Graduate teaching assistants (GTA) are the students who are (1) currently enrolled in a graduate school program and (2) assisting faculty or instructors in colleges, universities, and professional schools on teaching or teaching-related tasks^[1]. GTAs take on significant responsibilities in undergraduate instruction at large research universities (Gardner & Jones, 2011). These responsibilities might include teaching introductory undergraduate level courses, helping with curriculum development, proctoring exams, assisting students in science labs or during office hours, and grading assignments. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Employment Statistics, there were 131,120 GTAs employed in colleges, universities, and professional schools in May 2016.

International graduate teaching assistants (IGTAs) are GTAs who are neither U.S. citizens nor permanent residents. Instead, IGTAs are temporary visa holders. With the sharp increase of international students attending graduate schools in the United States (Figure 1.1), IGTAs play a considerable role in undergraduate education across many disciplines, including agricultural fields (Table 1.1). The diversified perspectives that international students bring into graduate programs in the United States are essential to both maintaining America’s leading role in technological innovation and preparing the graduates from undergraduate agricultural programs to be competitive in the international workforce. With the increasing global nature of the food and agriculture industry, “diversity skills,” including the ability to work in diverse communities, the possession of multicultural awareness, and the ability to interact with people of different backgrounds, have been identified by faculty in the agriculture field as valuable skills (Blickenstaff, Wolf, Falk, & Foltz, 2015). These were also highlighted as Research Priority Areas by the American Association for Agricultural Education as necessary for agricultural graduates to prepare “a diverse workforce that includes scientists and professionals with knowledge and skills beyond today’s standards” (Doerfert, 2011).  It is essential to acknowledge and utilize the global perspectives that international students bring to American institutions.

While IGTAs play an essential role in undergraduate education in the United States (Gorsuch, 2011), IGTAs also face many challenges, including difficulties with oral English proficiency, especially communicative competence—that is, understanding students’ questions and responses. Although IGTAs obtain relatively high scores in standardized English proficiency tests, they still encounter problems interacting with undergraduate students in various instructional settings. This has been a big challenge, often resulting in misunderstandings between IGTAs and students (Andrea, 1995). Emotional factors, such as the anxiety and stress related to public speaking, and their confidence when communicating with students, influence their pragmatic competence (the ability to use the language appropriately considering the social context) (Aslan, 2016). Current support, which often solely focuses on language proficiency (Fox & Gay, 1994), inadequately prepares IGTAs for their duties. A shift needs to be made to a more comprehensive training model, which includes understanding academic culture in the United States, the application of English in classroom communication, and interaction with students in various instructional conditions, both in- and outside of the classroom.

Besides the difficulties in spoken language, cultural barriers also lead to the poor performance often exhibited by IGTAs, which is reflected in the negative evaluations they receive from the undergraduate students in their classes. IGTAs may face additional stress and anxiety from coping with the difference between the culture of their home country and the United States (Ross & Krider, 1992). This anxiety can prompt IGTAs to be less willing to communicate with their undergraduate students and teaching mentors, interactions for which English would be the primary language of communication (Roach & Olaniran, 2001). This break in communication may be negatively interpreted as unwillingness to engage, or a distrust/dislike of students, leading to an inactive and non-engaged learning environment (Nakane, 2007). Also, failure to acknowledge and follow U.S. cultural norms, especially in instructional settings, may result in miscommunication and lack of interaction between IGTAs and undergraduate students.

Training programs for IGTAs need to be developed and enhanced so that IGTAs can better cultivate and strengthen the global leadership skills of undergraduate students with expertise in food and agriculture. Although there are existing on-campus programs and resources to facilitate GTA teaching, there is a need for these programs and resources to be tailored to fit the need for IGTAs. Below are some ideas:

1. Provide opportunities for IGTAs to understand the academic cultures in the United States.Coordinators can recruit current IGTAs, undergraduate students, GTAs, and faculty who work with IGTAs to build an IGTA Representative Group to identify the differences of academic cultures between the IGTAs’ home countries and the United States. Collaborators for this effort can include the graduate school, the center for international student services, the teaching and learning center, and the office of student affairs. Findings from the IGTA Representative Group should be recorded and shared with future IGTAs. Understanding and reflecting upon the similarities and differences between academic cultures is vital for IGTAs to set appropriate expectations for their undergraduate students.
2. Provide training for IGTAs on communication skills in various instructional conditions both in and outside of the classroom.Training workshops or courses should be developed to facilitate IGTAs’ English communication, such as public speaking skills in formal teaching. The training sessions offer peer learning practices for IGTAs to improve the communication effectiveness among IGTAs, undergraduate students, and faculty mentors in academic settings should be formed. Participants learn with and from each other, contributing as equally valuable members of the cohort (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson, 2014). These practices create a safe environment to practice both speaking and listening. Real connections are made among the participants, which will encourage the participants to communicate with one another.

IGTAs will be paired with native GTAs. The pairs will meet before the class observation to review the lesson plan and discuss specifics on the aspects of teaching that IGTAs aspire to improve. After the peer observation, the pairs will discuss teaching techniques and classroom management. Teaching experience and strategies will be shared, and misunderstandings relating to U.S. academic culture will be clarified. By continuing this practice, IGTAs will gain a better understanding of U.S. academic culture. They will be better able to communicate with undergraduate students, leading to an overall improvement of instructional quality. Native GTAs will also gain knowledge of and insight into cross-cultural communication, observation and feedback processes, and peer-coaching strategies.

The IGTAs’ better understanding of U.S. academic cultures and improved communication skills will help IGTAs’ succeed in teaching; in turn, undergraduate students will benefit from enhanced instruction. The improved instruction from IGTA’s can encourage undergraduate students to embody global the proper mindset to work with others from diverse backgrounds, especially culturally diverse backgrounds (Council, 2009; Suárez-Orozco, 2005; Ziguras & Law, 2006).

References

Adrian-Taylor, S. R., Noels, K. A., & Tischler, K. (2007). Conflict between international graduate students and faculty supervisors: Toward effective conflict prevention and management strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1), 90-117.

Andrea, T. (1995). The coconstruction of cross-cultural miscommunication: Conflicts in perception, negotiation, and enactment of participant role and status. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(2), 129-152.

Anfara, V. A., & Mertz, N. T. (2014). Theoretical Frameworks in Qualitative Research. Sage.

Aslan, E. (2016). International Teaching Assistants in the U.S. University Classroom: A Mixed-Methods Study of Individual Differences and L2 Pragmatic Competence. [Doctoral dissertation], University of South Florida.

Balschweid, M., Knobloch, N. A., & Hains, B. J. (2014). Teaching introductory life science courses in colleges of agriculture: faculty experiences. Journal of Agricultural Education, 55(4), 162-175.

Blickenstaff, S. M., Wolf, K. J., Falk, J. M., & Foltz, J. C. (2015). College of agriculture faculty perceptions of student skills, faculty competence in teaching areas and barriers to improving teaching. NACTA Journal, 59(3), 219.

Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36(4), 391-409.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2014). Peer Learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with Each Other. Routledge.

Bower, M. (2017). Design of technology-Enhanced Learning: Integrating Research and Practice. Emerald Publishing.

Caffarella, R. S. (1999). Planning programs for adults: An interactive process. Adult Learning, 10(2), 27-29.

Carlson, R. E., & Smith‐Howell, D. (1995). Classroom public speaking assessment: Reliability and validity of selected evaluation instruments. Communication Education, 44(2), 87-97.

Clynes, M. P. (2009). A novice teacher’s reflections on lecturing as a teaching strategy: Covering the content or uncovering the meaning. Nurse Education in Practice, 9(1), 22-27.

Council, N. R. (2009). Transforming Agricultural Education for a Changing World. National Academies Press.

Davis, E. A., Hodgson, Y., & Macaulay, J. O. (2012). Engagement of students with lectures in biochemistry and pharmacology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(5), 300-309.

Doerfert, D. L. (2011). National Research Agenda: American Association for Agricultural Education’s research priority areas for 2011-2015. Texas Tech University, Department of Agricultural Education and Communications.

Fleming, M., House, S., Shewakramani, V., Yu, L., Garbutt, J., McGee, R., . . . Rubio, D. M. (2013). The mentoring competency assessment: validation of a new instrument to evaluate skills of research mentors. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 88(7), 1002.

Fox, W. S., & Gay, G. (1994). Functions and effects of international teaching assistants. The Review of Higher Education, 18(1), 1-24.

Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate teaching assistant: challenges and implications. Science Educator, 20(2), 31.

Gorsuch, G. J. (2011). Improving speaking fluency for international teaching assistants by increasing input. Tesl-Ej, 14(4).

Joyce, B. L., Steenbergh, T., & Scher, E. (2010). Use of the Kalamazoo essential elements communication checklist (adapted) in an institutional interpersonal and communication skills curriculum. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2(2), 165-169.

Nakane, I. (2007). Silence in Intercultural Communication: Perceptions and Performance (Vol. 166). John Benjamins Publishing.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice: The Definitive Text of Qualitative Inquiry Frameworks and Options (4th ed.): SAGE Publications, Inc.

Pretty, J., Sutherland, W. J., Ashby, J., Auburn, J., Baulcombe, D., Bell, M., . . . Burke, J. (2010). The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 8(4), 219-236.

Roach, K. D., & Olaniran, B. A. (2001). Intercultural willingness to communicate and communication anxiety in international teaching assistants. Communication Research Reports, 18(1), 26-35.

Ross, P. G., & Krider, D. S. (1992). Off the plane and into the classroom: A phenomenological explication of international teaching assistants’ experiences in the American classroom. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(3), 277-293.

Schulz Renate, A. (2008). The challenge of assessing cultural understanding in the context of foreign language instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 40(1), 9-26.

Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2005). Rethinking education in the global era. The Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 209-212.

Urban, J. B., Hargraves, M., & Trochim, W. M. (2014). Evolutionary evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate. Evaluation and Program Planning, 45, 127-139.

Von Braun, J., & Díaz-Bonilla, E. (2008). Globalization of Food and Agriculture and the Poor. Oxford University Press.

Yee, L. W. (2016). Peer coaching for improvement of teaching and learning. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education, 6(1), 64-79.

Ziguras, C., & Law, S. F. (2006). Recruiting international students as skilled migrants: the global “skills race” as viewed from Australia and Malaysia. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 4(1), 59-76.

Figure and Table Attributions

• Figure 1.1 Data Source: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Post-doctorates in Science and Engineering, 2016. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvygradpostdoc/. Adapted under fair use. Graphic by Kindred Grey.
• Table 1.1 Data Source: National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, Survey of Graduate Students and Post-doctorates in Science and Engineering, 2016. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvygradpostdoc/