Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:08
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Using Professional Teaching Assistants to Support
Large Group Business Communication Classes
Lloyd J. Rieber
To cite this article: Lloyd J. Rieber (2004) Using Professional Teaching Assistants to Support Large Group Business Communication Classes, Journal of Education for Business, 79:3, 176-178, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.79.3.176-178
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.3.176-178
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 12
View related articles
176 Journal of Education for Business
lass size affects the number of students that a teacher has to teach, evaluate, and grade. Grading typically is the most time consuming of these tasks and is, according to many, the least rewarding. Conse-quently, writing teachers have pro-posed various methods to help reduce the time spent grading.
One method with a long history is peer evaluation (Lynch & Golen, 1992; Liu, Pysarchik & Taylor, 2002; Magin, 2001; Marcoulides & Simkin, 1991, 1995; Pitts, 1988). Another method, rec-ommended by Van Horn-Christopher (1995), is embedding oral comments in computer files containing students’ work rather than writing comments on students’ papers. Monroe (2002) sug-gested eliminating comments on stu-dents’ papers altogether and giving gen-eral feedback in a report to the whole class instead. Most recently, writing teachers have been experimenting with using computers to grade student assignments (Clayton, 1999; Shermis, Koch, Page, Keith, & Harrington, 2002). Probably the most traditional way to reduce grading in writing cours-es is by using teaching assistants (TAs). Although some programs have had suc-cess with undergraduate TAs (Kabel, 1983), most program designers prefer having PhD students in the classroom as tutors and markers. Universities that do
not have PhD programs, however, must find another solution.
In this article, I discuss one under-graduate university’s experiment with teaching business communication to large groups by using classroom instructors and professional teaching assistants. Many universities are mov-ing away from small (25–30) composi-tion courses to larger (70–90) disci-pline-specific writing classes, such as business writing, technical writing, and professional writing. Professional teaching assistants can provide an inexpensive and educationally benefi-cial means for teaching, evaluating, and grading writing in large group classes.
Background
For many years, the English Depart-ment at my university offered a single elective course in business writing. The course was so useful for business stu-dents that in 1988 the business faculty members changed the course name to Business Communication and wrote it into the core business curriculum. How-ever, as a core course, Business Commu-nication would have to serve 600 stu-dents instead of the 25 it served while in the English Department. With 600 stu-dents, keeping the class size small enough to give each teacher a reasonable grading load would have required at least four business communication teachers. Assuming that each teacher taught no subject other than business communica-tion, each would have to teach six sec-tions a year (three in each term) for a total yearly offering of 24 sections of 25 students per section. Even with four teachers, the overall grading load of each teacher would have been heavy. For example, if the course were to require only one page of writing each week, each teacher would have to evaluate and grade 75 assignments each week, for a total of 900 pages in a 12-week term. Although this amount of grading would not be impossible, it would put a heavy burden on teachers who are active in research and service as well as teaching.
Using Professional Teaching
Assistants to Support Large Group
Business Communication Classes
LLOYD J. RIEBER Saint Mary’s University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
C
ABSTRACT. In this article, the author reports on the use of classroom instructors and full-time professional teaching assistants called “course tutors” for teaching business commu-nication to large groups at an under-graduate university. The author explains how to recruit course tutors, what course tutors do in the class-room, and the advantages and disad-vantages of using them. The method is beneficial in that it reduces the grad-ing load for business communication teachers and offers an inexpensive method for successfully teaching large group writing classes. However, teachers can lose sight of student weaknesses and not get to know their students as well as they might in smaller classes.
January/February 2004 177
Hiring even four new teachers, howev-er, would have cost more than our budget allowed, so we had to come up with an alternative. Because the university served only undergraduate and master’s level students, PhD teaching assistants were not available. We considered undergrad-uate markers but concluded that few undergraduates would have the time or the ability to grade 75 papers each week, and if we assigned more than one under-graduate marker to each section, we would lose marking consistency.
Instead of hiring more teachers or an army of undergraduate markers, we came up with an innovative, cost-saving solution: We hired two full-time teachers and two full-time professional teaching assistants, whom we call “course tutors.” This model has proved so successful that other universities might want to consid-er it for business communication cours-es and for other discipline-specific writ-ing courses.
