Theoretical implications
The epistemological development of both women began within a position of silence. They may have initially shared concerns with spouses or supervisors, but they neither were alerted internally for a need to document with dates and words specific incidents, nor were they worried about an action plan. Eventually, within their minds, the "silence" seemed to be replaced with a steady stream of concern about the particular, troublesome student, yet the voice within said that the student's voice was the only legitimate one, and that their professionalism would solve the problem. Each TA continued to have private, often drawn-out, discussions with the troubled students, hoping to refute points, or at least take considered listening into account. At no time did either TA stoop to demeaning, demoralizing, critical words in hopes of stopping the verbal assaults. Still, the period of silence continued in that the TAs had not reached a turning point in their thinking to where they believed the answer could be outside themselves, or that they were capable of constructing a suitable answer based upon a variety of internal and external resources. Following the documented path of other women in Women's Ways of Knowing, eventually both TAs actively sought outside consultation with a variety of sources. Sharon talked with professors, a teaching constultant (myself), her husband, and eventually the course professor. She went to him and asked for a specific intervention, no longer taking, "Don't worry about it" as a defense or an answer. She was no longer afraid that the professor would think she couldn't handle it alone, because she couldn't at that point. Annie, on the other hand, included the above sources but sought advice early on from a peer who confirmed that she was, in her words, "not psychotic." Annie also found out the student's history by consulting people in beginning French, and also received information in some manner from the GFR [Graduate Field Representative] within the student's department. Throughout the process, both women kept the professor or supervisor informed at all times, while holding back the deep turmoil that these students were causing.
After a period of silence (indicative of institutional silence on the subject of college students who are discipline problems evidenced by a lack of published articles in the literature), followed by a period where outside authorities are consulted, the TA formed a tentative plan of action. For Sharon, it was to ask to be relieved of grading that student's work from then on. For Annie, it was the writing of a memo documenting the events, with a possible use of sending it to any and all supervisors or deans as a "heads up" note. The troublesome student had threatened to take his complaints on up the chain of command much further than Annie's supervisor.
After the cognitive thinking, and action plan formation, a period of reflection (metacognition) would be expected. It would be premature to expect metacognition on a dilemma while the person is still extremely troubled by the actual problem. This hypothesis held for the two case studies. Sharon's interview was one hour after the last class where she saw the student for the last time and seemed to be qualitatively different in its reflective level than was Annie's. Annie was on her way to the final class where the evaluations would be handed out at the time of her interview. Annie indicated that she felt a few weeks removed from the crux of the problem, and her interview pulled together many global, reflective themes. She reported 1) That you can't interrupt the process; 2) That "Don't worry about it" is not helpful advice; 3) That it will happen to other people and nothing much can be done to alert them; 4) That she is able to find the troublesome student as an interesting individual today; 5) That she tended to grade higher than if he were not so troublesome; 6) That she'd seek help from a variety of sources earlier, as well as write documentation earlier; 7) That she'd notice warning flags earlier, such as those people who are upset after the first exam;
That she knows she's part of a pattern that may have more to do with what is going on in his life that anything else; 9) That having the support of everyone was wonderful; 10) That she still wants to teach; and 11) That she sees how the many factors of diversity intersect in a classroom.
An elongated period of silence occurred before the female TAs felt that they knew how to answer their own perplexing questions. During this period of "silence," they were speaking almost non-stop, of course, with internal conversations, talks with supervisors, sharing with spouses and colleagues, and other professionals. However, they didn't feel a voice of empowerment and a peace of mind that would only come with closure. They were unable to be reflective until after the incident with the troublesome student had been put into the past.
These two TAs hold that what they encountered was a sticky problem which they didn't create but in which they found themselves nonetheless. Just as they didn't create it, they didn't find its solution, either. It was an ill-structured problem in that there is no one right answer that will solve problems like this. Certainly there are definite guidelines and strategies people can employ, the least of which should be to avoid sarcasm, humiliation, and other ploys to magnify a teacher's power, and instead to focus on credibility - gaining and making. The constructed knower will be able to cross-apply strategies from prior experience, whether that be in teaching or other work and personal experience, to get to the "other side" of a classroom terrorist dilemma with as much ease and grace as possible.
Researchers of epistemological development and cognitive process theory often ask the question about what causes one person to move from one stage to a higher stage, or exchange one set of strageies for another set from a seemingly more advanced and complex level. A life crisis, followed by time to think, might be part of the advancement process. Certainly neither of the two teaching assistants emerged from the above incidents at the same level from which they started, or employing the same strategies they used at first. They can't go back after having lived through this semester - nor might they want to.
Cornell University
December 12, 1997
first revision October 21, 1998
REFERENCES
Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., and Tarule, N. (1986). Women's Ways of Knowing. New York: Basic Books.
Boice, R. (1996a). First-Order Principles for College Teachers: Ten Basic Ways to Improve the Teaching Process, Bolton, MA: Anker.
Boice, R. (1996b). Classroom incivilities. Research in Higher Education 37(4), 453-487.
Luo, J., Bellows, L., and Grady, M. (1997). Classroom management issues: A survey of international and U.S. TAs. University of Nebraska. Unpublished paper presented at the Sixth National Conference on the Education and Employment of Graduate Teaching Assistants, Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 7, 1997.
McKeachie, W. J., (1999). Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. 10th Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Perry, W. G., Jr. (1970). Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to TA Development Home Page
Website Feedback Welcomed
Last updated:
30-Nov-2006
This is a must read for any teacher. I think.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
