Christina Saidy, Emily Robinson, and Kristin C. Bennett

Recent composition studies scholarship in Teaching Assistant (TA) preparation has responded to the limitations of coverage-based pedagogy by accounting for the fact that TAs, like all teachers, are continually learning and by exploring a long-term approach to TA prep, rather than a one-semester or one-year course (Estrem and Reid; Obermark et al.; Reid, Preparing Writing Teachers; Reid et al.). In First Semester, a qualitative study of TAs in the first year of teaching, Jessica Restaino argues continual learning depends on the connection between teaching and knowledge making^[1]—a bridge that is currently not being built because of a disciplinary failure to give graduate students the “full picture” of the “real work going on in writing programs throughout, across, and in the university, and particularly in the first-year program where writing plants its roots” (112). Restaino’s assertion has merit. If we prioritize policies, procedures, and methods in the pedagogy or practicum course^[2], then new TAs do not learn to ask questions about what it means to be a teacher of writing in their sub-disciplines, within their writing programs, or in the field of composition studies more broadly. Ultimately, the absence of these inquiries in the practicum has high stakes; given the realities of labor in the neo-liberal university, TAs, regardless of their chosen discipline of study, may teach in writing programs across the country for many years. As such, the content, framing, and pedagogical commitments of the TA practicum matter to multiple stakeholders invested in the teaching of writing across the many sub-disciplines of English.

The practicum is more than a place of content knowledge acquisition for new TAs. Instead, it is a site of complex negotiation for TAs, writing programs, and the continual (re)shaping of the discipline. As such, research responding to the stated need for a continual learning approach to TA education matters to all who teach and learn in writing programs across the country. Our article responds to recent scholarship on TA preparation by introducing teacher research, as one example of a sustainable practice of continual learning, into the TA practicum. Teacher research in the practicum thus provides a way to bridge teaching and knowledge making, foster a sustainable teaching practice, and extend the learning of the practicum beyond the first year.

The authors of this article are three TA educators responsible for facilitating the TA practicum at a large public research university in the Southwest. Our practicum course combined a TA pedagogy curriculum with teaching support. In it, we invited TAs to engage in teacher research as a method for encouraging continual learning and knowledge making. As TAs learned to make knowledge, we, too, made knowledge by studying their processes. In this article, we report on our own case study about the effects of introducing a continual learning practice into the TA practicum. To do so, we review current approaches to the TA practicum, discuss teacher research, present our findings, and consider how those findings may inform TA education practices more broadly. We argue that teaching a method for classroom research in the TA practicum provides an opportunity for TAs to connect pedagogical and research knowledge and helps them navigate their new teaching context by using teacher research to encourage knowledge making. In light of our findings, we encourage other TA educators to make space for knowledge making by creating a culture of inquiry in the practicum and teaching methods for conducting teacher research as a form of continual learning. 

Preparing TAs to Teach FYW

Existing research on the practicum accounts for the complex needs of new TAs and the experiences that best prepare them as teachers of writing. It covers topics like the place of theory in TA education (Stancliff & Goggin), TA resistance (Ebest; Brown & Conner), coverage-based pedagogies (Reid “Uncoverage”), teaching for transfer (Shepherd et al.), conceptions of genre (Tardy et al.), and conceptions of literacy (Brewer). Notably, Wisniewski advocates for a transfer approach in TA training programs “to [help] novice instructors productively transfer learning from their pedagogy education to the classroom,” of which teacher research could be one part (52). Other projects synthesize research about the broader role of writing center experience in preparing classroom instructors (Ianetta et al.), call for sustained professional development opportunities in TA education (Obermark et al.), survey TA training programs and their various practices (Cicchino; Latterell), and offer position statements on preparing college writing teachers (National Council of Teachers of English).

Notably, calls for a continual learning approach to TA preparation emerge from commitments to sustainable teaching and insights about the formation of teaching knowledge. For example, prior research has found TAs in the practicum are no different than other teachers in formation who, according to Lortie’s apprenticeship model, teach the way they were taught (Lortie; Smagorinsky and Barnes). In their longitudinal study of TAs at two different universities, Estrem and Reid found TAs often approach new teaching contexts from their prior experiences and may not directly apply what they have learned in the TA practicum. While this may seem disheartening, this finding actually further indicates the need for a long term approach to TA prep, one that accounts for the prior knowledge of TAs and acknowledges the limitations of common coverage models. An approach that emphasizes continual learning would serve this need. Additionally, Ives and Spitzer note in current models “graduate students receive ample support in teaching, some in administration, and very little in scholarship” (p. 1) and that the ability to conduct and write research is significant in academic careers. Therefore, they suggest that a layered learning model for graduate students, especially in rhetoric and composition, should also include mentoring and explicit instruction on how to conduct and write scholarly research. We argue that an effective continual learning model is a layered model. The TA practicum is an ideal site for a layered mentoring experience in both teaching and research to occur. Echoing Ives and Spitzer’s call, we note that introducing teacher research projects into the practicum is one productive method for facilitating this experience. 

