University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness

(USC Thesis Other)

A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1

A WORLD OF EDUCATION:

THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON INSTRUCTIONAL STYLE

AND PERCEIVED TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS

by

Athena Trentin

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2008

Copyright 2008 Athena Trentin

2

EPIGRAPH

Culture provides the tools to pursue the search for meaning and to convey
our understanding to others. Consequently, communication cannot exist
without culture, culture cannot be known without communication, and
teaching and learning cannot occur without communication or culture.
(Gay, 2000, p. 77)

ii
3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the people in my life that made this achievement
possible. Without you, this dissertation would never have been completed successfully.
To my family and friends: You have no idea how much your support and
encouragement kept me going, especially when the end of this journey seemed to get
further and further away.
To my thematic group, Loren Grossman and Kimmie Tang: You kept me sane
and on track. There are no words to express how important that was to help me meet
deadlines and get the motivation to write this thing.
To my Chair, Dr. Nelly Stromquist: Your patience and guidance were relentless,
even when my procrastination habits created more of a struggle than necessary for both
of us. Thank you also for having high expectations of your students, our expectations of
ourselves and confidence in our abilities increase as a result.
To “The Institute” and Dr. Erica O’Neal-Howard: Your openness to my
research and assistance with getting approval to conduct my research on your campus
was instrumental in creating an opportunity for me to learn more than I ever expected.
Dr. O‟Neal-Howard, your support and enthusiasm for my research also helped me stay
focused on the final goal. You have been a terrific mentor, colleague, and friend.
iii
4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Epigraph ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study 1
Legislation and Mandates 2
Culture and Instructional Effectiveness 4
American Undergraduate Intolerance of International Teaching Assistants 5
Statement of Problem 6
Research Questions 8
Organization of Research 8
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature 10
College and University Teaching in the U.S 10
Fostering Intrinsic Motivation 10
Promoting a Constructivist Approach to Learning 11
Inviting Students to Ask Questions 13
Facilitating Active Learning 13
Respecting Student Individuality 14
Cultivating Mutual Respect between Teacher and Student 15
The Culture of Instruction 16
The Culture of Instructional Language 20
Syntax 21
Semantics 24
Pragmatics 24
Communicative Competence 26
The Ideal American Teacher 33
Teacher Personality 35
Demeanor 35
Lecture Organization 36
Academic Presentation 37
Summary 38

iv
5
Chapter 3: Methodology 40
Research Design 40
Research Questions 41
Sample Population 41
International Teaching Assistants 42
Students of International Teaching Assistants 42
Instrumentation 43
Observations 43
Interviews 44
Questionnaire 44
Data Collection 45
Observations 45
Interviews 45
Questionnaire 46
Data Analysis 46
Limitations 47
Small Sample Population 47
Narrow Academic Focus 47

Chapter 4: Findings 49
Site of Research 49
The International Teaching Assistants in the Study 53
Xin 58
Gang 61
Jie 64
Hubert 67
Abhishek 70
Ceslav 73
Pavle 75
Addi 77
Chris 80
Summary of ITA‟s Linguistic Skills 82
Summary of ITA‟s Instructional Practices 82
Expert Observations 84
Xin 84
Gang 86
Jie 88
Hubert 90
Abhishek 91
Ceslav 93
Pavle 94
Addi 95
Chris 96

v
6
Summary of ITA‟s Linguistic Skills 98
Summary of ITA‟s Instructional Practices 99
Students‟ Perceptions of Their International Teaching Assistants 100
Xin 103
Gang 105
Jie 106
Hubert 108
Abhishek 110
Ceslav 111
Pavle 114
Addi 115
Chris 116
Summary of ITA‟s Linguistic Skills 116
Summary of ITA‟s Instructional Practices 117
Summary 118
Linguistic Skills 118
Instructional Practices 118

Chapter 5: Discussion 123
Summary 123
Findings 124
ITA Self-Perception 125
ITA Self-Perception and Expert Observations 127
Expert Observations and Student Perceptions 130
Influence of Perspectives on Student Perceptions of 132
ITA Instructional Ability
Limitations 133
Small Sample Population 134
Narrow Academic Focus of Institution 134
Institute Culture 134
Student Point of View 134
ITA Linguistic Ability 135
Conclusions and Implications 135
Organization of Information 135
Classroom Management 136
Manner of Addressing Confusion/Questions 136
Recommendations 137
Recommendations for Further Study 140
References 142

vi
7
Appendices 150
Appendix A: Expert Observation Form 150
Appendix B: Copyright Authorization 152
Appendix C: International Teaching Assistant Interview Protocol 153
Appendix D: Student Questionnaire 164
vii
8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: TOEFL Range Comparison; 54
Internet-, Computer-, and Paper-Based Exam
Table 2: ITA Language Assessment According to 56
TOEFL and Expert Ratings

Table 3: Distribution of Student Respondents 102
Table 4: Average Student Ratings (N=6): Xin 104
Table 5: Average Student Ratings (N=5): Gang 105
Table 6: Average Student Ratings (N=6): Jie 107
Table 7: Average Student Ratings (N=4): Hubert 109
Table 8: Average Student Ratings (N=2): Abhishek 111
Table 9: Average Student Ratings (N=12): Ceslav 112
Table 10: Average Student Ratings (N=1): Pavle 114
Table 11: Average Student Ratings (N=4): Addi 115
Table 12: Average Ratings: Overall Teaching Ability 117

viii
9

ABSTRACT

Foreign instructors who teach in U.S. universities often enter the classroom
without an introduction to American student expectations. The American classroom
tends to be more interactive and more informal than classrooms in other countries. In
addition, there is a specific format that American students expect information to be
presented to them that often differs from how foreign instructors learned in their home
countries. Research has shown that a teacher will use instructional approaches typical of
the classroom where s/he learned. This creates the potential for conflict between a
foreign instructor and his/her students, thus hindering the learning environment. This
study examines the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher
effectiveness by comparing three points of view: international teaching assistants (ITAs),
their students, and an expert observer. Interviews, questionnaires, and classroom
observations make up the triangulation methodology used in this study. A qualitative
analysis of ITA self-ratings, student ratings of their ITA, and expert observations yields
three common differences between ITA and student expectations which suggest culture
does influence one‟s instructional style: how one organizes/presents information,
approach to classroom management, and manner of addressing confusion/questions.
Findings reveal that American students expect information to be organized in a very
detailed format that is often not familiar to ITAs. Consequently, ITAs feel that the
students are unprepared and unmotivated and their students feel that the ITA is not
meeting their needs as learners. The classroom management style of the ITA is generally
ix
10
less interactive, therefore they do not possess the appropriate facilitation skills. This
results in their students feeling underprepared for homework and exams. Students thus
leave class more confused than when they arrived, but do not express their confusion to
their ITAs, so the ITAs are unaware of their perceived shortcomings as instructors and do
not realize that to be a successful teacher, they may have to adapt their instructional
approach. The results of this study add context to our understanding of how the culture
in which one learns influences pedagogical practices. In addition, it offers specific
evidence relevant to the design and curriculum of ITA training programs.

x
1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

The quality of the United States undergraduate education system is under
criticism, one of the major complaints being the incoherence of foreign teaching
assistants, and the question of why we allow them to teach when they cannot even speak
English (Finder, 2005). One important factor is that, especially in the sciences,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, there are not enough American
graduate students to fill the teaching assistant (TA) positions at U.S. universities, nor are
American students as prepared in such fields as their international counterparts (Smith,
R.M., Byrd, Nelson, Barrett, & Constantinides, 1992). A response to this complaint
urges administrators to recognize that how well an international teaching assistant (ITA)
speaks English may not be the most critical issue in all cases (Nyquist & Wulff, 1996).
State legislations have been proposed and passed which would allow tuition
reimbursements and/or establishes English language expectations of foreign instructors.
These bills do not take into consideration, appropriate training for ITAs, nor do they
promote it. They only take the students‟ perceptions as evidence. All these bills are
doing is pushing the problem aside instead of fixing it. A general overview of such
legislation will be discussed in the next section.
By the late 1980s, international student enrollment at U.S. universities increased
over 900 percent in 35 years, with the second largest annual increase (over 130,000) was
the fall of 1979 (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2006). This increase in
2
international students, primarily at the graduate level, provoked the attention of university
administrators. Not only did they observe that the American graduate students in certain
fields of study were becoming out-numbered, they also recognized their need to use more
and more international graduate students as teaching assistants, primarily in fields related
to engineering, business, and the hard sciences (Smith, R.M. et al., 1992). Consequently,
this phenomenon became such an important topic among educators, that by 1992,
eighteen states had passed laws or implemented mandates to assess ITA language ability
(Smith, R.M. et al. 1992). The typical mandate focused on four elements: it was directed
toward universities, focused on non-native English speakers, set an oral proficiency
requirement (but no mention of pedagogical competencies), and established a
remediation requirement for instructors who lack English proficiency. This, in turn,
created a new focus of literature and research in teacher training and linguistics.

Legislation and Mandates
The first state mandate was passed in 1982 in Oklahoma. The OK Proficiency Act
of 1982 set up a process to guarantee that university instructors have adequate proficiency
in written and spoken English. Florida followed suit with a similar bill in 1983, and Ohio
in 1986 (Smith, R.M. et al. 1992). Also in 1986, Missouri adopted Senate Bill No. 602,
which required all public institutions of higher education to mandate oral language
proficiency evaluations for all non-native English-speaking instructors who did not
receive primary and secondary education where English is the primary national language
(History and Law, 2007). It was left up to each individual institution to determine how
3
they would comply with these mandates, while requiring them to provide biennial reports
to the Coordinating Board of Higher Education. The state of Illinois passed Senate Bill
1516 in 1987 requiring that only instructors at the University of Illinois who are orally
proficient in English would be allowed to teach (Graduate College Handbook, 2007); a
score of 50 or higher on the Test of Spoken English (TSE) or the Speaking Proficiency
English Assessment Kit (SPEAK) is required to be achieved before any non-native
English speaker is allowed to teach, with no exceptions. In 1989, the Texas legislature
passed House Bill 638, “requiring that all public universities provide a program or short
course to ensure that courses be taught clearly in the English language” (International
Teaching Assistants, 2007). In 1990, Pennsylvania enacted legislation that requires that
any person in an instructional role at an institution of higher learning whose first
language is not English be tested and certified to be fluent (Summary of Carnegie
Mellon, 2007).
As a result of these legal mandates, a new field of research emerged that focused
on training for international teaching assistants (ITAs). The majority of literature in the
late 1980s and early 1990s addresses international teaching assistant training program
design and testing issues rather than research the needs of the ITAs themselves so that
they have the opportunity to become better instructors, as defined by the American
education system. The empirical studies from this era that do exist, focus primarily on
linguistic issues and few take the ITAs‟ home culture into account when exploring their
instructional effectiveness. According to Rao (1994), of 137 citations in an annotated
bibliography of ITA literature by Briggs, Hyon, Aldridge, and Swales in 1990, 125 of
4
them address how and why ITAs have a language problem, but as a whole, provide little
empirical evidence and minimal recommendations about how to help ITAs adapt
culturally and linguistically to their new American classrooms.
North Dakota has begun a new wave of language proficiency legislation with a
bill that was passed in 2005 that requires public universities “to address complaints about
international instructors and students‟ ability to understand foreign accents” (Kiley, 2005,
para. 1). This bill also proposed that if 10% of students in a class claim they cannot
understand an instructor‟s accent, that instructor must be placed in a non-teaching
position and the students could rightfully petition the university for a non-penalizing class
withdrawal and a refund of full tuition for that class. Now, 22 states require their public
universities to make sure instructors possess adequate linguistic skills (Finder, 2005).

Culture and Instructional Effectiveness
Another spike in international students studying in the U.S. came between 1989
and 1991 where the numbers rose more than 10% in 2 years (a growth of over 41,000)
(IIE, 2006). Thus, another wave of literature on ITA issues emerged. This time, a new
element was added as a primary focus. Attention to the influence of home culture and the
culture of the American classroom on ITA instructional effectiveness was addressed in
the early to mid-1990s. Researchers such as Bresnahan and M.S. Kim (1993), Halleck
and Moder (1995), Hoekje and Williams (1992), and Nelson (1992), began to explore
cultural differences and how these differences affect the appropriateness of ITA language
and methods of instruction when international graduate assistants are assigned an
5
instructional role in a U.S. university classroom. In addition, textbooks and manuals that
address overall instructional competence for international faculty and teaching assistants
were published (see Allen & Rueter, 1990; Nyquist & Wulff, 1996; Sarkisian, 1990;
Smith, J., Meyers, & Burkhalter, 1992). These texts not only address linguistic issues,
but also provide information and compensation strategies for adapting and adjusting
instructional styles so that ITAs and foreign faculty will be better prepared to teach to the
learning style of their American students.
The literature on ITA issues became nearly non-existent in the late 1990s and has
since been very scarce. No explanation was found as to why researchers have decreased
the number of additional studies on ITA issues. About ten years have passed since ITA
training has been considered a hot topic for researchers, even though the number of
international students at U.S. universities continues to increase. Ironically, in the past
decade, the U.S. has seen a 20% increase in the number of international students and
more than one-half (59%) of all international enrollments continue to be from Asian
countries. The top four include India, China, Korea, and Japan who made up 42% of all
international students studying in the U.S. during the 2005/6 school year (IIE, 2007).

American Undergraduate Intolerance of International Teaching Assistants

As international graduate student numbers continue to increase, so do complaints
by undergraduate students. Many domestic students are not likely to have had experience
adjusting to a new culture nor are they fluent in a second language, therefore making it
difficult for them to understand the cultural and linguistic adaptation issues their ITAs
6
may be facing while attempting to teach a quality lesson in an American classroom. In
addition, these students have had limited contact with foreign speakers of English, thus
have not had the chance to adapt to unfamiliar varieties of English (Bresnahan & Kim,
M.S., 1993). These three elements influence undergraduate perception of ITA abilities
and sometimes promote intolerance of accents, whether or not an ITA presents
information appropriately. Rubin and Smith (1990) found that 40% of undergraduates
avoided ITA-led classes. Also, in a 2005 New York Times article (Finder, 2005),
interviews with several undergraduates at six different universities found that the number
of ITAs in a department strongly influences the major a domestic undergraduate student
decides to pursue. Gravois (2005) reports that undergraduate intolerance of ITAs
influences students‟ willingness to listen to what is said by the instructor when s/he
sounds foreign. He supports his findings by presenting the obstacles of a Chinese TA at a
mid-western university. This ITA speaks very fluent English and believes the barriers
she has faced in the American classroom are more cultural than linguistic. She also feels
that ITAs are set-up for failure. Gravois also quotes a well-known professor and
researcher in speech communication, Dr. Donald L. Rubin, stating that it is just as
important for domestic students to listen “non-prejudicially – to world Englishes” (para.
41).

Statement of Problem
The problem addressed in this study is this negative perception of foreign
instructors by their American students. The researcher investigates the elements of
7
perceived instructional ability from three points of view; the expert observer, the ITA,
and the student. Since fluency in the English language is not always the primary issue
with ITAs in the U.S. classroom, a deeper analysis of teaching styles will examine the
perceived quality of instruction as a culturally-defined assessment. In particular, these
foreign instructors may be effective teachers in their home countries, or, conversely, may
have had no teaching experience at all. Either way, their approach to instruction does not
always match domestic student expectations of their American learning environment.
Most undergraduate students and administrators do not realize that there is more
to being a successful instructor than being fluent in English and knowing the material.
The manner in which material is presented is key to whether or not the students
understand and retain the information (Hoekje & Williams, 1992). A number of
researchers argue that what most people do not realize, is that one‟s classroom
management style is primarily determined by the dominant culture that exists in the
country one is educated (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). Therefore, foreign instructors being
introduced to the US classroom without appropriate intercultural training may have
difficulty teaching to the learning styles of their American students. Poor ITA
evaluations are often blamed on language issues, even though most universities have
already determined that their English skills are adequate. Many schools do not evaluate
instructional skills, and therefore assume that if someone can pass a language test and has
the appropriate level of academic knowledge, s/he thus has sufficient skills to teach in a
US classroom.

8
Research Questions
In order to investigate the essence of this particular form of student
dissatisfaction, this study will focus on international teaching assistants while
implementing a methodology that will answer the following primary research questions:

1. How do ITAs describe their own instructional style?
2. Do ITA self-evaluations match their actual instructional style?
3. Does the ITA instructional style match their students‟ assessment of ITA
instructional ability?
4. How does this match/mismatch affect student perceptions of their respective
ITA‟s instructional ability?
It is hoped that, the findings of this study will produce a deeper insight into the
larger picture of the influence of culture on instructional styles. It will also offer specific
evidence relevant to the design and curriculum of ITA training programs.

Organization of the Proposed Research

Many researchers have established that there is a cultural influence to the way we
learn, which in turn, influences the way we would teach (Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). The
following chapter is a literature review that will illustrate that American students expect
an instructor to present information in a particular style which is consistent with the way
they have been learning most, if not all, of their lives. Thus, when information is
presented in a manner that deviates from the students‟ expectations, the resulting student
perception is that the instructor has poor language skills and/or is a poor teacher. The
9
literature review will address the following five areas of research: college and university
teaching in the U.S., the influence of culture on instructional style, the importance of how
the English language is used in the classroom, the overall communicative competence of
an instructor, and an overview of the ideal American teacher. In chapter 3, the
methodology of this study will be outlined. It includes detailed descriptions of the
research design, sample populations, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.
Chapter 4 will present the findings of this study, and Chapter 5 will conclude with a
discussion of the findings, how they are useful to teacher training programs as well as
recommendations for future research. Chapter 5 is followed by Appendices A, B, C, and
D, which include observation protocol, copyright authorization, ITA interview protocol,
and the student questionnaire.
10

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

College and University Teaching in the U.S.
A review of recent literature on high quality college teaching approaches and values
in the U.S. reveals six common themes: fostering intrinsic motivation, promoting a
constructivist approach to learning, inviting students to ask questions, facilitating active
learning, respecting student individuality, and cultivating mutual respect between teacher
and student (Bain, 2004; McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006; Murray, 1997; Ramsden, 1988;
Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998; Weimer, 2002). All six of these values, when
implemented, are expected to promote a meaningful, thus optimal learning environment for
college students who grew up in the U.S. education system and attend U.S. universities.
Fostering Intrinsic Motivation – In a thorough review of relevant research, Bain
(2004) found that motivation, thus performance, decreases when students believe people
are trying to control them. By bribing students with external rewards (e.g. grades or extra
credit), students feel manipulated by the system and consequently lose interest in the
subject and do not achieve as high as they would if they were intrinsically motivated. In
order to motivate students intrinsically, the instructor must care about each individual
student‟s learning process and help them construct new knowledge by supporting
intellectual and emotional transitions through facilitated, open discussions to which
students can personally relate. Thus, when Bain (2004) was investigating how participants
11
for his study on the practices of the best college teachers motivate their students, he found
that they avoided grading on a curve and tried to foster intrinsic motivators, so as to guide
students toward explicitly defined learning goals and mastery orientation.
McKeachie and Svinicki (2006) found that based on the emphasis the U.S.
education system puts on grades, students are inherently extrinsically motivated. Therefore
teachers must acquire student trust by creating an open and inviting classroom atmosphere
by promoting individual thought, questions, and comments as well as providing fair and
objective feedback. They also stress that intrinsic motivation requires that students take
personal interest in a topic and care about what they are learning so that they become more
deeply involved in their own personal learning process.
According to Ramsden (1988), evidence has been found that there are qualitative
differences in the outcome of students‟ reading. These differences were not about how
much the students read, but whether or not they understood what the author was trying to
say. When students focused only on remembering facts for a test, they were only
extrinsically motivated, thus they were not able to comprehend the deeper meaning of the
reading. Those students who focused on what the author meant, related new information to
what they already knew and experienced, worked to organize and structure the content, and
saw the reading as an important source of learning, acquired a much deeper understanding
of the topic and were able to retain more information.
Promoting a Constructivist Approach to Learning – “In order to facilitate learning
that changes how students think and understand, teachers must begin by discovering
students‟ existing conceptions and then design instruction that changes those conceptions”
12
(Weimer, 2002, p. 11). Knowledge cannot just be given to students, they must use
information to construct their own meanings (Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998).
As one of the current prominent educational theories, constructivism focuses on the
relationship between the learner and content of material to be learned. As a learner-
centered approach, constructivism prescribes a new level of student involvement with
content. Students are guided by the instructor to formulate their own meanings of material
based on prior knowledge and experiences and build new mental models of reality.
Therefore, a teacher is seen as more of a facilitator, not a transmitter, of knowledge.
Ramsden (1988) found that learning should be seen as qualitative, not how much
knowledge one can acquire, but the depth of knowledge attained and how it alters a
person‟s way of seeing, experiencing, understanding, and conceptualizing something in the
real world. Many educators feel that in the sciences, one must just absorb facts, memorize
them, and then prove that they know them. Thus they feel that there is no other way to
teach than to stand in front and give students the facts. In a study of 36 of what he defines
as the best professors at 24 U.S. institutions, Bain (2004) found that these professors talked
not about memorizing facts, but about the importance of understanding structures, how
individual parts related to the whole, and, most importantly, the kinds of decisions that
students would be able to make with the knowledge they developed. Their students had a
much deeper understanding of the material and were able to apply that knowledge to
realistic applications outside of the classroom. These professors also talked about building
knowledge and using the information to solve problems, both scientific and medical.
Students were not only able to recall large amounts of information, but they were also able
13
to use existing mental models to create new ones as well as apply them to new problems
and reason through them on their own.
Inviting Students to Ask Questions – According to McKeachie and Svinicki (2006),
the most common method to stimulate learning is to encourage student questions that
stimulate discussion. It is important to create a classroom environment where students feel
like they are members of a group with common goals. This helps create a safe atmosphere
where students will be more willing to take risks and ask questions which, in turn, will help
instructors facilitate deeper discussions.
Bain (2004) found that the best college professors conduct class and create
assignments that encourage students to think on their own, struggle a bit so that they ask
questions, and then receive constructive feedback so they can try solving the problem
again. This gives students a safe space where they have time to construct ideas, test them,
alter them, and then apply them to real-life situations.
Facilitating Active Learning – Learner-centered teachers are guides, facilitators,
and designers of active learning experiences. They promote democratic and egalitarian
views of education and are open to different kinds of learning (Weimer, 2002). Most
teachers use the transmission model where they focus on what they as instructors do rather
than what the students are supposed to learn. Bain (2004) found that the best educators did
anything they could do to help the students learn by facilitating an active learning
environment. This entails challenging students to think differently and encouraging them
to take charge of their own learning process. The material then becomes more meaningful,
14
which means students learn more and will retain it longer so they can apply it to situations
outside of the classroom.
McKeachie and Svinicki (2006) encourage instructors to invite and expect
unsolicited comments and/or contributions from everyone, even if some are not totally
related to the subject; all students need to feel that their opinions and contributions are
valued. This increases motivation and participation, thus promotes a more active learning
environment. They also found that effective lecturers must play many roles at a time in
order to keep students‟ attention and promote active learning. These roles include scholar,
writer, producer, comedian, entertainer, and teacher. Since they found that few professors
are able to combine all these roles effectively, they state that discussion methods are
superior to lectures for student retention of information and for them to transfer knowledge
to new situation and motivate further learning.
Respecting Student Individuality – Bain (2004) found that the most exceptional
teachers look for and appreciate the individual value of each student and place a greater
faith in each student‟s ability to achieve at high levels, no matter what level of knowledge
they possess at the beginning of class. By promoting student individuality in the
classroom, students not only help themselves become better learners, they are also helping
motivate each other to explore deeper by sharing knowledge and experiences that students
may not have otherwise considered.
Similarly, Weimer (2002) describes learner-centered teaching as content used, not
covered, to establish a knowledge foundation, to develop learning skills, and to create self-
awareness so that each student recognizes that s/he is a unique, individual learner. By
15
respecting student individuality, students are able to bring prior knowledge to the
classroom, use it to construct new models of reality, challenge their individual thought
processes, and apply new models to new situations.
Cultivating Mutual Respect Between Teacher and Student – Each of the authors
reviewed in this section talk about the importance of cultivating mutual respect between
teacher and student. By doing so, it not only creates a learning environment that supports
all the previous values discussed in this section, but it also increases student self-efficacy
and trust among the participants. This helps promote a more respectful, thus safe place to
question, process, and apply information learned in class. To create such an environment,
Bain (2004) found that the best teachers feel it‟s important to create a trusting relationship
with students by setting standards with attainable goals and creating a classroom void of
power conflicts (e.g. let students be in charge of their own learning process). He goes on to
state that the key to understanding best teaching practices is not in creating and enforcing
rules, but in teacher attitude, teacher faith in student ability, teacher willingness to take
students seriously, and a commitment to let all policies and practices be flexible.
Murray (1997) found that the more enthusiastic teachers are about their subject, the
easier it is to keep their attention as well as gain the student trust necessary to create a
mutually respectful classroom environment. He states that more enthusiastic teachers
move around the classroom, make eye contact more often, and use more gestures and more
vocal variation when conducting class. McKeachie and Svinicki (2006) also stress that
teacher attitudes and enthusiasm are important for student motivation and learning. They
16
state that such teachers use more vocal variation, a wider range of gestures, exude more
energy and are more expressive.

The Culture of Instruction
Culture is a shared set of beliefs, symbols, and interpretations that are translated
into knowledge, concepts, and values that are passed from generation to generation
through systems of communication (Banks, 2001). These systems may come in the form
of storytelling, family tradition, community gatherings, and formal or informal education.
Consequently, this system of communication becomes a group‟s agenda for survival in
and adaptation to its environment (Bullivant, 1993). Through non-deliberate trial and
error, one learns appropriate and inappropriate behavior based on individual experiences
that are interpreted and reproduced to achieve desired outcomes (Erickson, 1997). These
desired outcomes are often cultivated and reinforced through a formal education system.
Schools thus support the ideals of the larger social system, which in turn, influences one‟s
approach to learning and teaching (Bennett, 2001). According to Erickson (1997),
empirical studies in the U.S., France, Germany, and China found that schools, especially
when staffed by local residents, mirror the values and perspectives of the community for
which they are in.
Teaching is a cultural activity and we learn how to teach indirectly through years
of being a learner in a classroom. In their extensive review of videotapes from the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Stigler and Hiebert (1999) found
that people of the same culture share a mental picture of how a classroom should be
managed and how information should be presented because they were once students
17
themselves. They follow cultural scripts based on generalized knowledge of acceptable
and unacceptable behaviors that tell people what to expect. Scripts are learned implicitly
through observation and participation over long periods of time and are always evolving
with the beliefs and assumptions of the mainstream culture. Teachers of the same culture
generally share the same script, which is in turn modeled to their students. Therefore,
when applied to foreign instructors in the U.S., attitudes and expectations of the
classroom environment are shaped by their home institutions and societies (Holliday,
1994). This means that teacher scripts will differ from student scripts, thus creating a
conflict of expectations in the classroom.
As new teachers, instructional decisions are influenced by their experiences as
learners (Cohen & Spillane, 1992; Freeman & Richards, 1993; and Gorsuch, 2000).
Knowing how to adapt one‟s teaching style to the American student will be difficult if the
instructor has never been a learner in the U.S. When Tyler, Jeffries, and Davies (1988)
evaluated Korean and Chinese TA instructional styles and compared them with native
speaker teaching strategies, they found that the Korean and Chinese TAs were less
interactive with their students and did not adhere to the same approaches of organizing
information. Native English speaker strategies included orienting students to the
interrelationships of concepts by using particular stresses, intonation patterns and pauses,
subordinate clauses, and specific words that indicate the relationship between ideas, such
as however, next, and therefore. The Korean and Chinese TAs, on the other hand, did not
use an organizational method that was familiar to their American students, omitting such
18
transitional words. Consequently, the Korean and Chinese TAs were considered
disorganized and unfocused.
In an examination of literature on multicultural education, a focus on teaching to
the learner was found. Other themes that were found are to be aware that one‟s teaching
style may not match that of his/her students and the necessity to adapt instructional
approaches to meet student learning styles (Banks, 2004). Multicultural education also
focuses on the diversity in the U.S. education system and that being a country of many
cultures, instructors thus encounter many different learning styles in the K-12 classroom
(Erickson, 2001). Three areas of research that are lacking in multicultural education
literature are discussions on its applicability to the university classroom, how culture
influences instructional styles, and the instructor‟s ability to adapt to a diverse classroom
if s/he is from a country other than the one where s/he is an instructor.
Authors of other research fields agree that culture influences one‟s mode of
instruction (Shade, 1989; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). In the case of foreign instructors in
the U.S. and, more specifically, ITAs, it would be very difficult for them to transition
instantly from their own instructional approach to knowing how to teach to several
different learning styles at one time. Therefore, training focused on the dynamics and
student expectations of the American classroom has been found to be very beneficial to
ITAs who have not yet been exposed to the values of the American education system.
Gorsuch (2003) studied the attitudes of ITAs and found that those who have studied in
the U.S. for a period of time had begun adjusting their teaching style accordingly, but
those without American classroom experience were not able to adjust immediately. In
19
addition, Fleisher, Hashimoto, and Weinberg (2002) found that for ITAs who have had a
specialized teaching methods class before entering the classroom, student achievement in
ITA-led courses was no different than in classes taught by an American TA.
Since most ITAs come from more homogeneous countries, they may not be aware
of the concept of diversity and how it is defined in the U.S. education system. Although,
multicultural education authors have a valid point when urging instructors to be aware of
the diversity in their classroom, this may not be immediately possible for ITAs. First,
they must learn what the general American culture expects from an instructor. Once that
is mastered, then they could potentially learn to adjust their instructional styles to more
than one learning style. Hoekje and Williams (1992) refer to Hymes (1972) when
reporting their findings on communicative competence and its pedagogical applications
by stating that “language is used within a social context; the ITA classroom is such a
social context, and there is little point in teaching language items without situating them
within this context” (p. 264).
In other words, ITAs must first learn the general American macroculture (Banks,
2001) of the U.S. education system before they can acquire the skills to teach to several
different learning styles. Macroculture refers to the larger core of values shared among
the majority of Americans. Elements of the American core culture include valuing
equality, individualism, and the concept of manifest destiny. Once an ITA has a
thorough understanding of the U.S. macroculture and has adapted his/her instructional
style accordingly, only then should s/he be introduced to the role microcultures (Banks,
2001) play in the American education system. An example of the role of microcultures in
20
the U.S. classroom may include students of certain cultural, religious, and ethnic groups
who are sometimes socialized to value different customs and behaviors at home than
what they would be expected to value in school.
Since U.S. pedagogy was founded on Euro-American cultural values (Bennett,
2001), it is important to note that consequently, the general learning styles of American
students are more individualistic and democratic than those of the majority of
international students who study in the U.S. Thus, the U.S. holds a more constructivist
philosophy of instruction, where interactive classrooms, individual thought, and a more
informal atmosphere are encouraged (Shaw & Garate, 1984). Conversely, since most
international students are from Asian countries, their approach to learning would be more
transactional, which involves one-way instruction with little instructor/student
interaction, rote memorization without encouraging individual thought, and a large power
distance between the instructor and his/her students (Cartledge, 1996).

The Culture of Instructional Language

A teacher must not only possess the appropriate knowledge, s/he must also be an
effective communicator. As communication is considered fundamental to teaching
(Shade, 1989), the quality of teaching is directly related to how well an instructor
communicates with his/her students (Gay, 2000). Being a competent communicator
involves knowing and understanding the rules and contexts that govern the differentiating
styles that people use when relaying information. Being conscious of these differences
helps an instructor be mindful of student learning styles when presenting a lesson. By
making adjustments according to student learning styles, instructors will not only
21
increase rates of retention, but will also improve student outcomes and attitudes (Bennett,
2001). In the case of ITAs, to express oneself in another language, one must adopt a new
cultural frame of reference, which can be a major cause of cultural clashes (Hofstede,
2001). In two simultaneous studies, Halleck and Moder (1995) found that general
language proficiency tests, such as the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL),
are not adequate predictors of successful non-native speaker instructors since the tests do
not include a contextual nor cultural component. They do however, acknowledge that a
certain level of English language proficiency is necessary for an ITA to be successful in
the classroom.
Although the primary complaint of American undergraduate students is
pronunciation, it has been found that there is much more to an ITA‟s ability to
communicate effectively, i.e. linguistic competence. Linguistic competence refers to the
basic “knowledge of a language that is necessary for the speaker of a language to produce
and understand an unlimited number of familiar and novel utterances” (O‟Grady,
Dobrovolsky, & Aronoff, 1993, p.101). This knowledge can be extended to instructional
language in three categories: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics
1
.
Syntax – The most linguistically evident syntactical error for English as a second
language learners is the misuse or lack of transition words to create a comprehensive,
organized presentation. Williams (1992) found that students understood a lot more when

1
Syntax -- The various phenomena pertaining to the form and organization of sentences.
Semantics -- The various phenomena pertaining to the meaning of words and sentences.
Pragmatics -- The speaker's and hearer's background attitudes, beliefs, and understanding
of the context of an utterance and the knowledge of the way in which language is used to
communicate information. (O'Grady et al., 1993)
22
transition markers, such as next, therefore, as a result, etc., were used. The ITAs who
used more explicit transitional language were seen to be much more comprehensible. In
many countries, explicitly marking transitions in a lecture is not considered “proper”,
especially in Asian countries. This may influence the amount of such words an ITA
makes a point to learn, thus decreasing obvious transitions in his/her lecture.
Gumperz argues that in each language/culture certain linguistic forms act
as contextualization cues which signal to the listener how to interpret
information and integrate it into the ongoing discourse. ... In a cross-
linguistic/cross-cultural situation in which the speaker and the listener do
not share the same set of contextualization cues, even the sincere, mutual
commitment to communicate may not be sufficient to create a mutually
coherent discourse (Gumperz, 1982, cited in Tyler, 1994, p. 244-5).

Inaccurate use of determiners and degree words can also dramatically interfere
with the comprehensibility of a presentation, especially when attempting to relate
important spatial concepts. Determiners (a/n, the, this, these, etc.) can be used for count,
mass, specific, and generic nouns. Degree words (very, more, much, many) specify the
extent of adjectives and adverbs. Sometimes certain degree words, such as “much” and
“many”, are prescriptively assigned to mass or count nouns. Tyler (1992) found that the
SPEAK test, when used as the determiner of an ITA‟s readiness to begin teaching is not
enough. She found that native English speakers depend on specific usage of such lexical
discourse markers, lexical specificity, and syntactic corporations as described above. The
way these three strategies were used by non-native speakers of English was significantly
different, thus decreasing their perceived instructional effectiveness.
The distinction of which nouns are count and which are mass, as well as which
may be generic or specific forms, may be affected by one‟s cultural perspective. For
23
example, in English, furniture is a mass noun (generally modified by much / in this case,
a lot) whereas in French, it is counted (modified by many). Such distinctions may even
be different between dialects, such as a comparison of British and American English. In
Great Britain, proper nouns referring to hotels and professional groups are considered to
be plural, but in the United States, they are singular.
2

Another significant distinction that determiners make in other languages, that
English does not, is that many languages assign a "gender" to all nouns and concepts.
ITAs who speak languages with such distinctions often transfer them into English,
assigning gender pronouns to non-gender objects instead of using determiners, or
assigning pronouns to incorrect gender referents. This leads to confusion when pronouns
are used, since they are literally referring to something (or someone) which does not
exist.
Semantics – The affect of culture on semantics is described in the Sapir-Whorf
Hypothesis:
Human beings ... are very much at the mercy of the particular language
which has become the medium of expression for their society ... the 'real
world' is to a large extent unconsciously built upon the language habits of
the group. ... We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native
language. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of
phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the
face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of
impressions which has to be organized by our minds--this means largely
by the linguistic systems in our minds (Sapir & Whorf, 1929, cited in
O'Grady et al., 1989, p. 184).

2
British -- The Wyatt [hotel] have sent a stretch limo for me. American -- The Wyatt
[hotel] has sent a stretch limo for me.
24
An example of how one's culture affects our definition of words and concepts often
depends on personal experiences or beliefs, such as geographical area or religion. There
are thus certain culturally defined ways one expresses ideas and refers to objects. Snow
and sand for instance, Eskimo has many more words for different types of snow than
English. Along the same lines, Arabic has more words to refer to and describe sand.
Eskimo and Arabic allow their speakers to make perceptual distinctions pertaining to
snow and sand that English speakers cannot (O'Grady et al., 1993).
Culture thus affects our thought processes as well as our definitions of certain
elements that may be more or less prominent in our culture than others. This may be
carried over into the classroom through the misuse of referents while giving
comprehensive examples when there are differences in connotation.
3
Pialorsi (1984)
found that the more unfamiliar the manner English is used during instruction, the less
undergraduate students understand. She also found that variations of English are
influenced by how the speakers learn to use the language in English language courses
back home. Therefore, the lack of ITA knowledge of U.S. classroom culture hinders
effective teaching and learning.
Pragmatics – Pragmatics also relies on cultural background when one interprets a
certain speech act. Some cultures are very direct in their social interactions, and others
are indirect. The words, intonation, and non-verbal gestures used during discourse are
greatly affected by such a seemingly small difference in presentation. For example, a

3
The notion that is closely linked with the concept of meaning or the set of associations
that a word's use can evoke (O'Grady, et al., 1993).
25
study of undergraduate perceptions of communication breakdowns in ITA lectures
identified that the language problems included stress errors, misuse of vocabulary, and
speech flow (Gallego, 1990). In addition, Rubin and Smith (1990) conducted a study that
examined the strength of accents and their influence on listening comprehension. They
found that accentedness was only indirectly related to listener comprehension; therefore,
they concluded that mere pronunciation training will not increase learner comprehension.
The most evident and influential aspect of pragmatics is non-verbal
communication. In many countries, the classroom is more transactional. The instructor
is in front of the class, presenting information in an extremely formal environment.
Facial expressions and eye contact are nonexistent, hand gestures are minimal, and
discourse is monotone, with little or no two-way interaction (Christy & Rittenberg,
1987). When students in the US experience such an environment, they interpret such
behavior, not as a cultural boundary, but as lack of interest in students and subject,
arrogance, aloofness, and impatience. By no means is this the intention. Instructors in
American classrooms pay close attention to the social and individual aspects of teaching
as well as the academic aspects. On the other hand, especially in Asian countries,
education is completely focused on academics and the formality of group processes
(Davis, 1991). Bailey (1982) found that American TAs who use more bonding and
eliciting gestures, such as moving around the classroom and providing direct eye contact
to individual students, in the classroom, are rated much better than ITAs who remain in
the front of the classroom not interacting with their students. Also in relation to eye

26
contact, Gillespie (1988) found that the ITAs who had the most eye contact with their
students were rated highest on evaluations.

Communicative Competence
Many researchers agree that communicative competence is the overall goal of
instructive training (Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980; Hoekje & Williams, 1992;
Hymes, 1974; and Sequira, 1986). Many studies on communication and culture have
referred to the Hymes model (1974) proposed and its application to pedagogy by Canale
and Swain (1980) where they define the communicative competence as:
One in which there is a synthesis of knowledge of basic grammatical
principles, knowledge of how language is used in social contexts to
perform communicative functions, and knowledge of how utterances and
communicative functions can be combined according to the principles of
discourse (p. 5).

A review of literature on communicative competence reveals an overwhelming
mix of ingredients to take into consideration. First of all, the use of terminology varies.
According to Kim (2001), communicative competence has also been referred to as:
 communication competence
 interpersonal communication competence
 interpersonal competence
 social competence
 human competence
 intercultural competence

27
Kim continues to state that no matter which label is used, communicative competence is
ultimately based on what can be perceived as desirable, identifiable traits and
performance outcomes. These linguistic and non-linguistic symbols, codes, and
meanings of a host communication system must be learned and internalized in order to be
an effective communicator in that culture. An initial awareness of a host culture‟s
expectations is key before one can attempt to adapt to that communication style.
…host communication competence – the overall capacity of the stranger to
receive and process information appropriately and effectively (decoding)
and to design plans to initiate messages or respond to others (encoding) in
accordance with the host communication system (Kim, Y.Y., 2001, p. 73).

Novinger (2001) states that all communication takes place in the matrix of
culture, therefore, cultural differences are the main obstacles to successful
communication. By nature, communication is a system of behaviors, a different culture
thus defines different expectations in communicative behaviors, most of which are
unconscious. Such instinctive rules of communication translate into expectations of how
a message is to be sent or received. These rules not only prescribe appropriate behaviors,
they also define how a social goal may be achieved (i.e., how a lesson should be
presented). Consequently, to communicate effectively, one must raise his/her own
consciousness of the subconscious culture.
Lustig and Koester (1999) focused on the importance of knowing the norms of
one‟s host culture and the ability to adjust to alternative patterns of thinking and
behaving. Acquiring the art of recognizing when and choosing how to appropriately and
effectively act within the constraints of a given situation is essential. “Interculturally
competent communicators integrate a wide array of culture-general knowledge into their
28
behavioral repertoires, and they are able to apply that knowledge to the specific cultures
with which they interact” (Lustig & Koester, 1999, p. 347).
When applying the concept of communicative competence to the ITA classroom,
Shaw and Garate (1984) identified three important components an ITA must learn to be
an effective instructor: linguistic competence, cultural competence, and pedagogical
competence. Linguistic competence encompasses pronunciation, grammar, fluency,
lexical issues, and semantics. Cultural competence is identified as student behavior and
expectations as well as the overall structure of the U.S. university system. Finally,
pedagogical competence is defined as the capability to plan effective lessons, use
culturally applicable classroom management skills, and establish appropriate
relationships with students. Shaw and Garate (1984) thus concluded that an ITA could be
fluent in social English, but without sufficient knowledge of the above listed factors, may
not be considered linguistically competent when in an instructional role.
In a literature review of over 20 studies relevant to the authenticity of language
testing, Hoekje and Linnell (1994) came to the conclusion that the complex nature of
language used when teaching must include culturally specific elements such as discourse
structure, knowledge of the social roles of the teacher/student, and strategies of
presenting information. They considered these three elements essential to achieve
communicative competence in the classroom. Byrd and Constantinides (1992) observed
three native speaker (NS) math professors and found that the successful instructors used
contextualizing strategies for connections between classes, courses, texts, lectures, etc.
29
They also found that the unsuccessful NS math professor used minimal narration of
problems (i.e., did not talk at all while solving a problem on the board).
Similarly, Byrd (1987) measured communicative competence for ITAs in terms
of: linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and
strategic competence. Here, linguistic competence includes appropriate use of grammar,
sound systems, and vocabulary. When applied to an instructional role, an ITA is
linguistically competent when s/he has the ability to use English appropriately in any
teaching situation. These situations include, but are not limited to, speaking
comprehensibly, understanding students, reading course materials, writing legibly on the
blackboard in a proper organizational manner, and the ability to talk and listen at the
same time. Sociolinguistic competence, on the other hand, entails using language
appropriately according to social and cultural rules. This includes both verbal and
nonverbal skills, such as eye contact, gestures, lecture organization, levels of formality,
and teacher/student interaction.
Christy and Rittenberg (1987) conducted three case studies where they observed
the instructional styles of three Chinese TAs with adequate English skills. They found
that the way the information was presented and the approachability of the ITAs were
more influential on their perceived instructional ability than what was actually said. TA
#1 had no eye contact, poor organization of material, did not know student names, and
lacked personal engagement with students as individuals. Consequently, students
perceived this ITA as a poor instructor who didn‟t care if the students learned or not. TA
#2 had culturally appropriate classroom management skills (i.e., use of blackboard, open
30
to questions), but used no non-verbal gestures, no eye contact, and spoke very softly.
This ITA was seen as “flat and expressionless” (p. 116). Finally, TA #3 was seen as
aloof or arrogant because he kept a very explicit social distance between himself and the
students and failed to elaborate on a concept when requested to do so.
Coherent use of communication, such as phrases, sentences, and full discussions
encompass Byrd‟s notion of discourse competence. One must be able to organize
complete thoughts/ideas in culturally appropriate ways. For example, American students
are used to being hand-fed basic concepts, then discussing them in a democratic fashion.
“The American student, on the other hand, is used to a situation where requests for
clarification, repetition, and so on are quite common” (Shaw & Garate, 1984, p. 27). In
the Chinese classroom, however, a professor is seen to be an “expert” in his/her field,
therefore relatively speaking, all knowing. Consequently, open class discussions are
almost nonexistent, and student questions for clarification of information are an insult to
his/her intelligence (Christy & Rittenberg, 1987).
The expectation of being hand-fed basic concepts is evident in three studies.
Williams, Barnes, and Finger (as cited in Williams, 1992) found that students‟ complaints
that they could not understand their ITA had nothing to do with linguistic ability; it was
actually the organization of the information being presented. ITAs often do not
repeat/rephrase important points, they digress from the main point more often, move to
new topics without forewarning, omit discourse marking, such as using supporting
examples or definitions and restating or rephrasing points to make them obvious, and do
not summarize material. Similarly, Rounds (1987) states that effective TA language:
31
 Overtly marks junctures
 Explicitly organizes and chunks material and transitions
 Presents cohesion and continuity between problems and classes
In addition, Tyler (1992) compared native speaker and non-native speaker lectures in
order to investigate how each uses the English language and to see if there are usage
differences that would significantly influence listener comprehension. The use of lexical
discourse markers, lexical specificity, syntax, and intonation were found to all be
significant factors in lecture comprehension. For example, the ITAs in Tyler‟s study
failed to use transitional markers such as first, second, third, or finally. Without such
explicit transitions, ITAs were described as confusing and incoherent, whereas American
TAs who used such transitions were viewed as well-organized and clear.
To be strategically competent, an ITA must be able to possess the ability to repair
miscommunications as they arise with strategies that help them deal with failures in
communication and supplementing the spoken word. These strategies may include
recognizing signs of confusion, knowing how to reestablish communication after a
breakdown, using different forms of media (e.g., overhead projectors, PowerPoint) to
supplement lectures, and doing the best one can to use culturally appropriate measures
when repairing a conversation.
Without access to the cultural norms of the U.S. classroom, ITAs are
unable to participate in this process effectively [negotiating cultural
norms], neither communicating their own expectations nor reading their
students‟ behavior accurately. (Hoekje & Williams, 1992, p. 252)

Luo, Grady, and Bellows (2001) investigated TA perceptions of their instructional roles,
teaching styles, instructional methods, communication strategies, and potential problems
32
in the classroom in relation to how these perceptions are affected by nationality, gender,
and academic discipline. They found that nationality and academic discipline are
significant predictors of TA instructional roles and teaching style. TAs from the U.S.
(USTAs) were found to be 2.42 times more likely to see themselves as facilitators and
4.61 times more likely to use a more informal teaching style than ITAs. Nationality was
also a significant predictor of communication strategies. USTAs were 2.17 times more
likely to present the same information more than one way in order to catch the attention
of all learners.
The Hymes model (1974), is based on a notion of communicative competence in
which language behavior is viewed in terms of its appropriateness and correctness. Thus,
in relation to the ITA, this includes, “…knowledge of linguistic rules and the ability to
apply these rules to use language appropriately” (Hoejke & Williams, 1992, p. 246).
ITAs are often very knowledgeable of grammatical rules and functions, but because of
unfamiliar rules of discourse defined by the American educational expectations, they find
it very difficult to apply this knowledge in a classroom setting. Therefore it is necessary
for them to acquire a familiarity with certain academic discourse situations (i.e. lectures,
recitations, office hours, etc.) and the roles they are expected to play in them (i.e.
instructor, mentor, friend). They must also learn certain styles of presentation and speech
patterns that are considered both acceptable and unacceptable in the American classroom.
“The Foreign TA must be aware of the great variety and elasticity of the American value
system, thereby becoming more conscious of and sensitive to the expectations that
students bring to the university classroom or lecture hall” (Pialorsi, 1984, p. 21).
33
Once communicative competence has been achieved, a significant improvement
in an ITA‟s perceived instructional competence is likely. Undergraduate receptivity
toward their foreign instructors is also likely to improve. In her 1984 study, Bailey found
that ITAs with above average instructional and communicative skills were not perceived
to have a language problem by their students. This was concluded as a result of surveys
that measured undergraduate satisfaction. In contrast, those ITAs with a higher level of
English proficiency were rated lower due to a perception of poor instructional skills. The
true issue in this instance was not necessarily poor instructional skills, but an instructional
style that was culturally different than that of the learners. Miscommunications increase
and perceptions of instructional ability decrease when learner and instructor cultures
clash (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).

The Ideal American Teacher

The basic argument for ITA training that goes beyond English language
instruction is the differences in cultural values of instructional methods and learning
styles. Therefore, the first thing one must establish is the definition of an effective
instructor in the United States. Granted, as diverse as this country is, one must
acknowledge the variety of learning styles that exist, but for the sake of generalizing so as
to avoid confusion on the part of the ITA, a pedagogical macroculture (Bennett, 1986)
must be defined. The emphasis on a macroculture is necessary because most ITAs come
from relatively homogeneous countries where there is a strong hierarchal, collectivist,
and transactional approach to learning. As will be illustrated, the American classroom is
34
generally more constructivist; more democratic, communicative, and individualistic than
the majority of countries represented by international students.
The pedagogical macroculture of the American classroom depends on several
factors, including governmental expectations, academic institution requirements, and of
course, personal experience and opinion. On a larger scale, what all these variables
imply, is that a group‟s culture and the type of emphasis it puts on education. In other
words, different cultures have different expectations regarding the desirable qualities of
an effective instructor. For example, in China, a professor is seen to be an “expert” in
his/her field, therefore relatively speaking, all knowing. Consequently, student questions
during class are insulting to his/her intelligence (Christy & Rittenberg, 1987). As a
result, a Chinese person stepping into an American classroom for the first time, with no
forewarning as to how open discussions are, or to what extent the U.S. culture promotes
interactive classrooms where students pose questions and offer opinions, may lose any
confidence s/he had, thus losing face as well as any previous ability to communicate
effectively.
This example from China provides an evident contrast to the culture of an
American classroom. Several sources cite many different characteristics and cultural
rules of the American classroom. Langham (1989) provides one example. He found that
effective teaching strategies include establishing common ground with one‟s students,
providing a clear course overview, explicitly defining relevant terms and concepts,
reviewing previous lessons before starting a new one, and organized use of visual
resources such as a blackboard. Thus, the characteristics of what Americans students
35
prefer in an instructor, found while reviewing instruction manuals, journal articles, and
institutional studies, have been combined to develop four general categories that describe
American classroom expectations and instructional competence (Althen, 1991; Bain,
2004; McKeachie & Svinicki, 2006; McNamara, 1987; Pica, Barnes, & Finger, 1990;
Smith, J., Meyers, & Burkhalter, 1992; Smith, R.M. et al., 1992; Tyler, 1992; Weimer,
2002). These categories include: teacher personality, demeanor, lecture organization,
and academic presentation.
Teacher Personality – Generally, an effective instructor is assumed to be modest,
open-minded, and friendly. Rounds (1987), found that when an instructor incorporates
“we” into his/her lectures and discussions s/he is seen to be more egalitarian and
approachable, thus his/her students are more receptive and often are able to see beyond
many linguistic faux pas. Other personality traits that may help an ITA get his/her
students to look past their perceived linguistic inferiority include: dynamic, energetic,
possesses a genuine interest in students, knowledgeable in his/her field, encourages
discussion as well as questions, and confident. Inglis (1988) reinforces the above
characteristics as preferred instructor traits in his study, where he found that
undergraduate students felt teachers who seemed genuinely interested in their needs was
most important. He also found that the more constructive feedback and informal
interaction between the teacher and his/her students, the better the student ratings.
Demeanor – Sometimes a person‟s nonverbal skills (or perceived lack of) relate a
stronger message to one‟s students than spoken discourse. Eye contact has been found to
be one of the most important factors involved in gaining respect in the classroom. It
36
promotes a positive attitude and shows confidence (Pica, Barnes, & Finger, 1990; Smith,
J. et. al., 1992). Other behavioral factors include appropriate gestures to illustrate points,
positive/encouraging facial expressions, informal dress, and strategic physical placement
depending on the type of class. For example, an instructor generally stands at the head of
the room while students face him/her during a lecture. In seminars, on the other hand, all
participants, including the instructor, generally sit in a circle to enhance open discussion.
When students are expecting a more seminar-like environment, such as in many
American university classrooms, but the ITA manages the class like a lecture, students
view the ITA as less enthusiastic about the material, less approachable for questions, and
less fair than TAs who use more interactive approaches to learning (Davis, 1991).
Lecture Organization – American students are basically used to being hand-fed
basic concepts, then discussing them in a democratic fashion. Hence, a well-organized
outline that is displayed in a comprehensible manner is a must. Tyler and Davies (1990)
findings suggest that there are culture-specific preferences for certain organizational
patterns of spoken discourse. Similarly, Villegas and Lucas (2002) found that classroom
organization has profound implications for learning. In addition, Rounds (1987) found
that successful ITAs elaborate more, let students know when s/he is going to change
subjects, use transitions between new and old information, clearly define student
responsibilities, and ask questions that begin two-way interaction. If this is the case,
cross-cultural misunderstandings in the classroom may be due to a person‟s preferred
method of organizing information. Therefore, if the method of instruction does not
37
match the learning style of the students, optimal potential for student success will not be
achieved.
Academic Presentation – The most prominent characteristic relative to academic
presentation is findings that suggest that using personal, cultural examples to illustrate
academic concepts improves student recall, thus grades, and creates less uncertainty in
the classroom, increasing instructor approachability (Gass & Varonis, 1984; Ronkowski,
1987 in Smith et al., 1992; Nelson, 1992). A study by Hinofotis and Bailey (1981)
reinforces this. They asked students to rate the 12 top qualities they prefer in an
instructor. Since students often complain most about foreign instructor language ability,
it is not surprising that pronunciation was ranked at the top. Second, was the ability to
relate to students informally by using more personal examples to illustrate relevant points
in a lesson.
Other presentation skills mentioned in various sources include: reiterating what is
written on the board, overhead, etc., the importance of appropriately facilitated
discussions, appropriate pauses in conversation, and efficiency of presenting information.
Americans are uncomfortable with silences longer than 3 seconds (Rounds, 1987; Tyler,
1994), so long pauses in lieu of transitional language could cause negative perceptions of
an instructor. Also found to be important in academic presentations are explicitly
marking changes in focus of topic, keeping an informal atmosphere, and reserving time to
make sure your students comprehend all important terms and concepts.

38
Summary
As illustrated, there is an evident cultural style to the methods of instruction in the
United States. The U.S. pedagogical macroculture is important to consider when
assessing the satisfaction and academic potential of undergraduates in ITA-led courses.
If the instructional methods do not match the learning styles of the students, optimum
learning potential is not achieved and student satisfaction levels decline (Bennett, 1986).
Villegas & Lucas (2002) found that both pedagogy and learning styles mirror
macroculture values. This means that if teaching and learning styles match or at least
compliment each other, the potential for learning increases.
Cultural values are not only reflected in instructional style, they are also
reinforced through a country‟s education system. It is also known that if a foreign
instructor is not trained in American teaching methodology and American values before
entering the classroom, s/he will likely teach as s/he learned in his/her home country
(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). If this does not match American student expectations, there is
the potential for a major culture clash between the ITA and his/her students. This conflict
is often misinterpreted as inadequate language skills and/or poor instructional ability.
What is not yet clear through previous research, is that if a foreign instructor can adapt
his/her instructional style to be more aware of his/her students‟ learning styles, can s/he
be trained to adapt to the diversity of the American classroom which contains many
different learning styles? Also, what will it take to satisfy American student expectations
of their instructors? What can be done to increase student tolerance of accents and
teaching methods that do not always conform to what they are accustomed to in the
39
classroom? Finally, how can we help American students become more aware of the
benefits of having a foreign instructor?
40

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The manner of presenting information in a classroom setting is influenced by
one‟s learning style, which, in turn, is influenced by the culture in which one grows up.
Therefore, unless trained otherwise, one can assume that an instructor will structure a
lesson in a way that mimics the learning style s/he acquired when s/he was a student
(Stigler & Hiebert, 1999). This study aims to examine the influence of culture on
academic presentation style and organization. The main focus will be on international
teaching assistants, and part of this focus will include their perceptions of themselves as
teachers as well as student perceptions of their instructional abilities. By investigating
these different points of view, the researcher hopes to gain deeper insight into the extent
to which home culture influences academic instruction and classroom management
styles.

Research Design

This qualitative study is designed to explore three separate perceptions of an
ITA‟s teaching style: ITA self-evaluation, student evaluation of ITA practices, and expert
assessment of such practices. A triangulation methodology was chosen in order to create
a stronger study. Since multiple types of evidence and perspectives will be collected
41
about the same phenomenon, a system of checks and balances is created, making a more
reliable and accurate study (Wiggins, 1998).

Research Questions

The following research questions were created within the context of instructional
styles as a cultural concept and how those styles relate to the perceptions of ITAs, their
students, and the researcher.
1. How do ITAs describe their own instructional style?
2. Do ITA self-evaluations match their actual instructional style?
3. Does the ITA instructional style match their students‟ assessment of ITA
instructional ability?
4. How does this match/mismatch affect student perceptions of their respective
ITA‟s instructional ability?

Sample Population

The primary sample population consists of 9 first and second-year ITAs assigned
as recitation or lab instructors to various math and science classes at a small, private,
tertiary institution in Southern California. This site was chosen because approximately
45% of the graduate population is international, therefore it was expected that the
recruitment of volunteers who qualify for this study would be simple and efficient. A
secondary sample population includes students (42 total respondents) from each of the
classes for which each ITA is an instructor.
42
International Teaching Assistants – Nine ITAs assigned as instructors for
Chemistry 1B, Chemistry 4A, Economics 11, Math 2A, Math 2B, Physics 2A, Physics 3,
and Control & Dynamical Systems (CDS) 140A volunteered for this study. Originally,
the researcher wanted to recruit ten first-year ITAs assigned as recitation instructors for
freshman core classes Math 1A, Chemistry 1A, and Physics 1A since these classes have
the largest amount of sections, therefore should have had the largest number of volunteers
that qualify for this study. In addition, these three classes are the largest in the institution
and were the most likely to have first-time ITAs as instructors for the recitation sections.
Unfortunately, the institution where this research was conducted changed its TA
assignment policies and thus drastically reduced the number of first-year international
graduate students in instructional roles. Therefore, the researcher had no choice but to
broaden the ITA sample population criteria to first- and second-year ITAs and accept
volunteers from any class which had an ITA who met this sample population‟s criteria.
All of the ITAs in this study were teaching for their first time at this institution
and in the U.S. Four have experience teaching one or two high school classes in their
home countries. These ITAs were explicitly chosen so that the sample population has not
yet been influenced by the U.S. academic culture, thus they will not yet have had a
chance to adapt or alter their instructional styles to American student expectations.
Students of the Teaching Assistants – All students attending each of the ITAs‟
classrooms were solicited via email and in person to participate in this study on a
voluntary basis. Since classes at this institution are small and students are difficult to
recruit, a total of 42 students participated in this study (an average of approximately 5
43
students per class responded to the survey, 0 being the fewest for one class and 12 being
the largest number of respondents for another). 45% of the students were in their first
year at this institution and 38% were in their second year. All but 4 of the respondents
are undergraduate students.
The student perspective is nonetheless crucial to this study because it provides the
basis for the comparison of which ITAs meet student preferences of teaching style and
how that influences student perceptions of ITA teaching ability.

Instrumentation

This study uses three types of instrumentation: observation, interview, and
questionnaire. By using a triangulation methodology, the validity of the study is
strengthened by creating a multidimensional analysis (Mason, 1996). All three methods
contain a qualitative as well as numerical ranking component. The qualitative portion of
each of these measures consists of open-ended questions and/or room for individual
comments. The ranking component will use a Likert scale of 1 to 5 to rate the elements
of instructional skills, classroom management style, and language skills. Similar
instruments are used for the ITAs, the students and the expert assessment. This common
set of measurements creates a consistent and efficient analysis.
Observations – Since the researcher has extensive experience with ITA training,
both experiential and as part of her master‟s degree in Teaching English to Speakers of
Other Languages (TESOL), she is qualified to evaluate and analyze the relevant aspects
of instructional strategies as well as language ability. For the purpose of this study, her
44
ratings of ITA performance will be considered expert assessment. The ITAs were
evaluated based upon elements in three categories: instructional skills, classroom
management style, and language skills. These categories have been chosen based on
findings in the literature review regarding what American students believe to be a good
teacher, as well as guidelines for ITA training in a commonly used text, Communicate:
strategies for international teaching assistants (Smith, Meyers, Burkhalter, 1992). The
format of the researcher observation form (Appendix A) has been adapted from the
recommended evaluation form in this textbook. Copyright authorization for this
evaluation form has been obtained by Pearson Education for use in this study (Appendix
B).
Interviews – All 9 ITAs were interviewed in order to gather information about
how they view their own teaching style. A semi-structured interview method was used so
as to allow the opportunity for answers that provide a deeper insight into the influences of
chosen presentation methods and classroom management styles. Interviews lasted
approximately one hour and questions were derived from the same categories included in
the observation evaluation so as to create consistency between data collected and increase
the ease of comparisons between subject groups. Embedded in the interviews are
requests for self-ratings equivalent to the Likert scale and questions used in both the
expert observation and the student questionnaire. The full interview guide can be found
in Appendix C.
Questionnaire – All students of ITAs were asked to respond to an online survey.
They will were asked to rate their ITA‟s instructional abilities, classroom management
45
skills, and language ability. As noted above, the questions are based on the same
categories included in the observation evaluations and interviews so as to create
consistency between data collected and increase the ease of comparisons between subject
groups. The full set of survey questions can be found in Appendix D.

Data Collection

Data collection was conducted in two phases during two separate terms. Since
only five of the twelve voluntary participants qualified for this study during fall term,
2007, a second round of data was collected during winter term, 2008 with a new group of
four ITAs. The terms at this institution are ten weeks long, including midterms about the
fifth week and finals during the tenth week of the term.
Observations – Classroom observations were conducted during the third and
eighth weeks of the fall 2007 term. The third week was chosen to allow for minimal
adjustment to the course materials and institutional expectations of the role of a TA.
Choosing to conduct the observations early in the term is deliberate so as to evaluate each
TA before their instructional approaches are influenced by trainings, student feedback, or
other factors that may modify their classroom management style or how they present
information. The second round of observations were conducted during the eighth week
of the term so as to gain insight into whether or not the ITA has begun adjusting or
adapting his/her instructional approaches to better match domestic student expectations.
Interviews – Interviews with the ITAs were conducted during the fifth week of the
term. The fifth week was chosen to allow time for the ITAs to adjust to the American
46
classroom and become more aware of domestic student expectations. In addition to
seeking data on how the ITAs view their own instructional style, the researcher
investigated whether or not the ITA has become aware of the cultural differences in
student expectations and has made conscious adjustments to his/her own personal
instructional styles as a result.
Questionnaires – Online questionnaires were distributed to the students via an
email with a link to SurveyMonkey, a website that allows researchers to post online
surveys for a minimal fee (paid by the researcher). This online software also exports data
into excel spreadsheets, therefore reducing data entry and allowing a more efficient
process for analysis of student ratings. This online questionnaire was emailed to the
students just before midterms, about week four of the term. The timing for this
instrument was chosen to allow students to get to know their instructors, form an opinion,
and provide an informed response to the online survey. If this questionnaire were posted
too early, students would not have enough time to form opinions and data would be
insufficient or incomplete. Although the researcher would have preferred to administer
this questionnaire later, since the terms at this institution are so short, midterms come
very quickly and the researcher did not want the results of students‟ midterms to
influence their perspectives and opinions of their ITAs‟ instructional abilities.

Data Analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected through the expert
observations. The observation protocol has been designed to get both a descriptive
47
picture of the ITA classroom as well as provide a numerical ranking system that will
allow for quantitative comparisons of ITA abilities between the students, expert, and the
ITAs themselves.
The interview protocol was transcribed and coded in order to detect common
themes among ITA self-perceptions and expectations of their roles as instructors. These
themes were useful when analyzed in comparison with the domestic student surveys, as
they helped the researcher understand which core values of instructional style are similar
and which are different.
The student questionnaire was closed to further responses during week five of the
term and downloaded from SurveyMonkey before the first midterm began so as to
prevent midterm grades from influencing a student‟s opinion of their ITA. The survey
responses were downloaded into an excel spreadsheet to provide a hard copy reference.

Limitations
The limitations to this study include the small sample population and the narrow
academic focus of the institution used to recruit study participants.
Small Sample Population – Since The Institute is a small, technological tertiary
institution with only 2100 students, some of the information produced in this study may
only apply to institutions of similar size and academic focus.
Narrow Academic Focus – Since it is often found that instructors in math and
science present information in a less interactive manner than in the social sciences, it is
likely that similar practices and instructional values will be found at this institute since it
48
only offers majors in math, science, and engineering. Although the best practices
outlined in Chapter 2 illustrates that these methods should be applied to all classes, social
and hard sciences, the general approach to instruction at The Institute does not promote
an interactive classroom as prescribed by these best practices. Therefore, the findings in
this study may yield different results if the study were conducted at a liberal arts school
with social science options.
49

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS

Site of Research

The institution where this study was conducted is a small, private, technological
tertiary school in Southern California. Throughout this analysis, the site of research will
be called The Institute. The Institute is ranked among the top ten universities in the
United States, and is one of the top five science and engineering schools in the world. It
offers majors in the STEM fields only, therefore the only liberal arts classes are those
available as general education options for undergraduate students. The Institute offers
bachelors, masters, and PhD degrees and has a total student population of 2,133,
according to the Registrar‟s fall 2007 enrollment statistics.
The student population consists of 913 undergraduates and 1,220 graduate
students; 567 of these students being international students on non-immigrant visas.
Approximately 9% of the undergraduate population and 36% of the graduate population
is international. Therefore the probability of having an international teaching assistant is
very high.
As stated earlier, The Institute was chosen for this study because of the large
percentage of ITAs and ease of access to this population. Since 36% of the graduate
population is international, it was expected that the recruitment of volunteers who qualify
for this study would be simple and efficient. Unfortunately, due to changes in teaching
assistant appointment qualifications, the number of international graduate students who
50
qualified for this study decreased significantly and it was thus more difficult than
expected to recruit participants. The second reason this site was chosen is the ease of
access to the international population. Since the researcher works full time at The
Institute, she has the appropriate professional connections to gain quick institutional
approval to conduct this study on campus. Also, there would be no time or money spent
on travel since research could be conducted while the researcher was already on campus.
In addition, the researcher has very close ties to the international population on campus.
Since she is already a trusted person on campus, the international community was not
only more than willing to participate if they qualified, any anxiety they felt being
observed or interviewed was minimal. This created a much more reliable research
environment and allowed the researcher to collect more accurate data.
Since the academic programs of The Institute focus only on the STEM fields, it is
important to recognize the special considerations and limitations this may present to this
study. First, the special considerations that will be addressed during this analysis include
issues related to the mentality that STEM classes are not expected to be very interactive
because most of them are math-based, therefore only the presentation of problem sets or
lab procedures are necessary to review in ITA recitations. Recitation is the term most
universities in the U.S. use to refer small sections of larger classes that meet each week
after the main lecture. Teaching assistants generally lead recitation sections. This is
done to promote a more learner-centered environment and to give the students a chance
to review lecture material, important concepts, and homework in a more intimate
environment. This instructional approach is very prominent at The Institute, therefore
51
some of the trends found on the organization and presentation of information are likely
influenced not by home culture nor U.S. academic expectations, but The Institute‟s
culture and approach to instruction.
In addition, the strong focus on scientific research and high expectations of
students at The Institute create a very specialized environment that promotes academic
and personal values that are likely very different from any other institution in the U.S.
The environment at this institution is very competitive and undergraduate students often
feel “average” for the first time. Each and every one of them was likely the smartest kid
in their school before coming to The Institute, and now they are among other students just
as bright as they are. This feeling of being average affects the students and their
participation in class, many question their academic abilities and confidence for the first
time in their lives. Most are also very introverted. In addition, students often become
very competitive to gain back that feeling of being the smartest one, putting more
pressure on themselves to perform at a higher academic level than they ever have.
Although student affairs offices do their best to offer the highest quality of
academic, emotional, and personal support for students, The Institute culture places so
much emphasis on academics and research that the students often find it difficult to grow
socially at the same rate as they do academically. Therefore, their behaviors both in and
out of the classroom are often unlike students at other U.S. institutions of higher
education. Their idea of socializing is working together on problem sets and they are
often so overwhelmed with homework, that they prioritize differently and ignore the
importance of creating a balanced lifestyle that includes time for relaxation, socializing
52
that does not include homework, and most importantly, sleep. Students at The Institute
are said to be nocturnal, they work on their homework or in the lab all night and sleep
most of the day. Many still try to attend class after being up all night doing problem sets.
It is not uncommon to find random students catching a quick nap anywhere they can find
a chair or couch.
The instructional side of The Institute has been under criticism for some time.
Since there is such a strong focus on high quality research and internationally ranked
achievements, the value of providing quality instruction is not a high priority at The
Institute. It is well known within The Institute that the faculty‟s goal is to create world-
class researchers, therefore research opportunities are valued much more than a student
passing a class or getting his/her degree. Although students work very hard to get good
grades and receive a lot of support from student affairs staff, they often complain about
the poor quality of instruction and lack of access to professors. This lack of value placed
on quality of instruction reflects on teaching assistants as well. Teaching assistants,
American and international only have a few hours of training when they first arrive on
campus, if they decide to attend. They do not receive appropriate pedagogical guidance
nor do they receive a complete overview of their expectations as instructors.
Consequently, ITAs get no guidance at all in relation to how the U.S. education system
may be different from what they know, especially in relation to student expectations.
Therefore, no teaching assistant is adequately prepared to enter a classroom at The
Institute and due to potential cultural differences, ITAs are at an even bigger
53
disadvantage than their American counterparts because most of them have never been a
student in the U.S. academic system before coming to The Institute.

The International Teaching Assistants in the Study
Nine ITAs participated in this study (names have been changed to protect their
identities); five are in the first year of their graduate program and four are in their second
year. Three of them are from China. In addition, there is one ITA from each of the
following countries: Singapore, India, Slovakia, Serbia, Israel, and Canada. Only three
of these ITAs have had teaching experience, and this experience was in their home
countries. Thus all ITAs in this study were teaching for their first time in the U.S. during
the term they participated in this study. Only one ITA has had previous experience as a
student in the U.S. university system (he received his bachelor‟s degree at a U.S.
university), therefore eight of the nine ITAs who participated in this study have not had
any or have had minimal U.S. influence on their instructional values and/or approaches.
Although The Institute does not require a TOEFL examination for admission,
most U.S. universities do. In general, U.S. universities require a minimum of 550 of 677
on the paper-based test, 220 of 300 on the computer-based test, and 80 of 120 on the
internet-based test for admission into their graduate programs. The reason scoring for the
TOEFL exam differs between the paper-, computer-, and internet-based tests is because
as technology improved, more complex and accurate scoring systems were able to be
created and implemented. Table 1 outlines the range comparisons. It is important to note
that the internet-based TOEFL has a total score of 120, but this table only presents a total
54
score of 90 since the other two exams do not include a speaking section, they only test
reading, listening, and writing. The speaking section of the internet-based exam is worth
up to 30 points.
Table 1. TOEFL Range Comparison
Internet-, Computer-, and Paper-Based Exam
Internet-Based
Computer-
Based Paper-Based
84-90
72-83
59-71
45-58
39-47
31-38
22-30
14-21
6-13
0-5
273-300
243-270
213-240
183-210
153-180
123-150
93-120
63-90
33-60
0-30
640-677
590-637
550-587
513-547
477-510
437-473
397-433
347-393
310-343
310
Source: Score Use, Educational Testing Service, 2008

Score requirements may vary by institution and sometimes within an institution,
depending on the department or field of study. Those ITAs who did not take the TOEFL
met one of the exemptions that waived this requirement.
The six ITAs in this study who took the TOEFL test scored very high, all were in
the 90
th
percentile or better (see Table 1). The three ITAs who were not required to take
the TOEFL test as part of their admissions requirements met test waiver criteria; either
their first language is English or they studied for at least four years at a school where
English is the language of instruction. An exception to this waiver is for students from
India. Although the language of instruction in India is English, the dialect spoken is
considered to be different enough from Standard American English (SAE) to warrant
English testing before admission to a U.S. university.
55
Although ITA TOEFL scores are very high, the computer-based and paper-based
TOEFL exams do not test speaking ability. None of the three TOEFL exams test how
well the students use the English language in an academic setting. Therefore, although
some of the ITAs did extremely well on this test, that does not mean they are able to use
the English language appropriately in an instructional role. Table 2 illustrates the
distribution of language assessment scores for each ITA; first the TOEFL score, then the
expert observation ratings for five different aspects of each ITA‟s speaking ability while
in an instructional role (pronunciation, grammar, fluency, one-way communication, and
two-way communication), and the final column is the overall expert rating of linguistic
ability. ITAs were rated on a five-point scale. A rating of one means that the linguistic
characteristic being evaluated is weak, therefore it strongly interferes with one‟s ability to
comprehend the ITA. A rating of three means that the linguistic characteristic is
adequate, the ITA is comprehensible, but sometimes it takes more effort than necessary
to understand what he is saying. A rating of five means that the ITA has reached near-
native ability in that linguistic category.

56

It is not surprising that the ITAs who were not required to take the TOEFL exam
scored high in every category. They all received the highest overall comprehensibility
rating for both one-way and two-way communication. In addition, Addi, the ITA who
spent grades four through eight in the United States, also has the highest rating in these
two categories (and a perfect TOEFL score). Therefore, in no way should their use of
English in the classroom affect their perceived instructional ability. Although Abhishek,
Ceslav, and Pavle received very high TOEFL scores, the ratings they received from the
expert observer were lower than ideal in the pronunciation and fluency categories (oral
categories that are not evaluated in the TOEFL exam). This is because they have obvious
accents and use different inflections in their voice and unfamiliar stress and intonation
patterns while speaking, all of which are likely to be unfamiliar to students in the U.S.
As a result, although they are very comprehensible overall (they are all still more than
adequate one-way and two-way communicators), they‟re pronunciation and manner of
speaking are not consistent with SAE. It was thus found that even though these three
Table 2. ITA Language Assessment According to TOEFL and Expert Ratings
ITA
TOEFL
Percentile
Pronun-
ciation
Grammar Fluency
One-Way
Comm.
Two-Way
Comm.
Overall
Expert
Xin >90th 3 3.33 2.5 3 3 Adequate
Gang N/A 4.17 4.33 4 5 5 Strong
Jie 90th 3.33 3.67 2.67 3.5 3 Adequate
Hubert N/A 4.67 5 5 5 5 Strong
Abhishek >90th 3.33 5 3.67 4 4 > Adequate
Ceslav >90th 4.17 5 4.5 5 4.5 > Adequate
Pavle >90th 3.67 5 4.5 4.5 4 > Adequate
Addi 100th 4.5 5 4.33 5 5 Strong
Chris N/A 5 5 5 5 5 Strong
Scale for Expert Observation Ratings: 1 = weak; 3 = adequate; 5 = strong

57
ITAs have accents and different vocal patterns, this does not make it difficult to
understand them and should in no way impede their perceived instructional ability.
The only two ITAs with a very high TOEFL score but do not have the appropriate
level of English language ability for classroom instruction are Xin and Jie. Since neither
of these ITAs had experience using English outside of China before coming to the U.S., it
is likely that they did not have enough practice speaking in English before being placed
into an instructional role. In the Chinese language classroom, there is very little emphasis
placed on becoming a fluent speaker. Almost all efforts are directed toward writing and
listening skills. According to Xin, “When I was writing I nearly, I don‟t make any
grammar mistakes, but when I was speaking I can‟t help making it. Well, that‟s because
I get a lot of training in writing English but not so much speaking English when I was in
China”. This is why most Chinese students in the U.S. often have an exceptional
knowledge of grammar and more than adequate writing skills, but very minimal ability to
express themselves verbally. This is reflected in Table 2, where all expert ratings are
adequate except fluency, which is less than adequate because their speech was slow with
too many pauses, their intonation was inconsistent with SAE, and most notably, they
were not able to use grammatically complex sentences when interacting verbally with
students and while responding to their questions. Xin does more pointing than speaking
while assisting students with experiments in his chemistry lab, and Jie consciously avoids
giving too much detail to questions for fear of not being able to communicate
appropriately with his students. Consequently, both Xin and Jie often provide incomplete
instructions and responses to student questions.
58
Presented below are the basic characteristics of the nine ITAs who participated in
this study and their views of their own instructional approaches. Each account is a
reproduction of their voices and therefore the exact manner they express themselves,
including linguistic errors.
Xin – Xin arrived at The Institute directly from China in September of 2007. He
is a first-year graduate student in organic chemistry and is the teaching assistant for
Chemistry 4A, a chemistry lab that focuses on the synthesis and analysis of organic and
inorganic compounds. Xin has never been in the U.S. before and this is his first ever
teaching assignment. He speaks English and a few dialects of Chinese, his first language
is Mandarin, a Chinese dialect. He studied English for sixteen years while growing up
and his TOEFL score is 653 of 677 on the paper-based test.
Xin believes that most of his students understand him when he speaks, but he
feels he doesn‟t speak as well as he should to explain lab procedures thoroughly. Since
he is the TA for a chemistry lab, he can point and learn vocabulary that he does not yet
know in English. “Since, you know, I am in the chemistry lab I can always point to the
thing that I want to express. So, just like, a flask, at first I don‟t know what, I just point
to that and the students said, „a flask?‟, and I say, „right, right, a flask”.
Xin states that he learns best by himself, he always stays ahead of the class and
does not need a teacher to explain everything, he just “gets it”. For this reason, he feels
that he has to explain more to American students than he should have to.

59
I have to explain more than I should have to. I think some of [the
students] are quite intelligent, they could just read a book and understand
what it means, and some of them you just need to explain everything to
them and some of them just come up with very strange ideas, but it‟s
interesting ideas and you have to tell them, why not to do that, or don‟t do
that, and the reason for not doing so.

