International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 2013, Volume 25, Number 1, 129-143 http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/ ISSN 1812-9129 Extreme-Teaching-2 (XT²): Evaluation of an Innovative Semester-Long Intensive GTA Training Program Based on Microteaching David Santandreu Calonge Kai-Pan Mark, P. H. Patrio Chiu, Dimple R. Thadani, and Cecilia F. K. Pun Lingnan University City University of Hong Kong Microteaching techniques have been used for teacher training since the mid 1960s. Despite its usefulness, as affirmed by pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and graduate teaching assistants (GTAs), there are numerous criticisms on the shortcomings of microteaching activities. Specifically, it (a) oversimplifies the classroom learning and teaching nature, (b) encourages skill modelling on one or only few technique(s) demonstrated during training sessions, (c) involves costly human and technical resources for implementation, and most critically, (d) fails to provide instant and reusable feedback to improve classroom teaching skills. Addressing the inadequacies of traditional microteaching practice, this paper proposes an Extreme-Teaching-2 (XT²) framework based on the computer science literature. Originating from Extreme Programming (XP) methodology, XT² preserves the agility on teaching-feedback-teaching cycles with heavy peer and instructor involvement. With strong technological support, XT² allows specific, personalized, incremental, and constructive formative feedback to be given by peers and instructors during and after two classroom observation sessions. Through the XT² framework, teacher candidates are able to reuse feedback instantly (feedforward) and rapidly improve (a) confidence in identifying their weaknesses and strengths, (b) and their facilitating skills, while the administrative workload on instructors is significantly reduced. The Co-Teaching Model Teaching-2 (XT²) model, which emphasises the critical importance of fast teaching-feedback-teaching Studies show the importance of training graduate cycles. students before they start their teaching as graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) at university (Castley, Literature Review 2005; Park, 2004; Prieto & Meyers, 2001). A plethora of mandatory learning and teaching courses have Contemporary university teaching is rapidly blossomed in the last two decades in most of the changing in nature: tertiary institutions are faced with universities around the world to address this critical constricting budgets (Piatt, 2011), and the role of GTAs issue. On one hand, the benefits of GTA training are is becoming more prominent in undergraduate obvious: improved confidence (McClure, 2007), a education (Piatt, 2011; Travers, 1989). The introduction better graduate experience (i.e., satisfaction, of outcomes based approaches (OBAs; Biggs, 2003) motivation; Park, 2002), connection between theory has also revolutionized teaching. While traditional and practice (i.e., alignment; Hardré, 2003; Sweeney, teacher-centered models focus on content delivery, 2003), improved learning and teaching (Hardré, OBA models emphasize student-centered learning, 2003), better future rapport with students (Rushin et formative and timely feedback, and alignment of al., 1997), etc. On the other hand, systematic GTA learning outcomes, activities and assessment. In training is often ignored or not prioritized. Lack of contrast, GTAs are not always trained to teach in their interest in learning and teaching (students and discipline or use OBAs. Only 40% of the institutions faculty) as well as time constraints to coach or surveyed in the US, for instance, offered a training supervise GTAs are also frequently mentioned in the course to new GTAs (Torvi, 1994). These training literature (Kurdziel, Turner, Luft, & Roehrig, 2003; courses, however, were not necessarily mandatory and Torvi, 1994). In line with the literature, we are aware vary greatly in terms of length and content (Luft, that GTAs play an increasingly important role in Kurdziel, Roehrig, & Turner, 2004). Table 1 presents a university education (e.g., Seymour, 2005), and we list of challenges faced by first-year GTAs (Mark, believe that there is a need to design customized Thadani, Santandreu Calonge, Pun, & Chiu, 2011) and components of learning and teaching courses to help possible solutions to overcome these. them deal with classroom challenges. Thus, the main Numerous attempts, such as microteaching, have objective of this paper is first to address the been made to address the issues that newly recruited difficulties faced by GTAs and then to propose a GTAs have to face. The aims of these attempts are to pedagogical framework accordingly. Particularly, we develop pedagogical foundations, shape the instructors’ build on microteaching in the education literature and role, and improve GTAs’ instructional skills. However, extreme programming (XP) methodology in the current mechanisms do not seem to respond to the computer science literature to propose the Extreme- changes rapidly enough. Torvi (1994) and Fox et al. Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 130 Table 1 List of Challenges Faced by First-Year GTAs and Respective Solutions Challenges Solutions Absence of prior instructional experience and guidance Early training in the pre-service stage (Park, 2004) to on classroom teaching (Bomotti, 1994) reduce anxiety and fear Balancing the complex role of teacher and student On-going training to establish GTAs’ development as (Rubin, 1993) instructors (Drake, 1997) Change perception on teaching as solely content delivery Assessment and timely feedback to GTAs, reflective (Menges & Rando, 1989) to OBAs inquiry to foster paradigm shift (Brown, 2003) Using English as medium of instruction (MOI) for non- Asynchronous web discussion for building up confidence local GTAs (Marvasti, 2007) on using English (Mark et al., 2011) Local cultural awareness for non-local GTAs (Marvasti, Cultural training courses to enhance non-local GTAs’ 2007) abilities to relate to local students and to use relevant examples in the classroom (Marvasti, 2007) (2011) assert that the two most common reasons for answer challenging questions, and develop (self and many institutions not to offer formal GTA training were peer) observation and self-reflection skills. the lack of interest from the departments and students Critics of microteaching highlight the fact that the and time constraints. GTAs generally cannot fully cycle of teach, critique, and re-teach (Figure 1) has utilize in-service training that was provided just weeks limitations: (a) it is rather rigid and too short; (b) it does before they began teaching (Drake, 1997). Also, not always foster reflection on practice due to a lack of didactical feedback from faculty on effective class constructive briefings with a clear set of criteria (and practices and discipline-specific instruction is often not detailed session plan provided by the student) and available (Fox et al., 2011; Luft et al., 2004). Providing debriefings, and limitations such as peer observation of effective training that is instantly useful to the GTAs teaching, especially when done for the first time and and academic departments is therefore vital. only once (e.g., lacking confidence in using assessment rubrics), and absence of a second distinct presentation Microteaching: Definition and Shortcomings to review “glitches” that occurred in the first presentation (i.e., feedback) and apply changes to a new Over the past decades, literature on teaching one (i.e., transferability, feedforward); and (c) it is not techniques has been dominated by studies on as complex as the “real deal” and therefore does not microteaching (Gliessman, Pugh, Dowden, & Hutchins, really prepare them to teach. The main reason behind 1988). This line of research provides supports necessary the inadequacies of microteaching lies in the to help novices learning from simulated practice and incomplete (but essential) components of many teacher- benefit from feedback (Grossman & McDonald, 2008). training courses (design) in which microteaching forms Microteaching is defined as a “performance a large part of the training process. training method designed to isolate the component parts of the teaching process, so that the trainee can master Agile Practice: From Software Development to each of the component one by one in a simplified Teacher Development teaching situation” (McLaughlin & Moulton, 1975, p. 9). Along with this definition, Allen and Ryan (1969) The inexorable changing nature of tertiary suggest that microteaching is the “real teaching” education worldwide requires experimentation in conducted in small partition and practiced under curriculum development and in pedagogy. It also controlled conditions. A junior teacher often reflects on requires to think of news ways to deal with new his “real” performance with peers, senior colleagues situations: an unprecedented international, mobile and and students through reviewing a video taken during a digital-native student population, larger class sizes, lesson practice. A traditional microteaching cycle satellite campuses overseas, the preponderance of social suggested by Singh and Sharma (2002) involves seven media sites and e-technologies to access knowledge and steps and is summarized in Table 2. interaction (Cable & Willetts, 2011). Perceived as useful by both pre-service and in- The fact that graduate students who undertake service teachers over decades, microteaching helps “teaching training” are better equipped to support teachers to improve content delivery and structure, learning, assess their students, engage and inspire them acquire and practice simple teaching techniques such as inside and outside the classroom is unquestionable how to engage students in the classroom or how to (Mahoney, 2011). The debatable part, however, Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 131 Table 2 Traditional Microteaching Cycle Involves Seven Microteaching Steps Step Explanation Step 1: Modelling the skills The modelling of the skills is mainly done through two models: 1. Perceptual model: presented by way of demonstration and is visually perceived by trainees 2. Conceptual model: presented in the form of written material and is conceptualised by trainees Step 2: Planning a micro-lesson A lesson of a short duration, usually of 10 to 20 minutes, is planned in consultation with trainers Step 3: The teaching session The plan is then executed in the presence of the trainers; the session is video-taped Step 4: The critique session Concrete and specific feedback is then given by the trainers for improvement; video taken during the teaching session is reviewed Step 5: The re-planning session Trainees re-plan the session based upon feedback received Step 6: The re-teaching session Trainees deliver the same lesson again Step 7: The re-critique session Trainees receive critique again for the re-taught lesson Note. (Singh & Sharma, 2002) Figure 1 Microteaching: Teach-Critique-Re-Teach concerns the stiffness of many of the training courses and choices (reflection), not “model answers or offered (e.g., difficulty inducting new staff and add new techniques.” Methods such as microteaching are not features anytime) and their disconnection from (a) the adapted to these fast changing new situations. However, realities of the 21st century classroom (e.g., fast-paced, methodologies in computer science literature (e.g., agile video-recorded, “blended”), (b) the advanced programming; Thomas, 2005), give a possible clue to technological background of the participants, and (c) design quick and effective GTA training programs that what GTAs really need: multiple opportunities to embrace changes and are instantly useful to develop practice, constructive and extensive feedback that will valuable IT artifacts (Hevner, March, Park, & Ram, help them to improve, extra chances to provide 2004) that suit customers’ need through extensive user feedback to their peers, either online or face-to-face, feedback. Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 132 The introduction of agile values and overall agility impact of this strict sequence is the lack of real-time into a teaching team and a learning and teaching course review and feedback (RtRf) to improve the software. for graduate assistants addresses most of the issues RtRf allows programmers to make quick corrections presented. Lui and Chan (2008) provide explanations and to produce robust artifacts that are truly user-centric for five “agile values”—communication, feedback, (Wiegers, 2002). simplicity, courage, and respect—for positive Agile methods have been introduced to address the attribution to people and products in software inadequacies of traditional software development development (Beck & Andres, 2005). Table 3 presents methods. XP, among other agile methods, focuses on a summary on how agile values are applied in software social changes in a fast pace. development (Beck & Andres, 2005; Lui & Chan, 2008) and how the course SG8001 adopted it for GTA Research Design of the Extreme-Teaching-2 development. (XT²) Model Incorporating Agility and Adaptability into the Using XP methodology, particularly timeboxing System: Extreme Programming and multiple checkpoints, the investigators transformed the concept of microteaching and integrated it into a Beck (1999) asserts that traditional software compulsory and intensive learning and teaching course development cycles cannot “adapt to changes” because for GTAs in Hong Kong. Timeboxing allows for the the cycles are lengthy. Traditional software seamless introduction and quick integration of development methods adhere to a “strict sequence of changes/updates within the course, while multiple requirements analysis, design, and development checkpoints are vital to stop and reflect, gauge progress phases” (Larman & Basili, 2003, p. 48), and are often and learning, and modify content if necessary. Both criticized as “unrealistic” (p. 52). The most significant concepts involve all parties. Table 3 Mapping of Agile Values Agile Value Software Development GTA Development Communication Cultivating knowledge sharing culture Sharing of experience and practices between among programmers experienced teachers and GTAs (Park, 2004). Communities of Practice (Wolf, 2009) Feedback Feedback is needed at all stages during In-class (service) presentation feedback is development. True value is delivered only provided longitudinally during training and when the changes are reflected in the post-training classroom teaching (Leach & software. Conto, 1999) Simplicity Multiple simple solutions to solve a Adoption of online interaction and video complex problem: building software for recording strategies (Fukkink et al., 2011), today’s needs and development of a multi-directional engagement (MDE) technique with a multiple point- [formative and summative / peer] feedback system to maximize learning, boost motivation and encourage collaborative learning and reflective discussions on Learning and Teaching (Wilson & Stacey, 2003) Courage Changing existing code for the better Adopting innovative technology for requires courage, enthusiasm, and belief improving Learning and Teaching requires of the programmer courage and peer support (Kankaanranta, 2001) Respect Mutual respect in the programming team Constructive group (peer) discussions of, and is essential to motivate the team to enjoy reflections on, the issues can provide a format new challenges and make new to build team collaboration, share good achievements practice and develop skills in working together effectively (Groom, 2006) Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 133 Participants, Materials, and Procedure various sources is then analyzed by students and incorporated into a reflective portfolio submitted one The SG8001 mandatory course for teaching month after the end of the course to foster deeper assistants from all disciplines is taught from the end of reflection and maturity. the summer semester through the end of June at two Table 5 presents the mapping between the agile locations, Hong Kong and Suzhou (Mainland China). methods used in XP and the XT² model designed for the The 144 Students in the course were between 22 and 35 SG8001 course (i.e., what has been borrowed and why). years of age. All of the postgraduate students were full- Figure 2 describes the two cycles used in the course. time students from Mainland China (two-thirds), Hong Kong and overseas, with no prior or limited teaching Description of the XT² Model experience and no particular interest in learning and teaching. To familiarize students with the online The XT² Model provides a fast briefing-teaching- environment and specifically the online discussion feedback-debriefing-training-teaching-feedback debriefing board, students introduced themselves in an online task cycle with heavy peer and instructors’ involvement. The where they outlined their motivation for the course, mechanism of XT² involves two cycles on managing assets (e.g., teaching experience, program of study, and designing a mock teaching session with a year), and liabilities (e.g., lack of relevant coursework, corresponding practice embedded within each cycle (as pre-existing subgroups), which was crucial information shown in Figure 2). In the first mock teaching session for the formation of interdisciplinary groups for in-class cycle, the purposes and outcomes of the activity are activities. explained to GTAs, but no further information is The session content of SG8001 aligns with provided at this stage. Immediately after their first different components as postulated in the literature, delivery (multi-disciplinary group), feedback is given to including cultural awareness, language proficiency, and the students, including (1) an explanation of the rubrics practical personal and professional development skills. (open discussion), (2) formative oral feedback from the Table 4 presents these five components and the teaching team, (3) formative peer feedback, and (4) corresponding content in each session. debriefing. These comments aim to induce GTAs’ XT² gives participants the opportunity to (1) reflection on their future teaching (feedforward 1). actively engage with feedback, (2) develop and improve Peers then could engage in formative feedback online their presentation as well as self and peer evaluation (discussion board). In the second cycle, the GTAs are skills by observing their own teaching session and those prepared with a workshop that includes various proven of their classmates’ via video recordings (Hargie, presentation and active class engagement techniques, Saunders, & Dickson, 1994; Star & Strickland, 2008), explained (assessment) rubrics, and comments received and (3) provide both formative oral feedback in class in the previous cycle. Students are asked in groups to and written formative feedback through online reflect on the techniques as well as on the comments discussion boards, as well as summative feedback and deconstruct their individual presentation to identify through online Blackboard organization tools (Hattie & areas for improvement. Likewise, timely feedback is Timperley, 2007). This crucial information from provided after the second teaching activity, including Table 4 Session Content Component Session Content Cultural awareness/Context Context for learning and teaching at City University of Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong’s student profiles (entry/graduates’/employers’ surveys) Language/Instructional techniques/Active Presentation and facilitation skills, engaging use of multimedia in learning strategies/Course development the classroom, analysis of outstanding speakers’ presentations (e.g., TED lectures, YouTube, large audience, small groups) Practical skills/Engaging students outside the E-learning/e-technologies (e.g., echo360, Blackboard, Twitter), classroom four-year curriculum issues (to be launched in 2012) Personal/reflective skills Reflective e-portfolio one month after the end of the course, including a teaching philosophy statement Professional Development Skills/Peer Integrating learning theories into teaching using an outcome based review/Assessment teaching and learning approach, obtaining feedback from teachers and peers, analysing it to improve Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 134 Table 5 XP and XT2 XP XT2 1. Planning Game The SG8001 team brainstorms continuously to improve 2. Small releases content and delivery. Tiny refinements, small 3. Refactoring: modifications are incorporated almost instantly • The main planning process (timeboxing) • New releases made often • Kaizen(cid:0)善 process (Wittenberg, 1994) • Continuous design improvement • Continuous integration Customers decide the scope and timing of changes Scope: Students are involved in many phases of course content, decision-making and assessment. (Malone & Lepper, 1987; i.e., practice: presentation 1) Checkpoints Timing: Peers have to release feedback within 24 hours; they can choose to release it immediately or not. The design of the system is evolved through Course cycles: Small iterations mainly done in Cycle 2, at transformation of the existing design the preparation workshop (parts are added/removed depending on, e.g., how many GTAs teach labs). Inducted invited speakers share their insights. Online activities/videos and/or additional research papers are added to/removed from the system (timeboxing), depending on the audience (majority of scientists, lawyers, etc.). Pair Programming • Summative assessment (and cross-checking) is • Code is written by two people always done by two instructors • New people spend the first couple of iterations • New people joining the team are paired with one TA just pairing with more experienced programmers who has taught the course (Andersson & Bendixa, 2006), and spend the first “two cohorts” observing class interactions (multi-directional engagement technique), and discussing with the team about L&T issues relevant to the course (checkpoints) 1. Collective ownership and Every teaching team member (TAs included) teaches 2. Just rules every individual part of the course. Agreement is sought Every programmer improves any code anywhere in the before each session (email). Any member of the team can system at any time. also modify any part of the content or in-class/online The team can change rules at any time as long as they activities (timeboxing) at any time (checkpoints), as long agree on how they will assess the effects of the change as he/she can justify it and explain the outcomes of the Intense social activity activity and its alignment with the content of the course to Encourages members to take chances the team. • Everyone participates in all development parts • Stimulates collegial collaboration, share of different expertise, creativity, dialogue summative written feedback from the teaching team is provided right after presentation 1 and at the and peers. GTAs also have access to their own video beginning of cycle 2 where presentation techniques recorded session as well as their peers’ sessions to (e.g., workshop) are presented to GTAs. Active foster deeper reflection (feedforward 2). learning strategies are employed in the preparation workshop, and students are constantly engaged, both Advantages of XT2 Over the Traditional in class (using the MDE technique; Santandreu Microteaching Method Calonge, Chiu, Thandani, Mark, & Pun, 2011) and online (discussion board), to facilitate the With the XT2 Model, GTAs receive both understanding of student-centered learning pedagogy. formative and summative feedback from the teaching Summative feedback is provided to GTAs at the end team as well as peers (Figure 3). Formative feedback of presentation II, again from both peers and Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 135 Figure 2 Description of the Cycles Used in XT² Figure 3 Student Engagement with Feedback instructors. Multiple levels of summative feedback are GTAs a formal response on their teaching, used to forge GTAs’ improvement; they include: according to the taught materials. Written feedback must be given to students within two 1. Debriefing by the instructors and peers weeks after they have conducted their final immediately after the presentation to address presentation to avoid fading of memory and the key issues that arise during the presentation discontinuity of the assessment process. (or to reinforce good facilitation). This brief 3. Peer assessment by students with diverse immediate feedback often provides a long backgrounds to provide feedback to GTAs lasting effect on students’ learning as they pay about their achievement in the presentation. It much higher attention to instant feedback, as enables GTAs to see how their teaching compared to later feedback, to see how well materials are delivered to “students” and to they perform in their first presentation. improve based on their perspective. 2. Written feedback by the instructors based on 4. Recorded presentation videos are provided to the preparation workshop materials to provide GTAs so that they can revisit their class Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 136 session and verify their strengths and GTAs on the effectiveness of the course. The weaknesses as described in the written availability of two rounds of practice helps to reduce feedback. This verification process can help to GTAs’ fear and anxiety, simply because they have reinforce their presentation skills and identify more chance to practice their teaching skills under and correct their shortcomings. guidance while receiving feedback. The more they practice, the less anxious they feel, which fosters The feedback cycle in XT2 is quick, flexible, and greater improvement. intensive, and GTAs have the opportunity to reflect in a XT2 also increases students’ conscious awareness timely fashion. In order for feedback to be the most of the importance of obtaining feedback and the critical useful and effective for students, research shows that importance of its timing and frequency. In the the most critical factor is timing (Bangert-Drowns, traditional microteaching method, trainees receive Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991). This fast pace of feedback only from the trainers and on the same lesson feedback also addresses Coldevin’s (1988) and Thakrar, twice. Although it can improve some aspects of the Wolfenden, and Zinn’s (2009) concern about the same lesson, it lacks instant and transferable feedback. flexibility and rigidity of the traditional microteaching From the XT2 model, GTAs receive strong and method. intensive feedback to improve their performance. When Another distinctive improvement of XT2 over GTAs complete the course, the necessity of providing microteaching is that GTAs do not repeat the same feedback to students becomes part of their normal lesson they taught in the cycles. Instead, they reflect on teaching activity. With the intense feedback cycles in their received feedback at the end of cycle 1, as well as XT2, GTAs evolve from unconscious incompetent to techniques taught in the preparation workshop, to conscious incompetent, then to conscious competent prepare another lesson in cycle 2. It gives GTAs and finally unconscious competent (the four stages of opportunity to digest the feedback and materials they competence learning model) of teaching with feedback. learned in the workshop, analyze and reflect, and apply The XT2 model also helps students build up intention them to the next lesson. XT2 method enables GTAs to for continuous improvement, which is an essential apply feedback and techniques obtained from cycle 1 element of their future teaching duties. instantly to cycle 2 where the first presentation serves as a pre-test to the GTAs to find out their initial Results teaching performance. To evaluate the effectiveness of XT2 on student Effectiveness of XT2 on Student Learning learning, the teaching team collected both quantitative data and qualitative analysis. In the quantitative The XT2 model tackles the weakness of analysis, Learning Experience Questionnaires (LEQs) microteaching by introducing two cycles of mock were administered to students anonymously at the end teaching (i.e., presentation with different topics) and of each course to elicit feedback about their experiences rapid feedback from peers and instructors. The first with this innovative learning approach. The team also cycle serves as diagnostic test to check out the initial administered an additional survey, the Teaching performance of the GTAs. A debriefing session then Feedback Questionnaire, to gather feedback on the helps students deconstruct and analyze their teaching strategies used. Fifty-nine students (of 102 presentation, with feedback from their peers and the enrolled; a 57.84% response rate) in the required course instructors; the teaching team can, at any time, adjust in Hong Kong completed the LEQ surveys. Thirty the materials according to the GTA’s level of expertise. students (of 42 enrolled; a 71.43% response rate) It provides an instant snapshot of each cohort of completed the TFQ survey. The results of the study, students. The presentation skills workshop can then be therefore, are based on 89 responses. Both modified accordingly. questionnaires were administered a few weeks after the The effectiveness of cycle 1 alone may be end of the course. The low response rate could be debatable, but GTAs get a chance to carry out a explained by the facts that many of the students went teaching activity (since not all of them have teaching back to the mainland immediately after the course and experience) before being assessed to release tension and had limited access to City University’s server, and the to allow self-reflection, and they have an opportunity to Hofstede (2001) power distance index still influenced observe other students’ initial teaching. After GTAs their giving feedback to a professor/superior behavior, complete cycle 2, the facilitation and presentation skills as teachers’ feedback surveys are not popular in China. of each individual is compared between the two cycles. The LEQ survey is divided into two parts. The first The first one serves as the baseline, and the second one involves students’ feedback in learning in the course is an indicator of what they learned through the course. (Tables 6 and 7); the second involves students’ own It provides solid evidence to both the teaching team and reflections. For part 1, the mean of each question was Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 137 larger than 6.0 (with 7.0 as the maximum), indicating Indeed, students were exposed to a wide variety of that students were very satisfied with the course. active learning strategies (e.g., one- and three-minute Among the 11 questions asked, Q1 and Q2 received papers, think-pair-share, teamwork, brainstorming), the highest scores (Table 6). Referring to the technologies (online discussion board [BB], Twitter, Teaching Feedback Questionnaire (Table 7), the Skype, echo360, Turnitin), and assessment techniques mean for each question (TQ1-TQ13) was very high (> (e.g., formative and summative, peer and self), and the 6). The three items with the highest scores were teaching team made a point of practicing what they responsiveness, enthusiasm for teaching, and preached in class and outside the class: “I think the helpfulness. interactions in SG8001M were most beneficial. Table 6 LEQ Part I Results: Feedback on My Learning in the Course Survey Item M SD Q1 The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) of this course were clearly explained 6.46 0.84 to me. Q2 The teaching and learning activities (TLAs) have helped me to achieve the 6.31 0.93 ILOs. Q3 The readings, notes, problem sets and other learning resources were adequate 6.22 0.85 for learning the subject matter. Q4 The assessment tasks (ATs) allowed me to demonstrate my learning in this 6.20 1.00 course. Q5 The assessment criteria are clear to me. 6.25 1.08 Q6 With reference to the CityU nominal workload (i.e. a credit unit is earned by 4.90 1.21 approximately 40 to 50 hours of student work), the workload for this course is: Q7 The spread of assignments throughout the duration of the course (13 weeks) 5.93 1.19 is appropriate. Q8 I have gained a good knowledge of the subject matter. 