By: Michael Jollymore
There has been a recent shift in the manner in which post-secondary courses are taught. Traditionally, an instructor of a course was viewed as an ultimate fount of knowledge that was responsible for the dissemination of information in and through formal lectures; however, this notion has waned in favour of a student-centric approach to teaching (Brady, 2013). It is by adopting such an approach that students may become engaged in the material of a given course and subsequently attain greater success. Engaging students in not only the content of a course but in the manner in which it is taught can prove to be difficult in classes of a theoretical and perhaps mundane nature. Moreover, it is such courses that students often experience the greatest difficulty in attaining a desirable grade. Thus, it is beneficial to view and engage the students as active participants in the educational process (Brady, 2013). At the core of the student-centric model of instruction is the approachability of the instructor. Better student engagement in instruction and the learning process can be viewed as a product of approachability. This paper will suggest that Teaching Assistants (TAs) who increase their approachability via personal attributes, their method of instruction and even style of dress will be better able to engage students in course material and establish a student-centric, collegial learning environment.
Engaging students and developing a collegial learning environment is really predicated upon the approachability of an instructor or TA. In order to establish a positive and productive environment for students in the contemporary university setting it is important for the instructor to treat the student as an equal individual or colleague as this increases supportiveness and furthers engagement (Hermann, Foster & Hardin, 2010). This is particularly true for TAs as it is beneficial for students to understand that they have a student colleague in essence who may be more knowledgeable about the topic and can provide them with guidance. Ultimately, it must be remembered that this is the nature of a TA; they are more experienced and perhaps more knowledgeable students. Thus, it is critical to establish this at the outset of a course to construct the foundation for an engaging and comfortable student-centric environment. Introductory classes or communication (such as electronic communication) with students ought to be regarded as a reciprocal interview in which topics are discussed such as expectations, goals and experiences related to the course and suggestions can be made for instructor/TA behaviour in order to achieve these goals (Hermann et al., 2010). It is such practices that may generate greater student-instructor rapport which is a cornerstone of an engaged and successful class.
Building a strong student-instructor rapport is an essential component of the foundation of a collegial and thus engaging classroom environment. This rapport is most effectively established in and through the instructor depicting themselves as an equal to the students and there are manners in which this may be achieved. Rapport may be built by matching or pacing the style of communication of an individual through verbal or non-verbal behaviour such as words, phrases, expressions or tones (Brown, 2004). An instructor, particularly a TA, may engage in this by using certain slang terms that students may employ or refrain from incorporating academic jargon in addressing students. Further, students may engage more with their instructor should they use non-verbal motivators such as smiles, head nods and eye contact (Brown, 2004); such gestures, while superficially trivial assist in fostering a rapport that creates a supportive and engaging environment. These verbal and non-verbal gestures will demonstrate that the instructor or TA is on the same level as the students; creating such an atmosphere allows the students to feel engaged with the instructor as a peer or colleague which translates into being engaged with the material and the learning process. It can be suggested that even aesthetically appearing to be on the same level as students may assist in generating a supportive rapport.
Although seemingly trivial, the attire which an instructor chooses to wear in class also facilitates the creation of a collegial and supportive classroom. It has been suggested that traditional, formal attire does not translate to the contemporary university classroom; rather, casual dress contributes to greater likability and approachability while not having a detrimental effect on the credibility of an instructor (Gorham, Cohen & Morris, 1999). This is perhaps related with the notion of appearing to be on an equal level with students. Teaching Assistants who dress in casual attire (jeans and casual t-shirts) will naturally appear as a peer or colleague thus enhancing approachability and student engagement with their instructor.
Creating a supportive and student-centric learning environment relies, to a great extent, upon the approachability of the instructor or TA. Approachability is inherent within an individual and is difficult to quantify or qualify and thus improve. However, the establishment of a collegial environment in the classroom can certainly be considered to contribute to an engaged group of students. Manners in which to create such a class ought to be investigated further, including the effect of instructor clothing and demeanor.
Bibliography:
Brady, M. P. (2013). Multiple Roles of Student and Instructor in University Teaching and Learning Processes. The International Journal of Management Education 11, 93-106.
Brown, N. (2004). What Makes a Good Educator? The Relevance of Meta-programmes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 29(5), 515-533.
Gorham, J., Cohen, S. H., & Morris, T. C. (1999). Fashion in the Classroom III: Effects of Instructor Attire and Immediacy in Natural Classroom Interactions. Communication Quarterly 47
Hermann, A. D., Foster, D. A., & Hardin, E. E. (2010). Does the First Week of Class Matter? A Quasi-experimental Investigation of Student Satisfaction. Teaching of Psychology 37(2), 79-84.