Teacher Research as Knowledge Making Practice

At its core, teacher research is inquiry driven (Cochran-Smith and Lytle Inquiry as Stance; Cochran-Smith and Lytle Inside Out; Mills; Shagoury and Power). Teachers make meaning by asking questions and then answering their questions through research methods such as observation, interview, reflection, and analysis of student work. Teacher research provides a method for investigating questions that arise in our classrooms. Because of the focus on method and data collection as the source of knowledge, teacher research pushes teachers to think beyond how they were taught. One fundamental aspect of teacher research is the dissemination of research (Cochran-Smith and Lytle “The Teacher Research Movement”), through which teachers share their knowledge making contributions. 

As early as 1993, Ruth E. Ray discussed TA teacher research in her book The Practice of Theory: Teacher Research in Composition. Ray argues teacher research is foundational in “the making of composition as a field” (40). Moreover, Ray highlights how the teaching of writing and teacher research are linked, rhetorical acts of knowledge making:

Knowledge making in composition is not a fixed activity, but a rhetorical act which takes on many forms, depending on individual researchers, their audience and purpose. For composition to thrive as a field, researchers must come to see these rhetorical differences as strengths rather than weaknesses. (104)

In many ways, the practicum is an ideal site for teacher research. Since teacher research is a useful endeavor for TAs as they embark on knowledge making in the field, it is an appropriate method for what Jessica Restaino discusses. She calls for the need to, “invite them [graduate students] into a more sheltered space in which they can figure out their own relationship to the fraught task of knowledge making in composition” (113). The practicum has the potential to be a sheltered place where students are mentored through their inquiry. 

Asking questions about teaching, learning, and theory invites graduate students to move beyond what Scardamalia and Bereiter, in a description of writers, call “knowledge telling” practices – like journaling, blogging, or reflecting on teaching – toward what they call “knowledge transforming” and we call “knowledge making” processes. Importantly, while knowledge telling is a valuable method for establishing foundational knowledge in a topic, knowledge transformation can result in key shifts in individual practices. In the TA practicum, knowledge transformation may encourage graduate students to envision how their work adds to what Susan V. Wall calls a “collective body of cultural knowledge” (313). Wall notes teacher research, as both textual and rhetorical acts, “include the establishment of authoritative ethos, the development of language for theorizing data, and…the location of the writer’s text both within and against other scholarship in the field” (313). In this way, teacher research provides a way for TAs across the sub-disciplines of English to bridge their prior experiences, current interests, and teaching realities into a larger collective body of knowledge. In essence, teacher research is knowledge making at work.

To acknowledge and explore the complex positioning of new TAs in the practicum and invite knowledge making, we invited new TAs to complete a case study project as one of the course assignments in the practicum. 

A Teacher Research Study of a Teacher Research Study

We conducted a case study (Dyson and Genishi; Hancock and Algozzine; Yin). Case studies provide rich, detailed data from an individual or small group and are useful in decision making and in directing future research. However, we acknowledge case studies are not typically generalizable. In our case study we explore the experiences and findings of one class of first year TAs as they conducted their own teacher research case study projects in the practicum.

Case Study Assignment

The final course assignment in our first-semester practicum invited TAs to conduct a classroom case study (Saidy). The objective of the assignment was for TAs to develop a deeper understanding of their students and the ways teaching and learning happen in their classrooms. TAs were advised to ask “how” or “why” questions about students’ experiences with teaching and learning in their classroom context, and encouraged to choose one student to study to keep the work manageable, but they were permitted to study a small group. Once questions were posed, TAs interviewed students and collected samples of the students’ work. For their final projects, TAs wrote 3-4 page case study write ups and created mini (11X17) posters on their findings. The TAs presented their posters at the final class meeting with a 2-3 minute elevator pitch detailing their research question, the findings, and the pedagogical implications.

TAs completed the assignment over the final six weeks of the Fall semester. The assignment was introduced in class following an invention exercise that guided them through the process of identifying a question they have about their teaching. During this exercise, we also discussed the case study methodology and its value for teachers and classroom research. TAs then completed a short proposal for their case study; the assignment asked them to identify their research question, case study plan, subject(s), and the data they intended to collect. We provided feedback on each proposal. In many cases feedback invited the TAs to narrow their questions, focus their research question more on teaching, or adjust their plans to make the project more manageable. In week four of the case study project, we taught the TAs how to interpret the data they had collected through an in-class exercise. Prior to this class, the TAs were instructed to replace any student names with pseudonyms and to remove any potential identifying information. To facilitate the presentation of their research, we also provided a research poster template but encouraged the TAs to modify the design as needed.

Our Research Questions

We sought to understand how a case study assignment in the first-year practicum might help TAs move toward continual learning over the span of their teaching careers. Our research questions were:

1. How do first-year TAs approach a teacher-research project in the practicum and what do they learn from it?
2. What does this reveal about teaching, learning, and working with first-year TAs?

Setting & Participants

The study took place at a large public research university in the Southwest, which we refer to as Southwestern State. All names of institutions and participants are pseudonyms as per our IRB requirements. TAs at Southwestern State come from states across the country and 2-3 per year are international graduate students. Our TA practicum includes a week-long summer intensive, three-credit hour course in the fall, and one-credit hour course in the spring. In the practicum year, TAs prepare to teach the two-semester FYW sequence, and they have a 1-2 teaching load while they are enrolled in the practicum. TAs teach one section of English 101 in the fall semester and two sections of English 102 in the spring semester.

Of the 20 students enrolled in the practicum, 17 consented to participate in the study. The participants represented the following sub-disciplines of English: Creative Writing (5), Linguistics/Applied Linguistics (4), Literature (3), English Education (1), Writing & Rhetoric (3). The TAs self-reported their teaching experience, which ranged from no teaching experience to 3+ years of teaching, as indicated in Table 1.

Name	Area of Study	FYC Teaching Experience	Other Teaching-Related Experience
Alice	English Education	2 years FYC at community college	4 years teaching high school English
Mustapha	Writing, Rhetoric, and Literacies	1 year FYC	Writing Center tutor; EFL & ESL teacher abroad
Maria	Writing, Rhetoric, and Literacies	3 years FYC	Writing Center tutor
D	Linguistics/ Applied Linguistics	None	high school teaching in Korea; Korean language teaching to non-native speakers
Norma Lee	Linguistics/ Applied Linguistics	None	Summer reading teaching for elementary students
Hank	Creative Writing	None	Undergrad TA in statistics
Renee	Creative Writing	None	None
Gabriel	Linguistics/ Applied Linguistics	None	ESL in Slovakia and Brazil; writing center tutor
Matthew	Literature	None	Education petty officer
Arthur	Literature	None	English tutor in Chile
Amanda	Linguistics/ Applied Linguistics	None	Introduction to College course instructor; English to schoolers in France.
Amy	Literature	3 years FYC; Intro to college writing	100 level mythology course; 7th grade English Language Arts teacher
Sri	Literature	None	None
Alana	Writing, Rhetoric, and Literacies	3 years FYC	3 years high school teaching
A	Creative Writing	None	2 years high school
Jen	Creative Writing	None	Writing Center Tutor

Our study took place during the first-semester course and focuses on the course’s final project. We received IRB approval for the study. All TAs enrolled in the practicum were invited to participate. Because students were enrolled in a course in which they were receiving a grade, consents were obtained by an undergraduate administrative assistant while the instructors were not in the room. Once obtained, consents were placed in a sealed envelope until grades were reported for the semester. To further support the TAs in the sharing of their own research, all of the TAs who consented to participate in our study were also invited to contribute to a collaborative article the following spring. Four TAs chose to contribute and to present their findings at a national conference.

Researchers

The three authors were participant observers (Spradley) in this study. We co-taught the summer TA training and two-semester practicum course. We participated fully as teachers during the entire practicum and the case study unit. We provided feedback, helped TAs shape their studies, and provided instruction on their methods. Because we were embedded in the research process, we could not be completely objective. As a research team, we worked together through the data collection and analysis stages, but only Christina and Emily composed this article. Kristin participated in the project through the completion of data analysis.

Data

We collected all TA classwork for the case study project. This included: proposals, case studies, posters, and reflections. We also took notes on conversations we had with the TAs regarding their case study projects. After the semester ended and grades had been reported, we began data analysis by coding write-ups, posters, and reflections. TAs were invited to select their own pseudonyms. Most TAs chose names, but some chose only initials. To honor their choices of names, we use their selected pseudonyms.