To recruit our course tutors, we adver-tised in the local paper for candidates with a master’s degree in English, jour-nalism, or a related subject; excellent command of English syntax, grammar, and punctuation; copy editing experi-ence; and experience in education or business. From the résumés we received, we developed a short list of candidates. During the interview, we gave each can-didate a grammar test and a mock student paper to evaluate, comment on, and grade. The two candidates that we even-tually selected both held master’s degrees (one in English and one in TESL) and had extensive editing experience.
What Do the Course Tutors Do?
The primary job of the course tutors is to evaluate, comment on, and grade student papers. During a 12-week course, students typically complete a minimum of six writing assignments and take two full-period tests and a final exam. Most assignments are one to two pages long. With practice, the course tutors are able to evaluate an individual assignment in approximately 10 min-utes, so each tutor can evaluate a week’s assignments in about 25 hours (150 papers x 10 minutes = 1,500 minutes = 25 hours). The class tutors are in the staff union and are required to work
37.5 hours per week. After grading assignments, they have 12.5 hours remaining, which they divide between office hours, individual tutoring, attend-ing class, and helpattend-ing prepare course materials such as the course outline, assignments, exercises, and tests.
Each course tutor is assigned to one teacher and attends that teacher’s class-es. In addition, the tutor and teacher together meet once a week to discuss the students’ progress, the last assign-ment evaluated, the next assignassign-ment to be evaluated, and any materials that need to be prepared for upcoming lessons or tests. These meetings help the tutors keep informed on the material that the teacher has covered and his or her expectations of the students.
Having the tutor attend the teacher’s lectures is important for two reasons. Clearly, the tutor has to know what the teacher stresses in class. Equally impor-tant, the students have to know that the tutor is marking for aspects that the teacher considers important. In fact, when we first started teaching with course tutors, some students com-plained that the teacher and the tutor did not agree; that is, the tutor was grading for factors that the teacher had not cov-ered or did not think were important. This complaint typically came from weaker students who also had an imper-fect understanding of what the teacher discussed in class. Having the tutors in the classroom during lectures gives the tutors’ marking credibility by reassuring students that the tutors do, indeed, know what the teacher stressed in class and mark accordingly.
What Advantages Does the Model Have?
The most obvious advantage of the professional course tutor model is a sig-nificantly reduced grading load for the business communication teachers. Because the course tutors grade all in-class tests and all writing assignments done outside of class, the classroom teacher has to evaluate and grade only writing, quizzes, and exercises done in class.
A second major advantage of the model is cost savings. A course tutor earns about one fourth as much as a
uni-versity teacher earns. Moreover, where-as the teacher’s salary is likely to increase with rank, increases in the tutor’s salary are limited to yearly incre-ments to cover inflation and reward con-tinuing service. In addition, the tutors do not receive sabbaticals and can be employed on a 9-month contract if the course is not offered in the summer.
Beyond reduced grading load and cost savings, the professional course tutor model offers several other advantages:
• Students receive the benefit of hav-ing essentially two teachers. Not only is the tutor in the classroom during class activities and exercises, but both the teacher and the tutor have office hours. Students can go to the classroom teacher or the tutor to obtain help with their work.
• Students receive much more feed-back on their assignments than teachers generally would provide. Students want more than a grade on their papers; they want to know why they received a par-ticular grade and how to improve their writing. The course tutors—who do not plan lessons, do research, or serve on university committees—have more time to make comments when marking papers and more time to see students outside of class than would a classroom teacher.
• Students receive help and comments from professionals, not student markers. Using undergraduate students as markers often means that students’ work is marked by an individual close to their own age who took the course only a year or so earlier. Such markers often lack the maturity and sophistication needed to make and support subjective judgments about their peers’ assignments. From their peers’ point of view, they lack cred-ibility. Because professional course tutors are older and more mature than the undergraduate students in the class, and because they work more closely with the classroom teacher than would student markers, the course tutors thoroughly understand the course content and are well equipped to answer student ques-tions and respond to student concerns.
• Unlike student markers, full-time professional course tutors return every year. The job of course tutor appeals to those whom we hire, and they tend to stay with us. In fact, in 14 years, only two
178 Journal of Education for Business
course tutors have resigned (both because of family commitments). Of the two tutors whom we have now, one has been with us for 13 years and one for 10. Although the job of course tutor is diffi-cult and tedious, it does offer a degree of autonomy not found in other positions. The tutors need be on campus only for meetings with students and with the course teachers. Thus, they can complete most of their work at home, which is attractive to many people. In addition, because they are on a 9-month contract, the tutors have up to 3 months free in the summer. Finally, although the university pays the course tutors less than it pays the teachers, the salary is attractive, and the course tutors have the opportunity to work in a university, which many people consider a prestigious position.
Because the course tutors tend to return each year, the classroom teacher need not retrain them each year. As a result, they become more familiar with the curriculum and can take an increas-ingly active role in developing course materials and assisting with classroom exercises and activities. Student mark-ers rarely perform these tasks.
• Experienced professional course tutors give the classroom teacher the opportunity to work with a colleague while developing the curriculum and teaching methods for a specific course. Most teachers work with colleagues to develop curriculum for a program or a major, but few teachers have a colleague observe classroom practices, help plan classroom activities, and make sugges-tions about improving learning in the classroom.
• Because all teachers and teaching assistants work together on class cur-riculum, delivery, and evaluation, the resulting courses are truly coordinated. They have the same course outline, cover the same content, and evaluate with similar instruments.
What Disadvantages Does the Model Have?
The professional course tutor model has its disadvantages. Because teachers do not grade student work, they easily can lose sight of student weaknesses and fail to plan their teaching to over-come these weaknesses. We partially overcome this disadvantage by having weekly meetings to discuss student work and by having the tutors photo-copy papers representative of students’ work for the teacher. In addition, after each assignment or test, the tutors pre-pare a report discussing, in general, the strengths and weaknesses of students’ work. We post these reports on our Web site, which gives students an additional form of feedback on their work.
An additional disadvantage of the model is that teachers do not become as familiar with their students as they might in smaller classes and, likewise, the stu-dents do not become familiar with their teachers. This disadvantage is difficult to overcome, but it would exist in larger classes whether the class had course tutors or not. Moreover, having both a teacher and a tutor in the room gives a student in a large class two points of contact and that much more opportunity to interact with someone who is confi-dent with the subject matter.
Conclusion
Probably no system will replace the atmosphere and individual attention possible in a small class, but using pro-fessional course tutors allowed our uni-versity to introduce a business commu-nication course with only a small, affordable increase in faculty size. By using professional tutors, we were able to teach large group writing courses and give students the feedback, attention, and writing practice that they need to improve their writing.
REFERENCES
Clayton, M. (1999). Essays get the electronic red pen. Christian Science Monitor, 91(32), 19–20. Kabel, R. L. (1983). Ideas for managing large classes. Engineering Education, 74(2), 80–83. Liu, J., Pysarchik, D. T., & Taylor, W. W. (2002).
Peer review in the classroom. Bioscience, 52(9), 824–829.
Lynch, D. H., & Golen, S. (1992). Peer evaluation of writing in business communication classes. Journal of Education for Business, 68(1), 44–48. Magin, D. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53–62. Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1991).
Evaluating student papers: The case for peer review. Journal of Education for Business, 67(2), 80–83.
Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995). The consistency of peer review in student writing projects. Journal of Education for Business, 70(4), 220–224.
Monroe, B. (2002). Feedback: Where it’s at is where it’s at. English Journal, 92(1), 101–104. Pitts, B. J. (1988). Peer evaluation is effective in writing course. Journalism Educator, 43(2), 84–88.
Shermis, M. D., Koch, C. M., Page, E. B., Keith, T. Z., & Harrington, S. (2002). Trait ratings for automated essay grading. Educational and Psy-chological Measurement, 62(1), 5–18. Van Horn-Christopher, D. A. (1995). Voice-graded
business communication documents. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(3), 35–37.