6.05 1.32 Q9 I have learned how to apply the knowledge, concepts and theories I learned in 6.05 1.02 this course. Q10 I have become more self-directed to explore the subject further on my own. 6.05 1.04 Q11 Having considered your learning experience in this course, how would you rate the quality of this course? 5.97 1.00 (0: Extremely Poor -> 7: Excellent) Note. Scale: 0 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Response rate = 57.84%, n = 59. Table 7 Teaching Feedback Questionnaire Results Survey Item M SD TQ1 This instructor prepared an excellent set of reading materials. 6.60 0.50 TQ 2 This instructor added to the discussion sessions and helped raise and answer 6.60 0.72 questions. TQ 3 This instructor organised class time effectively. 6.50 0.78 TQ 4 This instructor stimulated my interest in the subject. 6.60 0.62 TQ 5 This instructor’s speech/language was easy to understand. 6.77 0.50 TQ 6 This instructor was responsive to student problems. 6.43 0.82 TQ 7 This instructor was approachable and helpful. 6.60 0.67 TQ 8 This instructor was enthusiastic about teaching. 6.93 0.25 TQ 9 This instructor encouraged me to ask questions. 6.70 0.60 TQ 10 This instructor encouraged me to think critically. 6.57 0.73 TQ 11 This instructor encouraged me to develop my own ideas. 6.33 1.01 TQ 12 This instructor aroused my interest to learn on my own. 6.24 1.02 TQ 13 Having considered aspects specified above, how would you rate the teaching 6.43 0.75 overall? Note. Scale: 0 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Response rate = 71.43%, n = 42. Calonge, Mark, Chiu, Thadani, and Pun GTA Training Program 138 Interaction improves my interest and enthusiasm in the it directed to new ways of thinking to improve teaching class” (SG8001M student); “The teaching team performance” (SG8001M student); “Several teachers prepared a lot of materials for this course. Moreover, with different backgrounds teach this course. This is there are different teachers with different teaching why I am very interested in it” (SG8001M student); styles, which can set good examples for us.” (SG8001 and, “Different lectures in the class help to make student); and, students concentrate in the course” (SG8001M student). More than 95 % of the students attended classes In our course, I paid special attention to how and completed at least 75% of the assigned readings teachers employ OBTL concepts to manage their (Figure 4). This can be confirmed by the student teaching activities. I found that ILOs for every feedback: “This course enlightens me to think deeper single session are presented to the class, [and] about teaching, and encourages me to practice and suitable teaching and learning activities are enrich my teaching skills for my future teaching life” conducted during each session to deepen (SG8001 student); “I think the learning activities are the understanding. (SG8001 student) best aspect of this course, since it helped me to learn, not just listen” (SG8001 student); “The teachers have During this class, I really learned a lot of concrete lots of sense of humor. The learning activities are techniques and skills that will definitely benefit my properly allocated to students. The course materials are TA tasks this semester. A point that I have applied elaborately chosen and highly related” (SG8001 in my TA classes is from the part of “delivery of student); “All teachers prepared very well, they have teaching session”: I have paid special attention on passion, dedication and confidence towards their clarifying the marking criteria standard. (SG8001M students. Students are highly motivated by them student) gradually” (SG8001 student); and, Qualitative comments suggest that students felt that Teachers are very active and passionate in class; the instructional methods facilitated the achievement of students are also very active participating in-group the intended learning outcomes, and that the course was discussion and answering questions. I am very very useful: “This course clarified the philosophy and interested in various teaching and learning theories tactics of teaching students systematically and taught in class. What is more important is that it stimulates me to form my own teaching philosophy” gives us an opportunity to use these theories via (SG8001M student); “Lectures were very effective and presentation and e-portfolio. (SG8001 student) Figure 4 LEQ Part 2 Results: Students’ Self Reflection 60 55 50 Percentage  of  class  attended 45 Percentage  of  assigned  readings  completed 40 35 30 56 25 36 N 20 48 15 10 10 18 5 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 (76%-­‐ (51%-­‐75%) 100%) (26%-­‐50%) (0%  -­‐  25%) Percentage Note. N = 59, response rate = 57.84%.