Xin uses visuals (e.g. blackboard, lab equipment, lab manual, etc.) to help make
him understandable and compensate for his linguistic shortcomings. He also feels that
physically showing a student how to perform a specific procedure during an experiment
is most efficient, even if the student does not perform that procedure him/herself during
lab. “If you just explain language and ask them to do this and that it will be very time
consuming so I just… help the students do part of the experiment”. Although Xin is very
eager to help students, he does not feel that eye contact is important in teaching because
the students have to focus on what they have to learn and the lecturer should focus on
what s/he has to present. He therefore does not recognize that in the U.S. academic
setting, eye contact is a way to show your students you are interested in what they have to
say and a way of gauging their understanding of what you are trying to get them to learn.
Even without looking into their eyes and recognizing other non-verbal cues, Xin believes
that he always notices when his students do not understand something. He feels that for
the most part, his students are comfortable coming to him and verbally expressing their
concerns or needs.
In relation to direct interaction with his students, Xin tries to be very informal
with them and very friendly. He feels that students are more willing to accept what you
have to say if an instructor is friendly. Although it is not common for there to be a lot of
60
discussion during class in China, Xin believes that discussion is a necessity in scientific
research.
I think there should be a lot of discussion in the classroom. Students are
waiting to express their ideas and share in the teacher‟s knowledge… you
just have to come up with crazy ideas, you try to put it into practice, and
there you can develop something yourself. If it‟s just follow what is
originally founded, you cannot do anything.

To earn students‟ respect, Xin feels that it is important to show students that you are
smarter than them; solve problems that they cannot, that‟s how you earn respect. When
responding to student questions, Xin feels that you have to be more detailed than the
students actually need, or they won‟t understand all of what you want them to learn, a
very typical Chinese, indirect approach. He does recognize that Americans are very
direct and therefore prefer a more efficient and to-the-point response to their questions.
He notices them getting impatient with him at times.
When asked about how he views the American style of teaching, Xin responded
that he feels the U.S. style is better for university education, but the Chinese way is better
for elementary and secondary education. His reasoning for this is that university
education in the U.S. promotes open discussion, individual thought, and deeper analysis,
but this is not necessary in elementary and secondary education because you are
supposed to be learning the rules of the world.

61
I think for higher education it‟s better than Chinese education. But for
elementary education it‟s not as efficient as Chinese education…
[Because teachers in the U.S.] just want you to ask a question of your own
and to think for yourself, and that‟s very good in higher education it
seems. You have to come up with ideas that you want to work with. But
in elementary education, well, you just have to know the rules of the
world. It cannot be changed, no matter what you want to do. So, if they
will just ask some ridiculous questions or say that about the elementary
rules of the world, well, you cannot proceed as efficiently.

Although Xin prefers the U.S. teaching style for tertiary education, he doesn‟t feel
his teaching style is “American”. “It‟s still a bit Chinese,” he says. He also does
not feel his use of the English language interferes with his students‟ ability to
understand and learn from him.
Gang – Gang is a first year graduate student in Mathematics from China who has
studied in both Singapore and England, but has no previous experience in the U.S. He
conducts a recitation for Math 2A, Probability and Statistics. Gang‟s first language is
Mandarin and he studied English for nine years before attending college in Singapore and
completing a master‟s degree in England. Since Gang had attended schools where the
instructional language is English prior to applying to his graduate program at The
Institute, he was not required to take the TOEFL test.
Gang recognizes that since he has attended university in both Singapore and
England, that his accent is not a typically Chinese. He receives comments from people
quite often asking him where he is from because he of course looks Asian, but his accent
is more British than anything else. Gang feels that since he has such a British influence
on his linguistic style, that makes it easier for students to understand him in the
classroom. He also does not believe he makes very many mistakes while speaking,
62
grammatical or pronunciation. He feels that communication breakdowns are not due to
his English, but do to whether or not a student comes prepared to class. “If the student
comes unprepared then there‟s certainly a communication problem because the student
won‟t know what I‟m talking about. I think if he comes prepared, then it‟s OK, they
more or less understand.”
Gang does admit though, that he gets very different feedback from students at The
Institute than he did at Cambridge when he tries to explain mathematical concepts.
At Cambridge almost everyone that I met said I had very good
communication skills in terms of explaining mathematical ideas to others.
Here it‟s not so. I don‟t understand why. I think it‟s because I get too
used to the ideas that I kind of forgot how to translate it into a way, how to
express it in a way that the novices would understand.

He also admits that he expects more from his students than they are probably used to
providing. He expects students to tell him if they have a question or do not understand
something. He does not believe eye contact is important and thus does not care to look
for non-verbal cues from students. “What they are taking home is not my personality,
they are taking home the materials, so I don‟t think [eye contact] is important.”
Therefore, if he does not receive explicit verbal feedback when he asks if there are any
questions, he will just move on, he does not feel it is important to scan the class for non-
verbal cues, it is the students‟ responsibility to speak up if they do not understand
something.
Another observation Gang has made that has influenced how much effort he puts
into making sure students understand all important concepts is that the students do not
seem to care.
63
Because they just don‟t care. One is they don‟t care, another is they have
too much homework. They can‟t be bothered to really find out „why
would I want to do this?‟. They just pass the exam, get a grade, and move
on… I mean, you can just sit through a course, get high scores, but
understand totally nothing about the course, the methodology, or why we
want this thing.

Since Gang believes his students are only extrinsically motivated, he feels that to put
more effort into elaborating on important concepts would be a waste of time. To him, the
most important thing is to make sure every problem is written on the blackboard so that
students can “get a feel for it”. If he writes it on the board, the students get information
both visually and orally, and then they are always writing everything he does, so they are
also physically retaining the information and have those problems to refer to after class.
According to Gang, that is when students should be getting the answers to their questions,
when they are home and reviewing what they wrote down in class.
Other than responding to explicit student questions, Gang does not feel it‟s
necessary to interact at all with his students during class, only present problem sets. At
the same time, he feels he is not very formal with his students. He describes himself as
easygoing, but does not feel it is necessary for an instructor to present him/herself as
friendly. What is important, is to gain the students‟ respect by “showing that I‟m more
intelligent than them”. While fielding questions from students, he doesn‟t think that the
teacher should be very detailed, s/he should only give the skeleton of the argument and
then let the students do the rest. “If they do not understand that, there is no point in
giving them the details. Because even if you give them the details they still wouldn‟t
understand and that would sometimes, could, they receive too much information that
messes things up”.
64
When asked about how he views the American style of teaching, Gang contrasted
his thoughts on the U.S., British, and Chinese systems. Although he feels that the U.S.
and British systems are quite similar, lectures at Cambridge were much more organized
than here in the U.S. The U.S. seems to be much more individualized and the way
information is presented depends more on the instructor than an over-arching academic
expectation. China is much more rigid and very exam oriented; teachers are much
stricter with classroom management and the promotion of classroom discussions is
minimal. Gang does not feel any one style of presenting information is better than
another, “I think it‟s just my teaching style. I don‟t recognize with any other cultural
backgrounds”.
Jie – Jie is another Chinese ITA who is studying Electrical Engineering and is in
the second year of his PhD program at The Institute. Prior to arriving at The Institute in
September of 2006, Jie had never been to the U.S. He is the teaching assistant for a
graduate level course in Control and Dynamical Systems, CDS140A, Introduction to
Applied Dynamics. This class is open to both graduate and upper level undergraduate
students, therefore there is a mix of both levels of students attending Jie‟s recitation
section. Jie‟s first language is Mandarin and has studied English, French, and German.
His knowledge of French and German is very basic, but he studied English for 11 years,
so his fluency is highest in English, therefore it can be considered his second language.
Jie scored 640 of 677 on the paper-based TOEFL test.
Jie admits that he does have a strong accent, but doesn‟t believe it is a Chinese
accent. He‟s not sure exactly what kind of accent it is, but believes this does impede
65
students from comprehending what he says. He feels that students understand what he
says, but not the meaning behind the words/sentences he uses. He offers an explanation
to be that it is the course material, not his use of English. He also admits that he does not
pay much attention to his use of grammar while speaking and likely makes a lot of
grammar errors, but not while writing. This is because in China, he did not have much
opportunity to practice using English orally. “You know, in China, like, there is only one
teacher for an English class and there are like fifty students sitting in that class so there
isn‟t an opportunity to speak out”.
Jie finds that American students like the TA to give as much detailed information
as possible about homework assignments. He would prefer to teach students how to
think and believes that when it comes to homework and being prepared for class, the
students should take that responsibility upon themselves. Although Jie recognizes that
American undergraduate students are generally more motivated by grades than by
acquiring a deeper understanding of the subject, he feels that all students would learn best
if they learn the same way he does, by getting the general picture from the instructor, then
figuring everything else out on his own. “I presumably think they will learn the best in
the same way as I would. I mean, this might be good if they really hold the same opinion
as I do. But if they don‟t, then it‟s a very bad thing.” As a result, Jie tries to get students
to think deeper by asking them questions that he does not feel are too difficult so they
still feel confident then, the students sometimes try to challenge each other and a deeper
discussion develops. Jie avoids asking questions that are too difficult to prevent from
embarrassing any one student in front of the entire class. When he feels that there is an
66
important point to make that may be too difficult to understand, he often answers the
question himself rather than opening it up for student discussion.
Since Jie is the teaching assistant for a graduate level course, he does not see the
blackboard as a compensation strategy for any difficulties he has with expressing himself
in English. Instead, it is the students who are solving problems on the board, so the
blackboard serves as a way to help students work together to solve difficult problems as
well as help them develop their scientific presentation skills. This is where Jie feels that
eye contact is important, he makes a point to watch student faces while their classmate is
solving a problem on the board. He says that this helps him understand whether or not
the students understand the material, because in China, students never express their
confusion or needs and if they want something, they will never say it directly. In addition
to helping students solve problems on their own, Jie tries to interact personally as much
with his students as possible, but has not been successful. He‟s not sure why, a
possibility may be that he considers himself to be a very casual person, but during class
he tries to be a little more formal. He is a bit more formal because that is what he learned
from an internet discussion board where Chinese instructors in the U.S. compare teaching
approaches and offer advice to new instructors.
OK, I‟m actually a very casual person, but since it‟s a class I intentionally
try to make it more formal. Because I heard people, well people told me
advice that, I mean, people suggested to me to keep a personal distance
between student and instructors… It‟s a pretty typical Chinese thing… I
was told to personally avoid being over kind to students. Otherwise, so if
the students ask for extensions for homework every week it‟s pretty bad.

In addition to formality of interaction, Jie believes that an instructor must always
appear smarter than his/her students without presenting him/herself as being superior to
67
them (e.g. being fair, but strict). This, he states, is the way a teacher earns respect from
his students, thus promoting better communication between them. “…they will judge
you whether you are smart and they won‟t respect you if you, if they found out that you
don‟t know much more than they do. Of course you have to be smart… Generally, in
China, teacher is adult and students are slaves”. Jie has recognized that in the U.S.,
teachers have more communication with students on a more informal level, but he is still
trying to figure out how to do that while still remaining distant, as his Chinese colleagues
recommend. He admits that both his English abilities and cultural background hinder his
adaptation to U.S. academic expectations. As he learns to express himself more clearly
in English, he believes the cultural adjustment and setting his own boundaries with
student interaction will become easier. He is definitely making a conscious effort to
adapt to the American way, “because it‟s America”.
Hubert – Hubert is from Singapore. His PhD program is in Chemistry and this is
his first year at The Institute. Before attending The Institute, Hubert received his
bachelor‟s degree from the University of Pennsylvania, therefore he has 4 years of
experience as a student in the U.S. university system. Hubert conducts a recitation for
Chemistry 1B, the second general chemistry class required for all freshman students at
The Institute. Hubert speaks a few languages, Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese, and
English. Since in Singapore, the language of instruction is English, he considers his first
language to be a dialect of English and thus was not required to take the TOEFL exam.
Since Hubert‟s first language is English and he has been studying in the U.S. for
more than four years, he does not believe he has any language issues that would interfere
68
with anyone‟s comprehension of anything he says. He believes that his accent is very
close to SAE and the only issue he finds with his language ability in English is that
sometimes his brain works faster than he can speak. “…sometimes I get flustered when I
try to speak and my thoughts go faster than my lips, so I skip words… I think it‟s partly
because I am standing in front of people and I‟m trying to say it clearly, and then I have
to watch the time, yeah, it‟s just that I think”.
Hubert is very conscious of what he does in the classroom and tries to model his
instructional approaches after the professors he felt were most effective at the University
of Pennsylvania. He begins with a summary of the previous week, introduces the main
objectives for the current week, and then works on specific homework problems that
students are struggling with. Although he tries to model what he views as the „American
style‟ of organizing a lesson, he finds that students at The Institute are not nearly as
responsive as he experienced during his undergraduate studies. This makes it difficult for
him to know if the students understand what he is trying to explain and whether or not
they are ready to move on to the next problem or concept.
It‟s hard to tell here in [The Institute] because they‟re so quiet. But I
usually ask them, is it cool? Is everyone cool? And wait for a while and if
no one protests I‟m just going to go to the next thing. I just look at their
faces, if they‟re completely blank, they‟re lost. If they‟re completely
bored, then they‟re ready to go on.

In order to reinforce his verbal explanations, Hubert writes a lot on the whiteboard
and uses props, such as his body or arm to illustrate three-dimensional phenomena. For
example, he has used his body to illustrate the shape of a carbon atom. “Visuals serve the
purpose to clarify an explanation more than just the explanation itself”. He feels that
69
making concepts fun or more personable helps students retain information better. Eye
contact is also very important while interacting with students. For Hubert, maintaining
consistent eye contact leaves a channel of communication open and helps him scan the
class for looks of confusion or affirmation. “I think it helps to see what their faces look
like, because sometimes they might be frowning if they don‟t understand something and
you can see it on their face.” When he gets deeper questions from students and
discussion increases, then he knows students are understanding the material.
Hubert is very informal with his students, “but not to the point of becoming
chums”, so they are comfortable coming to him with questions. He makes a point to
allow time in his class for questions and tells his students that the only stupid question is
the one not asked. He explains that not asking a question is stupid because then they will
not know that information when they need it for a midterm or final. Encouraging
questions is Hubert‟s way of making sure the responsibility of learning remains on the
student. He sees his role as only a guide, the student should do all the real work. As a
guide, respect is earned by helping students out, spending time with them when they need
it, and making yourself available in whatever way appropriate.
Since Hubert originally came from Singapore, a place where rote learning is the
norm, he feels that coming to study in the U.S. was a very sharp contrast. He recognizes
that there is not a clear divide between teacher and student in the U.S. and feels that this
was not a difficult transition for him because he learns better in this system. This is why
he has made a conscious effort to adapt his teaching style to his view of what the U.S.
expectations are, if a more interactive, open environment is easier for him to learn in,
70
then it must be for his students at The Institute as well. Another observation he has made
is that instructional expectations at The Institute are very different from the University of
Pennsylvania. “[The Institute] is a very different place from where I was. The, I don‟t
know, I guess the emphasis on teaching here is not as high as in other colleges. Not a
great thing, but, you know, I deal… [The Institute] students are brilliant, they‟re all way
smart, but I think it does kind of hurt them somewhat the way it‟s taught”. He does admit
though, that even though he speaks English with near-native fluency and he is
encountering new expectations from his students than those at the University of
Pennsylvania, he continues to adapt and to learn to teach as he goes along.
Abhishek – Abhishek came to The Institute from India in September of 2006 to
begin his master‟s program in Electrical Engineering and is about to graduate (the
master‟s programs at The Institute are generally 9 month programs). He is a teaching
assistant for Physics 3, a lab that introduces experimental techniques to undergraduates
that are used for research labs and in physical science. This is the first time Abhishek has
been in the U.S., but he does have experience being a teaching assistant while completing
his bachelor‟s degree in India. He scored 283 of 300 on the computer-based TOEFL
exam. Abhishek‟s second language is Hindi.
English being his first language, Abhishek does not believe he has much of an
accent, but recognizes that sometimes he speaks too fast. He feels that this is typical of
people from India.

71
So I didn‟t notice this when I was in India, but when I came here I began
to listen to the Americans speak, and then you listen to an Indian speak
and see how fast they speak… So I try to go over things in a very slow
and efficient manner so that they know what I‟m talking about and they
can differentiate things from other things. Many times there are scientific
terms and they have to listen well to know what I‟m talking about.

So when students ask him to repeat what he said, he tries to slow down his speech and
explains the same thing as many times as he needs to get his students to understand. He
is not totally sure why he has to repeat himself so much, but recognizes that it could be
his rate of speech, accent, or it may be just the difficulty of the material itself.
In addition to how quickly he speaks, Abhishek also recognizes that there are a lot
of expressions in India that are not used in the U.S. He feels he is making perfect sense,
at least if he was in India, but recognizes when he uses a word or phrase that is not
common in the U.S. by the way his students look at him. “Something about his face
would give him away”. But he remains conscious about the expressions he uses as well
as his rate of speech, Abhishek believes that his students always understand what he says,
“If they are paying attention, they will understand what I‟m saying”.
He talks about his teaching philosophy as being, “Make sure everyone
understands you. If someone doesn‟t want to understand it, that‟s OK, it‟s their wish.
But at the end of the day you have to do your job. And if someone wants additional help,
I‟m always there”. In relation to his students‟ learning style, he takes a very hands-off
approach. He finds that most of his students do not come to lab on time or prepared, so
instead of lecturing, he leaves them to work on their own and when they get stuck, he
helps get them get going in the right direction. He can tell when they get stuck on an
experiment because their hands do not move or they stare at something for a very long
72
time. According to Abhishek, they often they do not ask for help because they are shy, so
he will take the initiative by going to their work station to see how they are doing. This
usually helps students feel more comfortable asking questions, then eventually they will
take the initiative instead. Another observation he has made is that his students will
pretend they understand something when they really do not. This becomes evident when
they get to the experiment, so Abhishek waits until that point to explain something again
if necessary.
As far as interacting with students is concerned, Abhishek says that he is very
informal and friendly, but feels that the students get rude when he has to “put them in
line”. He feels that he may have become too informal, to the point that students think he
does not check their homework, so some of them stop turning their lab books in.
Therefore, he is learning the boundaries and is realizing how important it is to make sure
they are clear so students do not take advantage of your kindness. In the end, the most
important thing is to make sure the students “get the job done”. Therefore, Abhishek has
learned that earning enough respect to make sure students complete all tasks on time
requires explicit boundaries and fairness. This also helps prevent any communication
problems, whether they be linguistic or pedagogical.
Aside from his admittance to having a big ego, Abhishek believes that he is a very
good teacher because he feels that he spends more time with students than is expected at
The Institute. He does not feel that there is a strong emphasis put on quality instruction
there because, “In [The Institute] they only have the best, so even if you don‟t teach them
they‟ll learn it themselves, which is the attitude of many teachers here; from what I‟ve
73
seen anyway”. Abhishek is more accustomed to the teaching style in India where he says
that instructors explain a lot better and there is a specific book assigned to each course.
So, even if you do not understand what was explained in class, you have a book to refer
back to. Abhishek‟s experience at the Institute is that the quality of teaching is random,
very individualized, with no standard approach; there are no books consistently assigned
to one course, it is the preference of the professor in charge as to what materials they use
and sometimes they are helpful, sometimes they are not. He adds that since the U.S.
system promotes students to the next academic level based on final course grades instead
of year-end exams that encompass all material that should have been learned (as in
India), students do not seem to care as much about the quality of their professor as long
as they get the information they need to “get an A”.
Ceslav – Ceslav is from Slovakia and is studying Economics. This is his first
time in the U.S. and has been a graduate student at The Institute since September, 2006.
Economics 11 is his first ever teaching assignment, this class is an introduction to
Economics for undergraduate students. Ceslav speaks several languages, his first
language is Slovak and his second language is English, which he studied for 16 years. He
also speaks Czech, German, French, Latin, and Finnish. His TOEFL score is 287 of 300
on the computer-based test.
Ceslav does not believe he has a “non-English” accent, therefore he believes he is
always understood by his students. By “non-English”, he means that his accent is British,
therefore he speaks just like a native English speaker. He does not recognize how
different the British accent, use of grammar, and terminology can be from SAE. He
74
recognizes that American slang does exist, but makes a point not to try to use it for fear
of using it incorrectly.
Since his students do not speak much in class, Ceslav tries to look for non-verbal
cues such as head nodding or lack of eye contact to know if they understand him. The
sign that students are ready to move on to the next concept or problem is when they get
the previous problem right. He admits that he often gets off track when explaining a
concept or problem, but he thinks detours are important because it usually brings in other
relevant information and promotes discussion. “And usually when I get side-tracked
from what we are discussing right now, like a free association, I think they like it”.
Although the students do not always respond the way he would like, Ceslav tries
his best to promote discussion so that the students will start processing information on
their own, or at least with each other. “Whenever I ask a question, it seems I am talking
to a wall at least, but they have improved some since the beginning of the school year”.
He tries to be informal with them during discussions to help them feel more comfortable
participating, but becomes strict when students start asking for extensions and grade
changes. He thinks being friendly is very important, but when students try to challenge
his authority or knowledge in class, he admits, “…time permitting, they should show
[their argument] to me or try to argue what is better or given what assumptions. But if I
know they are wrong, I don‟t want to waste time and I try to convince them with
attitude”.
Ceslav believes that he should not be doing the whole job for his students. He
likes to take student questions and turn them back on the class for discussion. He admits,
75
sometimes he knows the answer, and sometimes he does not, but most of the time, he
does not want to answer the questions too quickly, he wants the students to process the
information together first and come to the conclusions themselves. “I‟m not there to do
the whole job for them, they should be working”. Ceslav does not say why, only that he
has found that his students either come to class unprepared and unable to participate in
discussions or they only have a superficial understanding of the course material. This is
why he tries to get them to think deeper and come to their own conclusions, rather than
just hand-feeding them the answers. He has also found through his own experience as a
graduate student in the U.S., that the U.S. system is more focused on homework, writing
essays, and being more active in the classroom than in Slovakia.
Pavle – Pavle came to The Institute from Serbia in September of 2007. He is a
graduate student in physics and this is his first time in the U.S. Pavle is the teaching
assistant for Physics 2A, Thermodynamics and Waves. The term he participated in this
study was his first term at The Institute, but not his first ever teaching assignment. Pavle
taught high school math in Serbia. His first language is Serbian, but Pavle also speaks
English and French. He studied English for 8 years and scored 104 of 120 on the
internet-based TOEFL test.
Pavle has been told by some of his peers that he does not have an accent at all,
and by others that he does, so he is a bit confused and unsure. He finds that most
everyone understands him, so if he does have an accent, it does not interfere with
communication. “I always feel like they understand me. I always get the impression that
they understood what I said but then that‟s probably not the case all the time”. While
76
teaching, Pavle relies on verbal responses from his students to know whether or not they
understand a concept. Since he teaches a very small section, he feels that the students are
comfortable verbally stating that they need something repeated or elaborated. On the
other hand, Pavle talks a lot about how quiet the students are and that this
unresponsiveness is very common at The Institute, so it is difficult to know whether or
not your class is ready to move on to the next problem. He does try to read their facial
expressions, but does not feel that he is very good at it. His compensation strategy for
this unresponsiveness is to, “…try to guess which part of [the problem] might have been
confusing for them and go over that part again and if possible find a slightly different
approach of explaining the same thing”.
Formality is not something Pavle pays a lot of attention to, but he does feel that
there is “some level of appropriate interaction” between teacher and student. When asked
what “appropriate interaction” means, his response was that he does not have much
interaction with his students but being friendly is important.
I try to be very friendly. But then my idea of very friendly might not be
the same, as Americans tend to be really polite and friendly and I can‟t
probably reach that point. Well, I don‟t know, I mean, I‟m just saying that
Americans can sometimes be very open and sometimes very informal and
sometimes I don‟t know. I mean, I‟m not that kind of person, that‟s not
the way I express myself.

Pavle‟s goal as a teacher is to pass knowledge and believes he earns respect from
his students by tying to be a good teaching assistant; by trying to explain concepts and
problems in a clear way and trying to make sure his students feel their time is not wasted
in his class. In order to make his class worth-while, Pavle tries to adjust his teaching
style to what he thinks his students expect; informality, directness, more class discussion,
77
questions posed by students during lectures, and more of a focus on homework and
grades than learning the deeper concepts. He admits that he still feels uncomfortable with
some of these expectations, but is trying to adapt.
Sometimes it involves more communication with students; more
discussions. In general, I‟m not used to, for example in Serbia we don‟t
ask questions during lecture… So that‟s something new for me.
Honestly, I‟m still not used to that, I don‟t ask questions during lecture…
Another big difference… is homework size. At my university we didn‟t
get almost any homework or take-home final exam… Another thing is
that, for example, whenever they come to office hours they don‟t come
because they have some general questions. It‟s most often because they
have a specific question regarding the homework… For me, office hourse
were a place to go to when I have some general questions, something I
wondered about and didn‟t understand.

Pavle has also found that students in the U.S. are able to get good grades without
even understanding the material.
I know that sometimes students just take, sometimes they just take some
formulas from the book and they use them and they don‟t really
understand why this formula is applicable and the other one is not
applicable, but they just throw it all in and they get some results and often
it‟s correct. Often it‟s not correct, but they get enough points and so I
don‟t, I mean, they get graded that way, but it‟s not a good way to learn so
I think that‟s the most important thing.

Addi – Although Addi attended grades 4-8 in the U.S. academic system, the
majority of his education was in his home country, Israel. He is a PhD student in physics
and this is his first year studying at The Institute. Addi is also a teaching assistant for the
Physics 3 lab, his first U.S. teaching assignment. He taught for a short time at a high
school in Israel, where the language of instruction is Hebrew. Addi has never taught a
class in English, although he is very fluent since he learned English at a very young age.
He also achieved a perfect score on the internet-based TOEFL test.
78
Addi recognizes he has heavy accent in English and tries to compensate for that
while teaching by repeating himself, speaking slowly, and trying to over-enunciate every
word. He also knows that he makes simple “foreigner mistakes”, such as writing too
formally or using a word that is grammatically correct, but not used in normal speech.
Nonetheless, he believes that neither his accent nor “foreigner mistakes” prohibit his
students from understanding him in class. He uses the blackboard as a compensation
method just in case something he says may be unclear or incomplete.
Knowing when students understand something and are ready to move on to the
next concept or problem is not too much of a challenge for Addi. He admits that they do
not always verbally express their confusion and that sometimes they say they understand
when they do not. Therefore, he watches for little “hints” such as facial expressions,
being able to reconstruct an experiment from their notes, and looking directly into their
eyes. He believes that eye contact is very important, both in relation to knowing whether
or not a student understands what he is explaining and as a teaching technique. “Because
if you‟re staring right at a student, then he tends to listen and not fall asleep. Plus, it
probably does help them understand what I‟m saying because they can read my lips, and
it works the other way around too, because you can kind of see if the student understands
what you‟re saying”.
Addi has found that good instructors are more like facilitators, they are informal,
friendly, and repeat themselves several times, even when they do not have to, and they
use tricks (such as jokes or funny drawings) to “put an exclamation point on something”.
As a result, he tries to use these same methods when he is teaching. Also, since Addi
79
learns best by reading and group discussion, he tries to encourage his students to do both.
He has found though, that most students will not do the readings and they expect him to
go over them in class. This unpreparedness also results in the students not following the
instructions that he has written down for them. They do not read these instructions before
coming to the lab, and therefore expect Addi to go through the experiment step by step
with them. He doesn‟t want to reward the students for not doing their work, so he
encourages them to collaborate in class and figure out the experiments themselves.
The best way to make them learn is to have them do so… So, in the
laboratory I tell them, „you can collaborate as much as you want, and you
can go and watch other people experiment as much as you want, but you
have to go and actually put the resister on the circuit board, because if you
put the resistor on the circuit board, then you‟re going to remember that
there‟s a resistor.

Addi does not think there is a typical American style of teaching. He has
experienced a very wide range of instructional styles while studying and attending
conferences in the U.S. He has observed though, that Americans tend to be very open
and promote a more conversational style of interaction in the classroom. He says that this
is the same for Israeli instructors, but in Israel, there are both Russian and Israeli
professors and both have a very different style of teaching. The Israeli style is very close
to how classes are managed in the U.S. (e.g. more informal, more open discussion, more
individual thought), in contrast, Addi says that the Russian professors in Israel are much
stricter, more demanding, and they are not as structured, so they often go on tangents
instead of focusing on the main goals of the class. “…lecturers in Israel are either Israeli
or Russian. There are a lot of Russians and the styles are very, very different. Israeli
lecturers are like Americans, it‟s a very similar culture, from every perspective, not just
80
teaching”. Addi prefers the U.S./Israeli style of instruction and thus does his best to
promote a more interactive, informal environment for his students. He believes this is
working because he has received a lot of positive feedback from his students.
Chris – Chris is a PhD student in Applied Physics from Vancouver, Canada. He
arrived at The Institute September of 2006 and he is the teaching assistant for Math 2B,
Differential Equations, a lower level undergraduate mathematics class. This is Chris‟
first ever teaching assignment. Being from Vancouver, his first language is English,
therefore he was not required to take the TOEFL exam.
Since Chris is from Vancouver, Canada, he speaks SAE and therefore his fluency
in English is not an issue for him, but he does recognize that a strong foreign accent could
distract students from paying attention in class. Therefore, when students do not
understand him in class, he believes it is because the material itself is challenging and
thus tries to make sure he explains a problem as clearly as possible before moving on to
the next one. He admits that his students are very quiet, therefore knowing when to move
on is very hard to gauge, but he feels he can usually tell when they are confused. He
mostly looks at the expressions on their faces and “just gets the vibe” when they do not
understand something. He also feels that eye contact is important otherwise the students
will “tune out” and stop listening. Chris also admits that sometimes he misses non-verbal
cues of confusion because when he asks if everyone understands something or not, if he
gets no verbal response, he will just move on.
Although Chris considers himself pretty informal and easy-going as an instructor,
he admits that he consciously does not promote much interaction in his class because he
81
is teaching a freshman core class where not every student is a math major. He finds that
few students are interested in more than getting a good grade. Therefore, he does not put
as much effort into making the class interesting (e.g. challenging) for them as opposed to
if he was teaching a bunch of students who were just as passionate as he about
mathematics.
I don‟t think that would be completely appreciated by some people in the
class, cause you know there is this element of, „I‟m in this class „cause I
have to be‟... But really, I think I have a responsibility… to just cover
your bases and basically teach what the curriculum says because in a
sense, it‟s like you can‟t go too far beyond that because you‟re going to
tick off people who are basically just there because they need to be and it‟s
something like cause they want to go be a doctor or something.

Chris believes that respect for a teacher is, to a certain extent, already there.
Although he claims not to worry about it very much, he believes that to maintain that
respect, it is important to make sure they always feel that you can help them learn. “My
perspective on it is if they don‟t know something, they‟ll respect you if you know it and
you can help them learn”.
Being from Canada, Chris says that he has not experienced any teaching style
other than the U.S. methods, so he has nothing to compare it to. He feels that the
Canadian instructional style is the same as in the U.S. and since he teaches in the same
manner that he learns, he feels his teaching style could be improved, but it is fine for the
position he is in. “I think, like, a certain level I‟m fine. I don‟t think… I could honestly
be better, but I don‟t think I‟m hurting them by teaching them this way”. He does feel
that since this is his first teaching position, he will improve with time and admits, “I don‟t
always know how long to spend on something, I don‟t know when to turn around and sort
82
of… I don‟t know how much to interact or what‟s sort of optimal, because I haven‟t had
that much time to experiment”.
Summary of ITAs’ Linguistic Skills – Although most of the ITA‟s recognize that
they have an accent, none feel that having an accent makes it difficult for their students to
understand what they say. They all believe they know grammar very well, but admit that
they make a few mistakes when speaking, but not when writing since while writing, they
have time to think about what words to use and how to structure sentences. Speaking
generally does not allow for this. Xin admits that he is not very fluent in English, since in
China they do not get a lot of practice speaking, but feels that he uses enough non-verbal
gestures to make the students understand what he means. The rest of the ITAs recognize
typical second language errors, but do not believe their use of the English language
interferes in any way with their students comprehension of the information they present
in class.
Summary of ITAs’ Instructional Practices – After interviewing all nine ITAs,
several themes emerged. All three ITAs from China mentioned that their favorite teacher
was “strict”, and thus felt that they should maintain a firm set of rules in their classrooms.
Almost all of the nine ITAs interviewed also talked about how important it is to have an
instructor with strong knowledge of their field, or one who is “smart”. In relation to
teaching philosophy, five of the nine (this includes the three Chinese ITAs, Abhishek,
and Ceslav) discussed specifically that it is the student‟s responsibility to learn the
material, a teacher is only there to present the larger picture and to be a guide to the more
specific details. Four of the nine ITAs prefer to learn the bigger picture from their
83
instructor first, then figure out the details on their own (Xin, Jie, Abhishek, and Pavle).
Nonetheless, six of them prefer to learn by themselves (all three Chinese, as well as
Abhishek, Ceslav, and Pavle).
Although most of the ITAs recognize that students in the U.S. have different
learning styles (both from themselves and among each other), four of them specifically
said that U.S. students would learn best if they “learned like me” (all three Chinese ITAs
and the Singaporean ITA). Based on their responses, only one of them (Hubert) seemed
to recognize that their way of learning may not be the best way for their students and that
it is important to be aware of this when teaching and adjust your teaching style to your
students learning styles. The three Chinese ITAs seemed to disregard that idea and felt
that their way of learning was the best way and wished their students would adjust to that
expectation.
All of the ITAs find that their students rarely come to class prepared and therefore
expect to receive more detailed information than the ITAs feel is necessary during class.
For them, the classroom is where you present the basic concepts, expect the students to
do their reading and problem sets, and then build on what should have been learned
individually between classes during the next class. Almost all of the ITAs talk
specifically about how their students are only motivated by getting good grades because
that is all they need to do to graduate. They find that very few of their students are
intrinsically motivated and that most of them can get good grades without really
understanding the material.

