svinicki, 1994), and stressed about their future careers (Sorcinelli, 2006). As a
researcher, they are looking to their faculty advisor for guidance on navigating the university,
working with grant-funding agencies, or departmental politics. With all of these (sometimes)
conflicting interests, determining which priorities gets the time and attention by the GTA is a
difficult decision. Tinto (1991, p. 110) suggests that graduate persistence is "shaped by the
personal and intellectual interactions that occur within and between the students, faculty, and
student-faculty communities that make up the academic and social systems of the institution.”
Graduate programs may be described by GTAs with feelings of “family’ or ““camaraderie,” or
conversely, feelings of isolation, ambiguity, and feeling lost (Gardner, 2010a).
Despite the conflicting priorities GTAs express, the institutional graduate program has
multiple stakeholders invested in the success of GTAs – the undergraduate students who are
being taught by them, the advisors who have included them in their research and may serve as
mentors, the graduate schools who want a successful graduate program, and the universities who
are looking to GTAs as current students and future faculty (Coll, Zegwaard, & Hodges, 2002;
Duchelle et al., 2009; Enz, Renaghan, & Geller, 1993). GTA training programs are being
influenced by a number of interested parties, and depending on who the programs are being run
by, may include a variety of components (Aubel, 1995). Academic departments have a stake in
GTAs, both as researchers and as potential future faculty, students have a stake in the
effectiveness of their instructors, and the institution itself has a stake in completion rates. While
programs that provide training to GTAs have proliferated and the literature surrounding GTA
development has increased, models and designs for best practice of these training programs
remains varied (e.g., Barrus, Armstrong, Renfrew, & Garrard, 1974; Clark & McLean, 1979;
41

Druger, 1997; Lawrence, Heller, Keith, & Heller, 1992; McComas & Cox, 1999; Nyquist &
42
Wulff, 1996).
Descriptions of programs range from half day university-wide orientation sessions that
introduce new GTAs to university policies but provide no departmental training, to multiday
university-wide training, department-specific training, or even university-wide training coupled
with full-semester courses and seminars on teaching methods offered by specific departments
(Rushin et al., 1997). As departments or graduate schools weigh the evidence for creating their
own organic GTA training programs or choosing one of the national GTA training programs,
they must know that stakeholder needs are being met by the program. The supervisors of these
programs must modify or replace programs that do not meet GTA needs. Supervisors first must
know what the needs of the GTAs are.
National Training Programs vs. Locally Developed Training Programs
There are a series of large-scale projects, funded by charitable foundations, which have
reviewed the Ph.D. degree and stimulated considerable activity for reform of the doctoral
curriculum. These projects include “Re-Envisioning the Ph.D.,” developed at the University of
Washington (Nyquist & Woodford, 2000), the “Preparing Future Faculty” project from the
Association of American Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools, 2002
(Pruitt-Logan et al., 2002), the “Responsive Ph.D.” project, developed in the Woodrow Wilson
National Fellowship Foundation (Weisbuch, 2004), and the “Carnegie Initiative on the
Doctorate” developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Golde &
Walker, 2002). These projects focus broadly on improving the outcomes of Ph.D. degree
programs (Gilbert, Balatti, Turner, & Whitehouse, 2004). There are challenges inherent in large,
national, grant-funded programs such as PFF. The program may not meet the needs of GTAs

locally. It may spend time reinforcing skills that GTAs already possess, or that doesn’t fit the
content area. A first year graduate student, and a fourth year graduate student certainly have
different skill sets. An English GTA certainly has different challenges than a Biology GTA.
While departments may feel ownership over their own, organically grown GTA programs, they
may be resentful of the time unwieldy national programs demand. In order to maintain a training
program, the needs of all the stakeholders in the program must be heard and addressed.
One national program that focuses specifically on instructional training in multiple
institution types is the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program (DeNeef, 2002). This program
involved 43 doctoral-granting institutions and 295 partner institutions that worked in clusters.
The lead campus established relationships with institutions in different higher education sectors -
community colleges, liberal arts colleges, master’s degree granting institutions, public
institutions, and private institutions. The clusters of institutions offered an opportunity for
graduate students to learn about the various roles and responsibilities of a faculty member.
Offerings for graduate students include meeting with teaching mentors, attending seminars about
teaching, participating in extensive programs designed to enhance instruction, and observing
outstanding instruction by senior faculty. Ultimately, PFF designers make a conscious effort to
43
prepare GTAs formally as teachers.
The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and The Association of American Colleges and
Universities (AAUC) both promoted the PFF program, and the using of best practices in the
graduate school education of GTAs. However, once the funding for the PFF programs ended in
2010, few institutions continued the program in its entirety (Newton, Soleil, Utschig, &
Llewellyn, 2010). Reports about PFF suggest that graduate students in the nation’s Research I
universities see their faculty mentors as not only generally unsupportive of their desire for more

Q METHODOLOGY AS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR BIOLOGY GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS PARTICIPATING IN AN INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

Q METHODOLOGY AS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR BIOLOGY GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS PARTICIPATING IN AN INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Similar to Q METHODOLOGY AS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR BIOLOGY GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS PARTICIPATING IN AN INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

Similar to Q METHODOLOGY AS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR BIOLOGY GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS PARTICIPATING IN AN INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (20)

More from Amy Hollingsworth

More from Amy Hollingsworth (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Q METHODOLOGY AS A NEEDS ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR BIOLOGY GRADUATE TEACHING ASSISTANTS PARTICIPATING IN AN INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM