Development of a Training Workshop for Undergraduate Mentor TAs in an Introductory Engineering Course

Over the past three years, faculty at Florida Gulf Coast University have re-envisioned the freshman-level introductory engineering course required by multiple programs in the College of Engineering [Kunberger and Geiger, 2015, Kunberger, Geiger and Reycraft, 2016]. One aspect, the addition of Mentor TAs, was intended to develop informal near-peer mentor experiences, considered a “practice-based” mentoring initiative [Packard, 2016]. These students would serve not only as a traditional TA in providing feedback on course deliverables, but would also serve as a mentor within this first course in engineering in order to increase retention and promote a more inclusive culture in the college. The most recent evolution of the introductory engineering course added a summer training workshop for course Mentor TAs. This 30-hour workshop took place over a one-week period in the summer and included both face-to-face and online components. Topic coverage fell into one of three main categories: 1) university employment expectations, 2) course logistics and expectations, and 3) effective interactions between Mentor TAs and students enrolled in the course. Workshop effectiveness was evaluated through a mixed method approach including the use of pre and post workshop surveys and end of the semester focus group discussions with students serving as Mentor TAs as well as post course surveys of course-enrolled students. A complete discussion of the developed workshop and the future direction of the program is also included. Introduction and Background Over the past three years, faculty at Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) have re-envisioned the freshman-level introductory engineering course required by multiple programs in the U. A. Whitaker College of Engineering (WCE) [Kunberger and Geiger, 2015, Kunberger, Geiger, and Reycraft 2016]. This introductory engineering course was completely revised for the 2014 – 2015 academic year, and a series of smaller modifications have been implemented in subsequent years. As the WCE has grown and matured over its 11+ years of existence, curricular changes at the program level have been implemented to ensure each programs’ educational offerings are current and fit the needs of their constituents. Beyond the classes that are unique to each program, the College also has a number of courses, primarily at the freshman and sophomore level, that are common across multiple programs. Here, the challenge in updating or changing these courses is ensuring the needs of a more diverse constituency are met. As previously described [Kunberger and Geiger, 2015], our introductory engineering course was changed to create a cohesive educational experience for the students, while continuing to meet the programmatic needs of the engineering programs involved as the first touchpoint those programs have with their students. Many of the courses within the WCE practice high impact practices as recognized by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), particularly with respect to common intellectual experiences, writing-intensive courses, and collaborative assignments and projects [Kuh, 2008]. At FGCU, a majority of our courses are taught in an integrated lecture-lab environment, such that a three credit-hour course meets for five hours per week. This extended contact time, in addition to studio classrooms based on the SCALE-UP (Student Centered Active Learning Environment with Upside-down Pedagogies)1 model [Beichner, 2000] allows for unique opportunities in curricula development. The goals of the course revision were to continue to find ways to integrate high impact practices into the curriculum, providing the students a first year experience within a learning community. While the size of the course and the number of faculty assigned to teach the course prohibits these experiences to be facilitated directly by faculty, the spirit of these practices could be implemented using near-peer mentoring and learning facilitation. From a mentoring perspective, prior research [Brainard and Carlin, 1998, Marable, 1999, Good, Halpin and Halpin, 2000, and Farver and Gattis, 2006] has shown peer mentoring to be effective in improving retention and increasing academic growth with a variety of student populations. While mentoring benefits was one factoring contributing to the integration of these individuals into the course, the TA aspect was a second consideration. As FGCU is a teaching intensive environment, the inclusion of course TAs allows faculty members to provide grading and feedback in a timelier manner. When considering the TA perspective, Ghazali and Diefes-Dux [2012] and Verleger and Diefes-Dux [2013] have recognized the importance of student feedback from TAs, and the need to train TAs to be able to provide feedback that is both relevant and meaningful. Meaningful and timely feedback in this introductory course in particular is critical, as successive assignments build directly upon earlier ones, all of which contribute to the overall final course expectations as detailed in the next section of this paper. The critical value of robust feedback combined with the relative inexperience (with regards to providing feedback) of the individuals eligible to serve as TAs emphasized the need to provide training and support for these individuals. While previous studies have considered TA training workshops [Roberts, Hollar, and Carlson, 1997, Marikunte et al., 2006, and Karim, 2011], the focus has been on graduate students, rather than the undergraduate students selected as Mentor TAs for this course. Thus, while the need for training may be similar, the approach to this training and training coverage may differ.