84
Expert Observations
Expert observations were conducted by the researcher during week 3 and week 8
of the term each ITA was teaching for the first time at The Institute. Observations
collected both qualitative data and numerical rankings so that they can be analyzed more
comprehensively to both the student and ITA perspectives. In a general review of
observation data collected, there was very little change in ITA language ability and
instructional approaches between observations. In addition, general linguistic and
instructional trends were observed, which will be discussed after individual ITA findings
are outlined.
Xin – Although Xin is understandable, it is very clear that he has not had a lot of
experience speaking in English. He has a very strong accent, he uses very simple
sentences, and does not have accurate intonation and rhythm when he tries to explain
experimental procedures to his students. Xin‟s pronunciation limitations are typical for a
Chinese speaker; he has a hard time distinguishing between the /l/ and /r/ phonemes and
has difficulty pronouncing the /θ/ sound. Speakers of Chinese generally are not able to
place their tongue in the appropriate position to correctly make these sounds.
Consequently, words such as „friendly‟ and „informal‟ are pronounced as /fwundwi/,
/әnfomaw/. In addition words such as „think‟ could be pronounced four ways, /tink/,
/fink/, /dink/, or /sink/. In addition, it is difficult to hear the difference between certain
hard and soft vowel sounds, such as /i/ and /ɪ/. Xin often uses only the /ɪ/ sound when
pronouncing words such as „sheet‟ and „beach‟, which could inadvertently offend
someone.
85
In addition to pronunciation, although Xin‟s grammatical knowledge is quite
good, he uses very simple sentences while speaking. Although these sentences are for the
most part grammatically correct, they are often too simple to appropriately convey
complex information. For example, when Xin explains how to use a machine in the lab,
instead of saying, “It is very important that you remember to lock the handle before you
turn the machine on, or you will break it and no one will be able to complete their
experiment before your results are due,” he says, “Lock the handle or you will break it.
[pause] That is bad.” Important information is thus left out and students do not get the
detailed explanation they need to remember appropriate procedures and consequences.
The long pauses in the middle and between sentences are also distracting. When Xin
does not know how to express something, he tries to compensate by pointing and/or just
doing that piece of the experiment for a student. When Xin does speak, he is
comprehensible, but his explanations are simple and incomplete. Although he is often
successful in getting his point across, students are often asking him for clarification and
try a few times to complete his sentences for him before they say what Xin intended to
tell them.
Xin is a co-teaching assistant in this lab. The other teaching assistant is an
American female and she does all the announcements. Xin never speaks to more than
one person at a time, and does more pointing than speaking. By completing pieces of the
experiments for the students instead of explaining procedures to them while they perform
the experiment, he is hindering their learning process; they will likely forget that step
when it comes time to review the experiment and/or perform it for an exam. Also,
86
students often look confused when he tries to help them, especially a student who was
trying to analyze a chemical on the computer. Instead of explaining the proper
procedure, Xin pointed at the screen and then pointed to the procedure in the lab manual
and never made eye contact with the student. Very little verbal information was
exchanged.
During the week 3 observation, very few students came to Xin with questions.
They would go to the American teaching assistant first, and only go to him with questions
if she was not available. Xin therefore, had a lot of time to wander to each fume hood
and observe what the students were doing. He hovered over the few who did ask him
questions and would sometimes notice them struggling. Instead of asking them if they
need help, he would just reach into the fume hood and physically perform the step they
were having problems with. The students did not seem to mind, but this approach is
questionable as an instructional technique. When returning to his lab on week eight, Xin
was much more interactive with students and was able to verbally explain processes more
often. This time, there was about an equal amount of pointing and doing steps for
students as there was verbal explanations. More students came to him with questions
instead of the American teaching assistant and he was very conscious of making sure he
checked on everyone, not just the few students who would come to him. Students still
seemed confused at times, but Xin‟s assistance was easier to follow and more complete
that during week 3.
Gang – It is evident that Gang has studied at universities where English is the
language of instruction. The only typical Chinese pronunciation issue he has is a very
87
slight difficulty differentiating the /l/ and /r/ sounds. Otherwise, his accent is more
British than Chinese and he is able to use grammatically complex sentences while he
explains problems to his students. He speaks at a very comprehensible rate, therefore,
there is no reason for his language ability to interfere with his perceived instructional
ability.
Gang presents information in a very organized manner, he comes prepared with
notes and begins with a review of homework problems and then introduces new problems
that are related to what students were supposed to learn in lecture. He makes transitions
well and therefore makes it very clear when he is moving on to a new concept or
problem. They only aspect of Gang‟s presentation that was difficult to follow was his use
of the blackboard. He wrote one problem in several different places on the board and
would sometimes confuse himself when attempting to refer back to a previous step.
During week three, Gang had very little interaction with his students and almost
no eye contact or facial expressions that might indicate that he was making any attempts
to make sure students understood each problem he solved on the board. If he wasn‟t
looking on the board, he was looking down and rarely performed verbal comprehension
checks. If he did ask them if they understood something, there was no reaction at all
from the students. Gang did not attempt to promote any discussion about the problems he
presented either. He did not give students a chance to ask questions, but when one
student did get a question in, he asked for clarification, wrote an answer on the board and
then asked if it made sense. She didn‟t respond verbally nor did she change her facial
88
expression, but Gang moved on to the next problem anyway. Most of the students left
before the class was half finished.
There was a bit more interaction during week eight, Gang had more eye contact
with his students and performed many more comprehension checks. This time, he also
watched for non-verbal cues and recognized some, but not all. When he did recognize
non-verbal cues, he would elaborate a bit and then move on, without making sure that
students understood the second explanation. When Gang performed verbal
comprehension checks, he often did not allow time for students to respond, he just asked
and then moved on without looking at them. He still did not promote discussion or
interaction other than questions, if students were able to get one in before he continued to
the next concept or problem.
Jie – Although Jie presents similar pronunciation, grammatical, and fluency issues
to Xin, Jie seems to be more aware of them. He speaks slowly and makes a point to
carefully articulate words or sounds that he knows are difficult for him. This makes it
much easier to understand what he is saying. Since Jie has been at The Institute for a
year (this was Xin‟s first term), it is likely that he has learned through trial and error
when people have trouble understanding him, therefore he is able to compensate better
than Xin. Grammatically, he is very accurate, his sentences are very simple, but to the
point. Therefore, his explanations are generally complete, but not complex. Jie
sometimes uses intonation that makes it sound like a question when he is actually making
a statement, so sometimes his students are not sure whether or not they should say
something. He also pauses a lot, but not so much that it interferes with his
89
comprehensibility. The only issue is that the students seems to get a bit impatient with
how long it takes him to get a sentence out, so they often complete his sentences for him.
Language could therefore influence Jie‟s perceived instructional ability, but since he is
the teaching assistant for a graduate class, his students do most of the talking and
presentation of problems on the whiteboard. Therefore it is difficult as an observer to
determine whether or not language is a factor.
In general, the only difference as time passed between week three and week eight
is that there was more interaction between the students and more of them answering each
other‟s questions. During the third week, Jie mainly sat in front of the room while
students took turns solving homework problems on the board. He did not look away
from the student in front of the room except to look at his notes or at the floor.
Therefore, he did not see students who raised their hand nor did he watch for non-verbal
cues of confusion. He did not comment while each student was presenting their
solutions, but he did summarize at the end of each problem, pointing out important steps
and concepts. He would attempt to promote interaction by asking, “why can I do that”,
but did not wait for a response. He did not wait for a response when performing
comprehension checks either. Students were not sure if these were rhetorical questions or
not, so they would discuss among themselves while the next student was getting ready to
start a new problem.
During week eight, Jie seemed more conscious of non-verbal cues of confusion,
but rarely addressed them or performed verbal comprehension checks. His comments
after a problem presented by a student were much more relevant and thorough this time.
90
This helped promote more discussion than during week three, but he was not a successful
facilitator, the students seemed to lead the discussion themselves and Jie therefore had a
difficult time ending the discussion at an appropriate time so that they could move on to
the next problem. Consequently, they were not able to get through all the problems for
that day before class ended. He also did not interject when students began arguing about
which method was best to solve a problem. He did not respond until a question was
directed specifically toward him. When Jie knows an answer to a question, he is quite
thorough and comprehensible in his response. When he does not know the answer, he
often does not respond at all and just moves on without making sure students understand.
The student reaction seemed to be that they began trusting each other for correct
responses before they would ask Jie.
Hubert – Having completed his bachelor‟s degree in the U.S., Hubert has
achieved near-native fluency in Standard American English. He has almost no accent
and makes minimal grammatical errors. He also has a very native-like grasp of American
slang and idioms. Therefore, language is not an issue when he is teaching.
Hubert is the ITA in this study who is the most conscious of his instructional style
and presents information most similar to the general U.S. expectation. There was almost
no change in instructional approaches from week three to week eight. He was well
prepared and made a point to start with an introduction of what he would cover that day,
then he reviewed common errors in homework sets, moved on to what the main points in
the lecture were, and then proceeded to go over new problems that reinforced the main
concepts from that week‟s lecture. He uses props, such as a pointer, to explain the
91
rotation of a molecule and refers to everyday concepts to reinforce chemical
phenomenon. For example, he used an analogy of a clogged pipe to explain why markers
look green. He constantly performs comprehension checks and does not move on until
he is certain that everyone understands a concept.
Students are very comfortable with him. For a class at The Institute, it is very
interactive and students have no problem responding to his questions and asking
questions of their own. He has appropriate eye contact and smiles a lot, which makes it
easier for his freshman students to relate to him and participate in discussions that he
facilitates very well. Hubert has the personality and instructional approaches that are
evidently influenced by his experience as an undergraduate student in the U.S. His lack
of teaching experience shows through his facilitation techniques, but he is very conscious
and aware of this and does his best to get his students excited about chemistry, even if it
is not their major.
Abhishek – Although Abhishek‟s first language is English, it is evident that he
speaks a dialect that is very different than SAE, and likely unfamiliar to students in the
U.S. Typical differences include word stress, intonation patterns, and terminology
similar to British English as well as expressions used only in India. Indian speakers of
English generally are not aware of word stress differences between words that are spelled
exactly the same, but change from a noun to a verb, depending on where the stress is
placed. For example, the words “record” and “present” can be a verb or a noun. When
the stress is placed on the first syllable, it is a verb. When placed on the second syllable,
it is a noun. This can create confusion when the incorrect stress is placed on a word like
92
this because English sentence structure is subject, verb, object. Confusion could result in
a sentence like, “The present had a record button”. If the emphasis is placed on the first
syllable in the word present and on the second syllable on the word record, the sentence
would read very differently and be understood as something else or just gibberish.
Intonation patterns in the Indian dialect of English are difficult to explain, inflections and
rhythmic patterns are very different and they get stronger and more difficult to
understand the further south one travels in India. Speech rate also gets faster as the
accent gets stronger. British terminology such as lift (elevator) or ace (brilliant) are
generally known by SAE speakers, but Indian expressions such as “Let‟s bunk today”
means “Let‟s skip class today” are rarely known and understood by SAE speakers.
While observed, Abhishek did not seem to use a lot of Indian expressions, but he did use
a lot of British terminology and had a very strong Indian accent. He seemed to be
conscious of that though, and although he spoke very quickly at times, he would catch
himself, slow down, and try to articulate more clearly. Through this awareness, he made
himself very comprehensible, therefore his language should not have a significant effect
on his perceived instructional ability.
Although Abhishek‟s physics lab is supposed to last 30 minutes, he only took 15
minutes to explain an experimental procedure and then dismissed class. Students were
invited to stay to work on their experiments, but no one did. This happened in both week
three and week eight. He explained the equipment, procedure, and expectations for
results very clearly, but did not do anything more than that. No review of lecture
concepts and no review of problem sets were presented to students. He was late to both
93
classes and seemed to rush through all the information he presented as if the students
already knew what to do. They may have known, since they did not ask very many
questions, but Abhishek did not make an attempt to clarify anything even though he made
good eye contact with students and seemed to look for non-verbal cues of confusion.
Therefore, students may not have needed any additional instruction, but if they did,
Abhishek did not recognize and/or acknowledge it.
Ceslav – Ceslav speaks with a very British English accent, therefore most people
would not realize he is actually from Slovakia. He is very fluent, uses grammatically
complex sentences, speaks slowly, and articulates very well. He sometimes gets flustered
when attempting to promote discussion with his students and seems to have to search for
words by pausing a few seconds, but it does not interfere with his comprehensibility.
Therefore, his language should not interfere with his perceived instructional ability.
There was almost no change in instructional approaches between week three and
week eight. Ceslav organizes class well, he begins with a summary of exam handouts
and common homework mistakes, then moves on to homework revision and new
problems that reinforce what was already learned. He has students present their solutions
to homework problems, but remains aware and takes advantage of certain pieces of
information students present to try to promote deeper discussion of the problem. He does
this by asking students for other ways to solve a problem or asking them what they think.
The students do not respond to his encouragement for deeper analysis, but they do ask
questions, so the class is more interactive than most at The Institute. When the students
do ask questions, Ceslav tries to turn the question back on the class and get them to talk
94
out the resolution on their own. The students again do not respond to his facilitation
techniques and sit quietly as if they are bored or uninterested. Ceslav had one other
technique to try to get the students to think deeper, he would solve a homework problem
for them, make a mistake on purpose and then when he is almost finished solving it, if
nothing has been mentioned yet about his mistake, he would pause and ask them if they
agree with his solution thus far. Again, no one responds, so he corrects his mistake,
explains why it is incorrect and moves on. Although students at The Institute are not
known to be very communicative in the classroom, no matter what technique Ceslav
tried, he just could not get them to participate.
Pavle – Pavle has a strong Eastern European accent, but speaks slowly and
articulates very well. He also uses grammatically complex sentences. The only
characteristic of his use of English that may be difficult to follow is while he is
interacting with his students is that he often pauses before he answers as if he is
translating from Serbian into English in his head before he responds. The pauses are not
very long, but long enough to make a student question whether or not he knows the
answer. Other than that, there is no reason his language should influence his perceived
instructional ability.
Clearly prepared both week three and week eight, Pavle started class with one of
the homework problems. He did not review anything, introduce students to what was
going to be covered during class, nor did he summarize important points at the end. The
problems he presented were clearly from the sets the students were supposed to already
have done, but it was not clear how they related to the goals of the class. His
95
organization and attempt to get the students to participate in class was very well done.
Unfortunately, his section has very low attendance, only two people attended week three
and only one week eight. One would think that with such low attendance, students would
feel more comfortable asking and answering questions, but there was very little
interaction between Pavle and his student(s). He attempted a few times to perform
comprehension checks and to get the student(s) to verbally complete some steps to the
problems he presented, but they rarely provided more than a head nod. About thirty
minutes into class, Pavle would still try to engage the students, but ceased to give them
the time to respond, as if he knew he should try to make the class more interactive, but
also knew these students would never respond how he wants them to. He thus increases
eye contact and tries hard to watch for non-verbal cues, but again, very little response
from the student(s).
Addi – Once in a while, Addi speaks too quickly to understand, but all in all, he is
very fluent in English. He has no problems expressing himself, has a very slight accent,
and articulates very well. This is not surprising since he learned English at a very young
age. Therefore, his language ability likely does not have an influence on his perceived
teaching ability.
Addi is the only ITA who taught the same lab as another of the ITAs in this study.
A section of Physics 3 was also taught by Abhishek. The differences in what information
they included in their lab and their approaches to explaining experimental procedures is
very different. Addi included a review of homework problems and how they related to
points in that week‟s lecture, in addition to modeling experimental procedures. Abhishek
96
briefly showed his students how to perform the experiment for that week, and never
reviewed anything from lecture nor their homework sets. Addi also used up the entire
thirty minute class and could have used up an hour with the information he wanted to
cover. Abhishek used fifteen minutes and allowed the students to leave class early.
When Addi is explaining problems, procedures, or concepts, he often watches the
students and their reactions to make sure they understand the material. If he recognizes
that students are not following him, whether or not they state it verbally, he attempts to
try a different explanation or approach. Sometimes he just takes a different angle when
explaining something verbally, or he refers to previous material that may be similar or a
concept that is important to remember and/or apply to the current problem. He is also
very encouraging when his students seem to be struggling, and makes it obvious to them
that he cares that they learn this material. As a result, his students seem very comfortable
interacting with them. Both Addi and his students are very casual with each other and
none of them are afraid to make comments, challenge ideas, or ask questions. Therefore,
Addi has created an unusual classroom environment for The Institute, where students
actively participate in class and seem eager to make an invested effort in what they are
learning.
Chris – Since Chris is a native speaker of SAE, his use of English language
matches that of people in the U.S. Therefore, there is no reason that his language would
interfere with his perceived instructional ability.
Being a native SAE speaker and from an education system very similar to the
U.S., one would expect Chris to teach the way he learned, which, other than issues related
97
to lack of experience, would likely be very similar to the best teacher practices introduced
in Chapter 2. During both week three and week eight observations, this was not the case.
Chris was late both times, unprepared, rushed through problems that he did not introduce
so no one knew why he was presenting them (unless they were related to homework),
gave no chances for students to ask questions, and rarely looked at them to know if they
were raising their hands or presenting non-verbal cues that they do not understand.
Week three, all the students who showed up were on time, but Chris was ten
minutes late. When the researcher returned to class week eight, Chris was late again and
only one student was on time. During both classes, Chris was unorganized and
unprepared, and he sometimes did not finish an example problem because he would make
a mistake in the middle of it then tell the students if they wanted, they could use what he
started as practice by finishing it on their own. Other problems he used he related to
hunting analogies which not all students were able to relate to. In addition, he always
faces the blackboard and has very little eye contact with the students. He rushes through
problems, makes very few comprehension checks (when he does, he does not look at the
students long enough to see their reactions and moves on too quickly), uses the
blackboard in a very unorganized manner (just writes pieces to a problem wherever there
is room), and the only time students speak in his class is when they are correcting him as
he rushes through example problems. Even when a student approached him after class
with a question, although he attempted to answer the question, he continued to erase the
board and never looked at the student. This student then pushed him for individualized
98
attention, so he started using the board to help the student solve the problem. Chris could
not finish it, so he told the student that he would email the solution to him later.
Summary of ITAs’ Linguistic Skills – As shown earlier, all the ITAs who took the
TOEFL scored very high. Their average scores were 646 (paper-based), 285 (computer-
based), 112 (internet-based). In addition, although these scores are well above the
minimum requirements of most graduate schools in the U.S., the computer and paper
based TOEFL exams do not test speaking ability nor do any of the three test how well the
students use the English language in an academic setting. Therefore, although some of
the ITAs did extremely well on this test, that doesn‟t mean they know how to use the
English language appropriately in an instructional role.
In general, it was found that all the ITAs, except two of the Chinese, were very
capable of using English in an instructional role. Their accents were not a distraction and
their use of English grammar was very accurate. One important note though, is that all
the ITAs, except the Canadian, learned British pronunciation and grammar. Therefore, it
is quite evident that they speak a different dialect of English, which did not seem to be an
issue with their students. All ITAs were thus, in a linguistic sense, very comprehensible.
The two Chinese ITAs (Xin and Jie) who do not have experience using English outside of
their language classes in China presented typical pronunciation and grammatical issues.
These include a very high level of grammatical knowledge, adequate listening ability, and
good writing skills. In addition, it is common for Chinese students to have difficulty
speaking in English, since language classes in China place little emphasis on learning to
speak fluently. Typical issues in English for Chinese speakers include difficulty
99
pronouncing the l, r, and th sounds, inaccurate stress and intonation, grammatically
correct but simple sentences, omitting articles and transition words, and pausing too
often.
Summary of ITAs’ Instructional Practices – Although many of the ITAs who
participated in this study said that they try to use real-life examples to elaborate on
important concepts, very few of them actually did. In addition, only one of them
organized their information in a manner that is recommended by instructional manuals
and found to be best practices in research studies (review previous material, introduce
new concepts and how they relate to the goals of the course, provide a learner-centered
environment to master those concepts, then summarize all important points to remember).
In addition, almost all of the ITAs started directly on the problem set due for that day
with no introduction and no greeting or explanation of what is expected to be covered
that day. As far as how they organized the information they did present, it was for the
most part clear and easy to follow. Only one person used something other than the
blackboard to visually present information, but according to most of them when
interviewed, there is not much else to do other than go over the problems on the board;
that is typical of The Institute, and what the students expect.
In relation to interaction with the students, four ITAs expressed in their interviews
that they did not believe eye contact with their students is important (the three Chinese
ITAs and Pavle). Those who actually did not maintain appropriate eye contact with their
students were the three Chinese ITAs and Chris, the Canadian ITA. Lack of eye contact
with students could be misinterpreted as the teacher not being interested in whether the
100
students learn or not, thus discouraging the students to pay attention in class. Also, few
of the ITAs promoted discussion and when they performed comprehension checks, very
few students responded either verbally or non-verbally. Most ITAs attempted to ask
questions like, “Do you understand?” or “Are you ready to move on to the next
problem?” and more often than not, they did not even receive head nods, just silence. All
the ITAs seemed to become anxious and unsure of whether to move on or not when they
received no verbal or non-verbal communication when they performed comprehension
checks. Two ITAs (Hubert and Ceslav) who tried explicitly to promote discussion and
invited students to challenge each other could not coerce the students to reciprocate.
Ceslav, the Slovakian ITA often tried to get students to answer their own questions by
asking them to provide comments and responses to something one of their peers asked.
Although Ceslav did his best to help them feel comfortable discussing and debating and
made it clear that was one of his expectations of them, very few of them would respond.
This seems to be typical student behavior at The Institute, therefore lack of interaction
and open class discussions may not be relative to language or the home culture of the
ITA. It may be due mostly to the culture of The Institute itself.

Students‟ Perceptions of Their International Teaching Assistants
The classes at The Institute are very small and the lab and recitation sections led
by teaching assistants are even smaller. Of the classes observed, the number of registered
students was between five and fifteen. The actual number of students who would attend
class regularly was between one and twelve. Therefore, the student survey response rate
101
was smaller than expected. The low rate of attendance in recitations and labs was found
to be due to three factors. First, institutional expectations do not require students to
attend labs nor recitations, but the amount of homework required for each class is quite
extensive. Many students skip non-mandatory classes so they have more time to
complete their other homework. Second, the students at this institution are some of the
smartest in the world, therefore many of them are able to retain information from the
lectures and apply what they learned to homework and examinations without assistance.
Finally, the undergraduate students at this institution seem to be extrinsically motivated,
they only do what is necessary to get good grades, therefore if they are able to complete
homework assignments and achieve high grades on their tests without going to recitation
or are able to complete their lab assignments on their own time, they do not attend
recitations and labs. A fourth factor may be students‟ like/dislike for their ITA, but no
evidence was found to support this.
102
Table 3. Distribution of Student Respondents
The Institute Survey Respondents
Total # of Students 2133 42
Education Level
Undergraduate (UG)
Graduate

913 (43%)
1200 (57%)

38 (90.5%)
4 (9.5%)
Years at The Institute
First Year
One
Two
Three
Four

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

19 (45.2%)
16 (38.1%)
5 (11.9%)
1 (2.4%)
1 (2.4%)
Domestic/International
Domestic
International

91% (UG)
9% (UG)

35 (83.3%)
7 (16.7%)
Country of Birth
United States
Other
Parents born o/s U.S.