We employed what Sarah Tracy calls an iterative analysis. According to Tracy, “iteration is a reflexive process in which the researcher visits and revisits the data, connects them to emerging insights, and progressively refines his/her focus and understandings” (184). We coded cyclically using the constant comparative method (Charmaz) and developed a codebook with our codes, definitions, and examples (see Table 2). Our approach to coding was collaborative (Smagorinsky) and we worked together in conversation to code each passage. This approach fits our collaborative approach to mentorship and our belief that writing is sociocultural (Bazerman; Prior).

Theme	Definition	Example
Community and Belonging	The absence or presence of belonging in classroom and university communities.	“instructors are in a unique position to impact student of color sense of belonging and success in college”
Explicit knowledge- making	A generative, creative act that refers to how instructors sought to support students’ knowledge making abilities and how instructors build on case study insights to anticipate and justify future pedagogical changes	“Secondly, I was able to reflect on how I might integrate this knowledge of older students into my future teaching. I think that one way I could do that would be to have some assignments that can also be linked to professional writing skills that students will need in the future – with the hope that older students might be able to contribute their input and experience”
Institutions	References to who is or is not included based on institutional values, standards of knowledge and language, and economic or financial access.	“This got me thinking: how does having a job and a commute impact the writing process for the work he does for my class?”
Subjectivity	References to a student’s or instructor’s personal positionality or negotiation of social categories of identity in relation to their classroom, college, teaching, or writing experience.	“I learned that if I want to teach writing as a place to express and construct students’ positionality, I need to teach the concept of subjectivity. Lots of my students think subjectivity as ‘personal experiences’ not the relationships between them and the world (society)”
Writing Development	The description of students’ acquisition of writing knowledge. These passages focused on navigating writing rules, cultivating identity through writing development, and the instructor’s role in writing development	“Several students shared that they were told not to use “I” in writing in high school, and told to be “objective.” During class discussion about the project one of my students was clearly frustrated and confused and asked, “Wait, so are we supposed to be doing research on our topic, or making an argument about it?” I responded and told him that the expectation was for them to do both. His response was, “This is the hardest paper I’ve ever written.”

We completed three coding cycles. In the first cycle, we began by reading each passage and identifying themes. In the first cycle, we identified 97 themes. In the second cycle, we condensed by coding themes with similar ideas or names. For example, themes such as access and access to writing instruction were coded the same and confidence and writing confidence were coded the same. In the third cycle of coding, we condensed further by naming the coded categories: institutions, subjectivity, community and belonging, writing development, knowledge making, and inclusivity. Upon further discussion we agreed inclusivity, the theme with the fewest passages, could be condensed into the larger theme institutions since the passages referenced inclusivity in the university. As we analyzed data and made collaborative decisions, we developed and refined our code book (see Table 2). The definitions in our code book were derived from the passages. 

How First-year TAs Approach a Teacher-Research Project and What They Learn From It

Overall, the TAs approached the case study assignment with enthusiasm and interest. Our three main findings demonstrate what the TAs learned from the teacher research projects: (1) Documenting and Responding to Institutional Constraints, (2) Pedagogical Evolution, and (3) Sponsorship. In this section, we discuss each finding by noting specific examples from the relevant codes and considering what that indicates about the TAs’ learning. The findings map, in Figure 1 below, illustrates the connectedness of the findings.

Documenting and Responding to Institutional Constraints

The TAs used the case study to identify and document the institutional expectations, norms, and constraints that they encountered in their first year teaching writing classes. In this documentation, we saw the TAs focus on what constitutes “good writing” and how institutional standards of language and knowledge applied in writing contexts. These passages illustrate that TAs struggled with questions about what makes writing “good” or “college level” while simultaneously criticizing the institutional structures shaping writing standards. Maria, in her case study of two struggling writers, focused on how the rules of high school and college writing are incompatible, and students tend to apply low-road transfer when writing in a new context. However, this helped Maria to also realize how her teaching strategies, imported from another institution, were also a form of low-road transfer (Reiff and Bawarshi) and were less successful in this new context. Sri focused on the ways her student identifies as “Not a writer” despite the fact that he writes in non-academic genres frequently. She acknowledges in her poster that writing is affected by institutional standards, noting “Writing is conceived within rigid academic parameters” by students and sometimes by faculty. 

The TAs considered institutional factors contributing to their students’ writing and experiences of college. These include elements like the cost of college as a limiting factor, which Amanda details, noting “[Lorenzo] mentions that the reason he chose the military over going to college [was] because of the high cost.” Another TA, Hank, considers, “how does having a job and a commute impact the writing process for the work he does in my class?” These comments demonstrate interest in financial barriers to college access.

We also saw questions focused on race, microaggressions, gender, culture, language, and writing. For example, Jen explored the relationship between students’ race and their experiences learning in the university, including microaggressions. Maria and A both explored connections between gender and writing. Finally, Mustapha studied a multilingual student’s experiences in first-year writing. These TAs wanted to understand the ways students’ subjectivities positioned them in the composition classroom and in the larger university. 

The TAs also developed new perspectives on their students, subjectivity, and the teaching of writing, as indicated in Hank’s work: “It’s very easy to think of the people I teach first and foremost as my students, and give minimal consideration to the other responsibilities and tasks they face, but this project has strengthened my understanding of students as people, with many facets, many hats worn beyond that of ‘Student.’” These TAs recognized the connection among identity and community, and saw students’ awareness of their own subjectivity as an asset in the writing classroom since it brought together the students’ many spheres.

TAs used their deeper understanding of the institution to call for change to institutional structures. For example, Jen, a woman of color who studied students of color in what she notes is a “predominantly white university,” called for changes in institutional practices related to hiring. She states,

I hope that the English Department (and university at large) will consider hiring more faculty of color and other marginalized groups. At 2.4%, [the university] has an abysmally small number of faculty “who are members of marginalized groups” (Common Data Set). I believe that every student deserves the chance to study with faculty who share one or more of their identities…

As a woman of color, Jen used her case study to document the exclusion of students of color and advocate for institutional reform. 

The case study project enabled the TAs to document the “full picture” Restaino describes. For example, Jen changed her reading selections and called for increased attention to diversity in faculty hiring, and Matthew critiqued peer review, a well-known and commonly used pedagogical tool, as a barrier for students with disabilities and encouraged composition as a field to be more attentive in meeting those students’ learning needs. In acknowledging the rich histories and experiences of their students and the value commitments of the university, they got a better sense of how to define what good writing is, the relationship between student identity and writing, the relationship between class activities and belonging. To put this another way, this suggests that introducing a method for conducting teacher research into the practicum created the space for TAs to examine the broader questions about what it means to be a teacher of writing within a specific university setting. By gaining this “full picture,” the TAs found the space to not only make productive changes in their teaching, but also to argue with the institution itself. The case study project enabled the TAs to offer official recommendations that would contribute to the “collective body of knowledge” described by Wells. 

Pedagogical Evolution

TAs identified specific pedagogical choices and classroom management strategies for fostering community. In Jen’s case study, she notes the connection between a “diverse curriculum” and “fostering community in the classroom” and that “instructors are in a unique position to impact first-year students of color’s sense of belonging and success in college.” Jen saw her pedagogical choices as integral to classroom belonging. Conversely, Norma Lee focused on classroom management. She states, “students need explicit instruction on how to engage in discussions and a framing of the class as a space where students can truly bring their perspectives to the table,” and suggests one strategy to do so could involve “rearrang[ing] all of the students so they sit next to new people.” Further, TAs recognized the act of sharing writing as central to community building. Alana notes she, “realize[s] the importance of letting first-year writers know their work will be shared with the class at the beginning of the semester.” Gabriel discusses the need to “keep working on short activities that build a community to mitigate social anxiety in peer reviews and workshops.” These examples demonstrate how some TAs saw the act of fostering community and belonging as a means of improving learning in their classrooms.

The acts of questioning, documenting, and interrogating belonging illustrate that through teacher research TAs were able to identify obstacles themselves, rather than simply being told via classroom learning, such as in the practicum course. The TAs’ findings then led them to plan pedagogical changes; these discussions were reflective, future oriented, and sometimes led to the development of new teaching commitments. For example, Jen states, “Going forward as a teacher, I plan to be more intentional about including texts from authors of various identities….” The TAs also expressed an interest in and commitment to building deeper relationships with students to better understand their learning needs and how the teacher can be instrumental in designing curriculum. For example, Amanda writes:

I was able to reflect on how I might integrate this knowledge of older students into my future teaching. I think one way I could do that would be to have some assignments that can also be linked to professional writing skills that students will need in the future—with the hope that older students might be able to contribute their input and experience.

Like many of the TAs, Amanda’s knowledge making can be seen in her reflective connection between her findings and her goals as a teacher. The case study project invited knowledge making since TAs engaged in the research process as a way to identify productive revision to their practices. In these data, we see how the acts of identifying, documenting, and responding are sustainable research and teaching practices the TAs used to make knowledge in the short and, potentially, long term.

We had expected the TAs to ask questions about the mechanics of pedagogy like: What method of peer review works best? How can I facilitate revision?, etc. Instead, when they focused on pedagogy, they focused on the implications of pedagogical choices, often by emphasizing how pedagogy and student and/or teacher identity are intertwined. This connects with Ives and Spitzer’s findings that graduate students receive ample support for teaching. These TAs were already engaged in the preparation, reflection, and discussion of teaching practices on a weekly basis in our class, and so they used their case study projects to examine a different aspect of their teaching. Therefore, as our findings show, their teacher research inquiry focused on their investment in exploring their responsibilities and power as teachers, their limitations within the institution, and ways to encourage student learning. The focus on identifying and navigating the boundaries makes sense given their status as TAs new to an institution and their demonstrated commitment to being effective teachers. In our experience teaching the practicum that semester, TAs often made pedagogical changes based on their feelings about teaching or their students’ reactions in the moment. However, through this project, the TAs learned a specific method for inquiry in their classes and used their findings to engage in knowledge making by changing their teaching. These examples suggest teacher research projects have the potential to transform a teacher’s overall approach to teaching and how they think about themselves as teachers. 

Sponsorship

The TAs saw their roles as helping students engage in efforts to build on prior knowledge and navigate new writing contexts. They described and reflected on writing rules or preconceived ideas about writing their students brought from previous educational experiences. A reflects on a conversation with a student: 

During class discussion about the project one of my students was clearly frustrated and confused and asked, “Wait, so are we supposed to be doing research on our topic, or making an argument about it?” I responded and told him that the expectation was for them to do both. His response was, “This is the hardest paper I’ve ever written.”

A described this situation empathetically, knowing that students may come with rules learned in other contexts and part of their writing development involves negotiating their teacher’s expectations in a new writing context. Amanda comments her student, a veteran, brought knowledge from previous contexts, writing, “He mentioned that all correspondence in the military was done in a specific style of writing. If you did not adhere to this style, ‘there were negative consequences.”’ TAs identified these rules as belonging to their students, not to the TAs themselves. 

Discussions of writing rules and development also accounted for the instructor’s role. TAs challenged writing rules, questioned ideas about what writing instruction should be, and saw themselves as student-advocates. Many TAs focused on whether students identified themselves as writers, either discussing students who perceived themselves to be weak writers or noting when students were successful. In the discussion about students who did not identify as writers, the TAs sought to understand where that belief came from. For example, in his case study Arthur tries to understand his student’s struggle by attributing it to her prior schooling experiences noting his student, “sees herself as struggling with writing.” Alice approaches a similar student from a different perspective, noting, “Casey felt her reading and writing skills were not as good as everyone else’s.’ Alice continues, “What was truly fascinating was that this articulate writing sample described Casey’s shortcomings as a writer were contradicted by the quality of the writing itself.” These examples illustrate that the TAs sought to understand why their students did not see themselves as writers when they saw the students as successful developing writers. On the other hand, the TAs also focused on student success in writing. A describes a student who develops as a writer throughout the semester: “In conferences she was more confident and discussed how she was thinking about the paper, rather than asking if she was doing it correctly.” The student became more communicative and confident through the semester, which A saw as improving the student’s writing and sense of self-efficacy.

We saw the TAs focused on helping students gain access to ideologies, knowledge-based systems, etc. For example, A describes the purpose of their course’s second writing project as, “an opportunity for students to examine dominant narratives and the ways that they participate in and are affected by them.” A’s identification of a writing project’s epistemic purpose demonstrated how one TA encouraged a particular form of knowledge making in their classroom. Mustapha’s case study also focused on how his literacy narrative assignment created the opportunity for one student to reflect on her cultural heritage and language as starting points for community advocacy. He writes:

It is worthy to note that Gabriela understands the power of language in two ways. One, that her Latinx culture is primarily constructed through Spanish and she relies on this culture for topics to research and write about in the writing classroom. Two, that language, in this case English, is a powerful tool through which she can challenge stereotypes about the Latinx community, creating new epistemologies about the “people in the language [culture].”

Mustapha’s assignment opened up space for his students to use language as a knowledge making resource. TAs supported the knowledge making practices of their students through developing concepts of literacy in home lives, schools, and communities. 

Our findings helped us to see how TAs’ conflicted positioning can be understood within Brandt’s concept of literacy sponsors, even if they did not name themselves as such. Brandt writes sponsors, “deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have,” (Literacy in American 20) which in this case is both institutional and writing/literacy knowledge. Yet, literacy sponsors are in a complex position as, “conflicted brokers between literacy’s buyers and sellers” (Brandt, “Sponsors” 183) as were these TAs. Because of this conflicted positioning, most of the TAs focused their knowledge making on the classroom as a site of change where they could provide more inclusive texts, strive to be more inclusive with language, and modify their teaching to be more responsive to students’ needs. Teacher research gave the TAs a way to think about their positioning as conflicted literacy sponsors and to make reflective adjustments to their teaching. Our findings also indicate the TAs are focused on forming nuanced teaching and scholarly identities, of which teacher research can be a key part, and that they sought to shape the knowledge their students would have about what good writing is and share insights about how to navigate the writing class. The TAs then shared the findings from their case studies with each other through their poster presentations, which shifted the access to knowledge that happened in their individual classes into knowledge making. 

What This Reveals About Working with TAs

As this study shows, TAs invited to engage in teacher research did so—they learned to ask important questions about teaching and learning and to make teaching modifications based on their own findings. Notably, we were interested to see the consistent emergence of themes related to sponsorship and how the focus on sponsorship seemed to encompass most inquiries. In some ways, this helped us to see how deeply impacted TAs are by institutional constraints and expectations and how committed they are to making these constraints and expectations transparent to their students. For TA educators, these findings suggest an additional layer to the TA experience, where TAs are not only learning the mechanics of teaching, but are also invested in grappling with the responsibilities of their own role as sponsors. In other words, this suggests that TAs, while often described as resistant, may simultaneously be deeply concerned with their role in the institution. 

At the start of the study, we assumed TAs would ask questions about pedagogical mechanics, yet their questions were more about how pedagogy and student/teacher identity were intertwined. As we unpacked this from the TA mentor perspective, we considered how our approach to teaching the practicum may have opened up the opportunity for these types of questions. Throughout the semester, TAs were engaged in lesson design, the testing of pedagogical strategies, and discussions and workshops focused on the effectiveness of these strategies. Based on this insight and our study findings, we acknowledge Ives and Spitzter’s assertion that graduate students are often more deeply supported in teaching than in research. Yet, we see teaching and research as linked, especially if we heed calls toward continual and layered learning for graduate students who are also TAs. We suggest that the layering begins with pedagogically focused activities in the practicum where TAs engage with theories and practices in the field and test them together and share their findings. Then, TAs can participate in more structured methods for teacher inquiry, such as the method we employed in this case study. This method provided TAs a way to extend and test their pedagogical knowledge while learning transferable research methods. 

Our study leads to the following suggestions for opening up space for knowledge making in the TA practicum as a method to facilitate layered and continual learning. 

Suggestion 1: Integrate Inquiry Throughout the Practicum or Pedagogy Course

When inquiry is centered in the practicum and TAs are invited to ask questions about teaching and learning throughout the year, the move to a project like our case study is a natural extension of prior learning. Throughout the semester we incorporated inquiry activities into the practicum course. Examples of inquiry-focused activities include collaboration, exploration, and paired assessment. For example, TAs were deeply engaged in collaborative unit planning. We split the TAs into three small groups and each group planned one unit for the class to use. The units included the assignment description, a common rubric (suggested, not required), and lesson plans for each day of the unit (also suggested, not required). In their collaborative unit design, the groups asked questions about what students needed to know to complete the assignment well, how the students were engaged in the writing process, and the ways that the TAs’ new knowledge about teaching composition was reflected in the unit. At the end of each unit, we asked the TAs to reflect on the unit and consider what they might change when/if they taught the same unit again. 

Additionally, our inquiry-focused activities invited the TAs to explore teaching practices. For instance, we would ask TAs to read about three different ways to do peer review and then ask them to choose one and share how it worked and how they might change it next time. Another strategy we used often involved pairing TAs in assessment activities. The TAs would exchange student projects and assess the de-identified work of each other’s students using the grading criteria provided. TAs would then discuss the grade and reason for the grade. In this process, the TAs engaged in rich discussion of how and why things were assessed in the way they were. There were many “aha” moments where TAs realized that they needed to teach, assess, or communicate differently. 

These activities established a culture of inquiry in the TA practicum. However, much of the way that TAs shared their inquiry findings with us in class tracked with what Scardamalia and Bereiter describe as knowledge telling activities. These knowledge telling inquiry activities, though, built a foundation for what we asked the TAs to do next – knowledge making. Because they were comfortable asking questions and thinking about those questions within the larger teaching/learning context, they were able to make the move to knowledge making in their case study projects. Therefore, we suggest that the TA practicum, in whatever form it takes, should be a site of inquiry. Facilitating a site of inquiry in the TA practicum involves honoring TA’s prior knowledge and encouraging questions, experimenting with new ideas, reflecting on their findings, and offering opportunities for the TAs to share their knowledge with each other. 

Suggestion 2: Teach Research as a Layered Experience

We have argued in this paper that teaching and research are linked. For TAs to get the “full picture” (Restaino) of institutions, writing programs, and the students they teach, they must learn how to ask and answer questions about teaching. With this in mind, the practicum is positioned to be a place where TAs can learn one layer of research – teacher research. The TAs in our group were eager to ask questions about their teaching, develop institutional and programmatic knowledge, and share their ideas. We were eager to mentor them through an experience that positively impacted their teaching. 

We understand that the research skills the TAs learned in the practicum were only one layer of the research skills they will need in their respective sub-disciplines of English. Yet, we argue this is a meaningful layer they could build on. The case study project sets graduate students up to pursue similar qualitative research projects, which could be a useful way to further diversify the training in research methods graduate students receive and encourage them to think about the meaningful connection between teaching and their own research/creative agendas. Although we did not require any further research from the TAs, many of them went on to use their research in subsequent years. Some students presented these findings as poster presentations at our local composition conference, others presented at a national conference, and some TAs wrote an article about this experience. Therefore, we suggest TA educators consider ways to integrate research as a layered experience into their TA practica to encourage continual learning. 

Knowledge Making and Continual Learning Via Teacher Research

At the conclusion of this research study, we identified elements of the case study assignment we might change in the future to better support the move toward knowledge making and continual learning. More specifically, we envision some modifications to the assignment to encourage deeper learning. While we learned about the types of questions TAs asked and the meaning they made, their questions were not always related to the pedagogical knowledge they acquired in our course. We saw this as we reflected on the analysis in the sponsorship section. Sponsorship was a large part of our findings. Yet, we noted that the TAs were not citing Brandt, despite the fact that we had read her article on sponsorship in class, nor were they using the term “sponsor” to describe themselves. Beyond sponsorship, TAs explored concepts such as transfer, threshold concepts, collaborative writing, etc. often without acknowledging the new knowledge they had acquired in the practicum course. In future iterations of this study or in teaching future groups, we will ask the TAs to ground their questions in the pedagogical knowledge taught in the course. This approach might also encourage what Estrem and Reid envision when they discuss a continual or ongoing approach to learning. They note, “We can make the ongoing process of learning to teach more visible through guided discussions where we might ask instructors—before, during, and especially after their pedagogy seminar—to identify the origins of their beliefs and then to re-see those possibilities in conversations with peers” (476). Asking the TAs to identify their connections to course knowledge in the case study project would help them transition into the process Estrem and Reid describe.

We acknowledge that our study was a small study of one cohort in the TA practicum. We encourage future work with bigger samples with multi-site settings. Additionally, much of the knowledge we have about the TAs’ future research endeavors we gained anecdotally and in our continuing relationships with them. We see space for a larger, longitudinal study that explores how TAs continue to develop their teaching and research skills beyond the practicum year, especially as they respond to calls for more training in research and writing for graduate students (Ives and Spitzer; Wells and Soderlund). 

Finally, we acknowledge this project, like any teacher research project, has the potential to illuminate and be shaped by structures of power in educational settings (Ropers-Huilman; Stenberg). New TAs are in a vulnerable position within the broader institution as they learn to navigate their dual roles as teacher and student. Asking TAs to engage in teacher research, then, has the potential to be risky. To counter this, teacher research projects in the practicum should always be layered, mentored class assignments intended to support TAs in their teaching. 

Making space for knowledge making through teacher research benefits TAs and is integral to the work of the TA practicum. For TAs, engaging in knowledge making is a method to facilitate continual and layered learning that helps them to develop sustainable practices they may draw from in the many teaching and learning contexts they will move through throughout their careers. Emphasizing knowledge making in the TA practicum invites our discipline to further include TAs as vital members of our research community.

Notes

^[1] Since Stephen North’s The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field, the term “knowledge making” is frequently used in composition studies. Importantly, though, the term has remained open-ended, as it accounts for a range of informal and formal ways of knowing via storytelling, narrative, formal research, qualitative research, quantitative research, etc. In this article, we focus on the ways TAs make knowledge about their teaching through the ways they engage with the work of teaching.

^[2] In this article, we use the term practicum to describe the summer training and two-semester pedagogy course in which TAs were trained to teach writing. Other scholars refer to this process using terms such as: the pedagogy course, TA training, TA education, etc.