N/A
N/A
N/A

22 (52.4%)
20 (47.6%)
26 (61.9%)
Ethnicity (Undergraduates)
American Indian
/Alaskan Native
Asian/Asian American
Black/African American
Latino/Hispanic/
Chicano/Latin American
White/Caucasian
Other
(undeclared, Asian
Indian, multi-ethnic)

<1%

38%
10%
5%

44%
3%

0 (0%)

15 (35.7%)
0 (0%)
3 (7.1%)

21 (50%)
3 (9.5%)
1
st
Time w/Foreign Instructor
Yes
No

N/A
N/A

7 (16.7%)
35 (83.3%)

A total of 42 students responded to the online survey, four of whom failed to
complete it fully. Feedback was received for all ITAs except Chris, the Canadian ITA
who taught Math 2B. There was thus an average of approximately five students per class
(other than Math 2B) who responded to the online survey. The backgrounds of the
undergraduate respondents reflect the general make-up of the undergraduate student
population at The Institute, therefore however small the number of total respondents, the
103
data collected from the students can be generalized to the undergraduate population as a
whole. Only four graduate students responded to the survey from one class, so
generalizations cannot be made to The Institute‟s graduate population.
Of the 42 respondents, 4 are graduate students and 39 are undergraduates. Over
three-quarters of them are in their first or second year at The Institute, therefore have had
minimal experience with teaching assistants, even though only seven state that they have
never had a foreign instructor before. Approximately seventeen percent of the
respondents are international students, but a much larger percentage was not born in the
U.S. (47.6%) and even more students state that their parents were not born in the U.S.
(61.9%). The Institute has a larger percentage of immigrants among their student
population than most schools, therefore this multi-culture exposure could reflect a student
population that is more tolerant of cultural differences than one which does not have as
large of an immigrant population.
Xin -- Six of Xin‟s students responded to the online survey. All of them are
undergraduate students, two are in their first year at The Institute, three are in their
second year, and one is a junior. All of the students were born in the U.S. except one
who is an international student. One of the American students comes from a Latino
immigrant family. Even though there is some cultural diversity among the student
respondents, most of them had similar responses to all questions on the survey.
Therefore, either their home culture is not influencing their views, or they have had
enough intercultural experience to be tolerant of language and behaviors that may be
different from their own.
104
Table 4. Average Student Ratings (N=6):
Xin
Linguistic and Instructional Categories Student Rating
One-Way Communication 3.67
Two-Way Communication 4.00
Organization of Class Material 3.70
Appropriate Eye Contact 4.20
Recognizes Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 3.20
Addresses Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 3.80
Students Comfortable Asking Questions 3.80
Classroom Management 3.40
Student Respect for ITA 4.20
Feel that ITA Knows Students‟ Needs 3.60
ITA Responses are Complete and Thorough 3.40
Material is Clearer after Class 3.60
Rating of ITA Overall Teaching Ability 8.20

Although Xin is the ITA with the weakest English language ability in this study,
his students do not seem to feel it affects their ability to understand him and learn from
him. Their average rating on his overall language skills, for both one-way and two-way
communication is good. They all seem to like the way he conducts his labs, they are very
comfortable asking him questions, but only two of them feel that he understands most of
what they say. This means that few of Xin‟s students feel his listening comprehension is
strong, and therefore feel that their questions are not always answered as thoroughly as
they would like. The other area where some of his students expressed concern was
whether or not Xin is aware of their needs as students (e.g. knowing when they are
struggling and need assistance without them asking). The responses were at both
extremes, either he is never aware, or he is always aware. Nonetheless, his students have
a lot of respect for him as their teacher and gave him an average rating of 8.2 (on a scale
of one to ten, ten being the best rating) when they were asked how they would rate their
105
ITA as an instructor. One student commented, “Xin is a great TA. Super helpful,
excellent at giving advice.
Gang – Five of Gang‟s students responded to the online survey. All but one (a
freshman) are in their second year at The Institute and one is an international student
from a Western European country. Other than the international student, only one other
person seems to have family ties to another culture, this student replied that s/he was not
born in the U.S. but his/her parents were. This student could be from a military family,
have a parent who works internationally, or his/her family travels a lot. Nonetheless,
there could potentially be some intercultural experience, thus increase his/her tolerance
for unfamiliar accents and cultures. Since the other three students were born in the U.S.
and of white/Caucasian background, it is difficult to tell what international/intercultural
experiences they may have that would influence their tolerance for language and/or
cultural issues.
Table 5. Average Student Ratings (N=5):
Gang
Linguistic and Instructional Categories Student Rating
One-Way Communication 4.00
Two-Way Communication 4.00
Organization of Class Material 2.67
Appropriate Eye Contact 3.00
Recognizes Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 3.40
Addresses Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 4.00
Students Comfortable Asking Questions 3.00
Classroom Management 2.80
Student Respect for ITA 3.20
Feel that ITA Knows Students‟ Needs 3.00
ITA Responses are Complete and Thorough 4.00
Material is Clearer after Class 4.20
Rating of ITA Overall Teaching Ability 7.00

106
Gang‟s language ability is very strong in English, since he studied in Singapore
and in England before coming to The Institute. He has more of a British accent than
Chinese, so his students rated him good or strong in all aspects of language ability.
Therefore, language would not be expected to be an issue when presenting a lesson to his
students. Gang‟s students are generally satisfied with the way he conducts class, there
are no evident negative responses to questions that related to organization of information,
most of them are comfortable interacting with him and believe that he is aware of their
needs as students. They are quite confident that he understands everything they say and
rarely leave class more confused than when they came. Therefore, it is surprising that
they only state that they have “some” respect for him and the overall teaching ability
ratings range from a 5 to a 9, averaging 7. One explanation may be related to a comment
from a student, “The confusion that results, rather than from the ability or lack therof, is
probably due to the fact that the subject matter can be somewhat confusing. Yuan is one
of the better Math TAs that I‟ve had”. This respondent is the only person who rated
Gang‟s language as strong, and his overall teaching ability as a 9.
Jie – The students in Jie‟s class who responded to the survey are both
undergraduate and graduate students. Jie is the TA for a graduate level course in Control
and Dynamical Systems, therefore there are four graduate students and two upper level
undergraduates who responded to the survey. All graduate level respondents are either in
their first, second or third year at The Institute, both undergraduates are sophomores.
There are three international students (two of Western European descent and one from
Asia) and one Asian American immigrant. In addition, three of the respondents have
107
parents born in either Asia or Western Europe. This is probably the most diverse class
observed in this study, therefore it is expected that there will be a higher tolerance of
linguistic shortcomings and variances of instructional style.
Table 6. Average Student Ratings (N=6):
Jie
Linguistic and Instructional Categories Student Rating
One-Way Communication 3.83
Two-Way Communication 3.33
Organization of Class Material 4.17
Appropriate Eye Contact 4.00
Recognizes Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 3.50
Addresses Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 4.33
Students Comfortable Asking Questions 4.50
Classroom Management 3.50
Student Respect for ITA 4.17
Feel that ITA Knows Students‟ Needs 3.50
ITA Responses are Complete and Thorough 4.17
Material is Clearer after Class 3.33
Rating of ITA Overall Teaching Ability 7.67

Jie is the only other ITA besides Xin who has not yet achieved a strong fluency in
English. His students agree with this, they rated his accent as somewhat strong and
somewhat distracting, but overall, they didn‟t feel that his language ability prevented
them from learning what is necessary to succeed in the course. Students considered his
language abilities good and rated him an average of 7.78 on overall teaching style. In
general, they are quite satisfied with the way he manages the class and the students state
that they are very comfortable asking him questions. Although they feel he is aware of
student needs, they do not feel he always recognizes when they are confused. An
explanation for this may be related to the education level of students who attend this
108
class, since they are mostly graduate students, they are at a level of education that
requires them to think more deeply about class material and problems. They are more
prepared to solve problems on their own and expect to be left alone to do so. Therefore,
they are likely to prefer to be left alone and solve problems on their own. “CDS 140
review session is somewhat different as a good part of the material presented is
homework worked out by students. The TA asks questions, makes comments or explains
some details, but isn‟t presenting the entire hour”.
Hubert – The students in Hubert‟s class who responded to the online survey are
all freshman, one is international from Asia and another is an Asian immigrant. Of the
other two students, one is white/Caucasian American and the other is Asian American
whose parents are immigrants to the United States. Being that three students are of Asian
descent, it is expected that they would identify easiest with Hubert and his teaching style
since he is of Asian descent as well. The interesting factor is that the highest overall
rating came from the white/Caucasian American and the lowest came from the Asian
international student. Since Hubert speaks English with near-native fluency and a
minimal accent, received his B.S. degree in the U.S., and has consciously adopted a more
American style of teaching, it is not surprising that his highest ratings came from the only
white/Caucasian American respondent and the Asian American who was born in the U.S.
109
Table 7. Average Student Ratings (N=4):
Hubert
Linguistic and Instructional Categories Student Rating
One-Way Communication 4.25
Two-Way Communication 4.25
Organization of Class Material 4.67
Appropriate Eye Contact 4.25
Recognizes Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 3.00
Addresses Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 4.00
Students Comfortable Asking Questions 3.75
Classroom Management 4.00
Student Respect for ITA 4.50
Feel that ITA Knows Students‟ Needs 3.25
ITA Responses are Complete and Thorough 4.00
Material is Clearer after Class 4.25
Rating of ITA Overall Teaching Ability 8.75

The students in Hubert‟s class who responded to the online survey did not feel
that Hubert has much of an accent and considers his overall language skills to be fairly
strong. Interesting again is the lowest rating he received on his language skills is from
the Asian international student. When observing his class, the researcher found that
Hubert has near-native fluency and uses a lot of American idioms. This is likely why the
Asian international student considers his language ability to be adequate, Hubert is
probably using language that this student does not understand yet since she is brand new
to the U.S. and not yet familiar with the SAE dialect. In addition, the low overall score
that she gave him is likely due to the fact that Hubert has adapted his teaching style to
what he feels was effective during his undergraduate studies at the University of
Pennsylvania. From the expert observer‟s point of view, Hubert‟s teaching style is the
closest to what was described in Chapter 2 as the best teaching practices in the U.S.
110
According to student responses to the online survey, the only criticism that they have is
that Hubert does not always recognize when students are confused, therefore their
questions sometimes get unanswered. This is likely due to lack of training/experience,
not culture, language, or teaching style. Otherwise, student ratings on his organization of
information, classroom management style, and interaction with students are the highest
they could be. This is reflected in student comments, “A very good TA, very helpful.
Helps me immensely in understanding chemistry”, “He knows how to highlight the key
ideas each week”. In addition, all students except the Asian international student stated
that they fully respect Hubert as an instructor. The Asian international student responded
that she only somewhat respects him. This is likely due his adaptation to U.S. academic
expectations and that he does not follow the expectations of most Asian classrooms.
Hubert is more interactive, informal, and creates a more learner-centered atmosphere than
most Asian classrooms. Therefore, his teaching style does not likely match the Asian
international student‟s learning style and expectations of an instructor. The average
student rating for Hubert‟s overall teaching ability is 8.75.
Abhishek – There were two students from Abhishek‟s class who responded to the
online survey. Neither are international students, but one is an Asian immigrant. Both
students did not feel that Abhishek‟s accent nor his language abilities were in any way
distracting to their ability to learn the course material. They were both very positive
about both Abhishek‟s language ability and his instructional style. Where they did differ
is in their ratings of the way Abhishek organizes and presents information in class.
111
Table 8. Average Student Ratings (N=2):
Abhishek
Linguistic and Instructional Categories Student Rating
One-Way Communication 4.50
Two-Way Communication 4.50
Organization of Class Material 3.83
Appropriate Eye Contact 4.00
Recognizes Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 4.00
Addresses Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 4.50
Students Comfortable Asking Questions 4.00
Classroom Management 3.50
Student Respect for ITA 5.00
Feel that ITA Knows Students‟ Needs 4.00
ITA Responses are Complete and Thorough 4.00
Material is Clearer after Class 3.00
Rating of ITA Overall Teaching Ability 8.50

The Asian immigrant student was extremely satisfied, whereas the American
student only felt his skills were average. In contrast, the Asian immigrant student felt
that Abhishek‟s method of handling questions and thoroughness in his responses are
always satisfactory. On the other hand, the American student didn‟t feel Abhishek‟s
answers were always thorough and complete and often feels like he has more questions
when he leaves than when he arrives to class. In all other areas, both students were in
agreement. Both respect Abhishek fully as a teacher and both feel that he is very aware
of their needs as students. Their average rating for his overall teaching ability is 8.5
Ceslav – Twelve of Ceslav‟s students responded to the online survey. All are
undergraduate students, half are freshmen, and the other six are sophomores. Two are
international students from Western Europe and eight are immigrants, four Asian, one
Asian Indian, and three European. Three of the remaining four respondents are U.S.
112
citizens; three identify as White/Caucasian and the other is Asian American. Since there
is such a large immigrant population in Ceslav‟s class, the tolerance level for linguistic
variations and instructional approaches are likely to be higher than in a less diverse
classroom.
Table 9. Average Student Ratings (N=12):
Ceslav
Linguistic and Instructional Categories Student Rating
One-Way Communication 3.80
Two-Way Communication 3.64
Organization of Class Material 3.58
Appropriate Eye Contact 4.27
Recognizes Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 2.55
Addresses Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 3.55
Students Comfortable Asking Questions 3.45
Classroom Management 2.36
Student Respect for ITA 3.36
Feel that ITA Knows Students‟ Needs 2.82
ITA Responses are Complete and Thorough 3.27
Material is Clearer after Class 3.55
Rating of ITA Overall Teaching Ability 6.18

Ceslav‟s students are in general agreement about his linguistic and instructional
abilities, no matter what cultural background. They all feel that he either has no accent,
or a moderate accent. Nothing about his linguistic ability is distracting from learning
course materials. Even though students rated Ceslav‟s pronunciation, grammar, and
fluency as quite strong, their average rating of his one-way and two-way communication
skills is between adequate and good. Based on student ratings of certain instructional
skills later in the survey, it appears that the issue is with the way Ceslav manages the
113
classroom and facilitates discussion, not his language ability. Therefore, as one of his
students write, “His English skills in no way impede my ability to understand him”.
Based on respondent answers to questions about organization of information,
most feel Ceslav is well organized, friendly, and tries to promote good discussions, but
seems uncomfortable in front of the class. They feel that because he is uncomfortable, he
has a hard time recognizing when they are confused and therefore does not explain things
very clearly. He does not always stay on topic and does not always make sure that
everyone understands a problem or concept before moving on to the next. “[Ceslav]
seems to let the class do too much of the talking, sometimes concepts are missed because
he just lets students discuss. This discussion is good, but you sometimes never find out
how to do a problem, or if certain methods are correct or not because the discussion never
gets resolved”. Therefore, it appears that although Ceslav is trying to promote a very
interactive classroom and get the students to process information and think deeper on
their own, he has difficulty with facilitation; knowing when to let the students talk and
when to get them back on track and on their way to an acceptable answer to their
questions or a problem. This lack of facilitation skills are reflected in student responses
to classroom management, his awareness of their needs as students, and their respect for
him. Those students who do not like the way he manages class feel that Ceslav does not
recognize when they are confused, therefore they have less respect for him as an
instructor. All of his students feel that he is friendly and approachable and rated his
overall teaching ability as an average of 6.18.
114
Pavle – Two students in Pavle‟s class started the online survey, but only one
completed it. This student is a sophomore student who was born in the U.S. and
identifies as white/Caucasian. He feels that Pavle has a moderate accent but in no way
does that, nor his use of grammar and fluency, interfere with his ability to understand and
learn from Pavle during recitation.
Table 10. Average Student Ratings (N=1):
Pavle
Linguistic and Instructional Categories Student Rating
One-Way Communication 4.00
Two-Way Communication 4.00
Organization of Class Material 3.00
Appropriate Eye Contact 3.00
Recognizes Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 4.00
Addresses Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 4.00
Students Comfortable Asking Questions 4.00
Classroom Management 3.00
Student Respect for ITA 4.00
Feel that ITA Knows Students‟ Needs 3.00
ITA Responses are Complete and Thorough 4.00
Material is Clearer after Class 4.00
Rating of ITA Overall Teaching Ability 8.00

This student feels that Pavle is very organized, but does not always emphasize
important points. Therefore, he does not always know when to ask for clarification or
more information. He feels that class is easy to follow and is very comfortable asking
Pavle questions in class, but does not feel Pavle is very aware of his needs nor when he
needs clarification on a concept or step to a problem. He has a lot of respect for Pavle as
a teacher and likes the way he manages the class. Her thus gave Pavle an overall rating
of eight for his teaching ability.
115
Addi – Five students from Addi‟s class responded to the online survey, one of
them only responded to background questions, therefore his responses were discarded.
None of the remaining four respondents are international students, two are immigrants
(one of Latino origin, and another who identifies as white/Caucasian), and two students
were born in the U.S. (one with Asian immigrant parents). All four respondents are
freshmen in their second term, therefore have had very little exposure to the academic
expectations of The Institute.
Table 11. Average Student Ratings (N=4):
Addi
Linguistic and Instructional Categories Student Rating
One-Way Communication 4.00
Two-Way Communication 4.00
Organization of Class Material 3.25
Appropriate Eye Contact 4.50
Recognizes Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 2.50
Addresses Confusion (verbal or non-verbal) 3.50
Students Comfortable Asking Questions 3.75
Classroom Management 3.00
Student Respect for ITA 4.00
Feel that ITA Knows Students‟ Needs 2.75
ITA Responses are Complete and Thorough 3.25
Material is Clearer after Class 3.00
Rating of ITA Overall Teaching Ability 7.50

Respondents had very different opinions on the strength of Addi‟s accent.
Responses ranged from somewhat strong to no accent at all. Even though they disagreed
on the strength of Addi‟s accent, they all agreed that he has a very strong grasp of the
English language and in no way does his linguistic ability impede them from learning the
course material.
116
They all feel that he organizes his lessons well and they are very comfortable
interacting with him in class. They only feel that he is somewhat aware of their needs
because they do not feel that he always addresses confusion when it occurs and some
often leave class more confused than when they arrived. In addition, he sometimes
moves on to a new concept or problem before making sure that they all understand the
previous one. As a result, they feel his classroom management skills are adequate but
still have a lot of respect for him as an instructor. Overall, his students rate his
instructional abilities as 8.5. One of the respondents states that confusion occurs not
because of Addi‟s teaching ability, but because the class itself is not structured well, “The
T.A. is fine, the course is just really lousy. Also it‟s really hard to get help during lab
because there‟s one T.A. to 10 students with two different experiments happening”.
Chris – None of Chris‟ students responded to the online survey, therefore no data
exists from the student point of view.
Summary of ITAs’ Linguistic Skills – In general, students rated their ITA‟s
language abilities as good or strong and do not feel that their accents, use of grammar,
nor fluency were distracting in any way from learning the required course material. This
is not surprising since the majority of ITAs who participated in this study have a strong
grasp of the English language. Therefore, according to their students, ITA language
ability does not affect their perceived instructional ability. “At [The Institute], most TAs
are foreign, so it just doesn‟t stick out that much. I don‟t remember a single ITA that I
could not understand”.
117
Summary of ITAs’ Instructional Practices – Based on the average ratings of all
respondents, they are satisfied with the way their ITAs interact with them, but it seems
that they are not as enthusiastic about the way their ITAs organize information and
manage the classroom. The lowest scores for every ITA were in the organization of
information and classroom management categories. In addition, students of some of the
ITAs feel that their ITAs are not aware of, or do not address their confusion
appropriately. Overall, when asked “how would you rate your ITA as an instructor”,
respondents seem satisfied with their ITAs (see Table 12). The average rating for all
ITAs by their students is 7.37 on a scale of one to ten (one being very poor and ten being
excellent).
Table 12. Average Ratings:
Overall Teaching Ability
ITA ITA Self Expert Observer Student Rating
Xin 7 3.5 8.20
Gang 5 6 7.00
Jie 6 4.5 7.67
Hubert 7 8 8.75
Abhishek 9 6 8.50
Ceslav 7 7 6.18
Pavle 7 7 8.00
Addi 8 7.5 7.50
Chris 7 6 N/A

When student ratings are compared to ITA self ratings, most ITAs rated
themselves lower or approximately the same as their students. When student ratings are
compared to the expert observer ratings, on the other hand, student ratings were generally
higher, most evidently, Xin and Jie. The expert observer is more critical of linguistic
118
ability and instructional approaches as well as more aware of the best practices outlined
in Chapter 2. Also, students at The Institute do not consider access to a TA as a high
priority. Therefore it is expected that the expert observer would rate the ITA overall
teaching ability lower than the students. The most interesting difference though, is the
ratings fro Xin and Jie. The expert observer expected their linguistic shortcomings to
make a difference in their perceived instructional ability, but it appears that it did not
influence the student perception.

Summary
Linguistic Skills – Since all the ITAs but two have more than adequate linguistic
ability in an instructional role, this study does not permit conclusions as to the influence
of language on perceived instructional ability. Interesting though, are the student ratings
of Xin and Jie‟s overall teaching ability. These were the only two ITAs who struggled
with their English, but it does not seem to have affected their students perception of their
teaching ability.
Instructional Practices – After analyzing all three points of view, the ITA, the
expert observer, and the students, three themes emerge that appear to be influenced by
cultural background: organization of information, classroom management, and the
manner one addresses questions/confusion.
Organization of Information – Most ITAs, when they describe their method of
organizing information, talk about giving their students the information necessary to
complete the homework and work out problems for them on the board. They also talk
119
about how their students are only motivated by grades, so they do not feel it is necessary
to do more than help them pass the class. Almost all of the ITAs feel that it is the
students‟ responsibility to learn the material and resolve any confusion they may have
with the material on their own. Few mention that they review previous material,
reinforce important concepts to remember, and summarize material covered at the end of
each class. This was found to be accurate through the expert observations. Few ITAs do
much more than present homework problems and/or experimental procedures.
According to the best instructional practices outlined in Chapter 2, American students
expect an introduction to that day‟s material, a review of previous material, explicit
instruction on new material, and a summary of everything covered at the end of each
class. The only ITA who expresses the importance of following such organization of
information is Hubert, who completed his undergraduate degree in the U.S. and is very
conscious of the style of instruction his American classmates expected. Other than the
Asian international student in his class, Hubert received the highest ratings for
organization of information, which thus suggests that there is a cultural component to the
way one presents information and that American students expect information to be much
more explicitly organized. This supports the ITA assumption that their students only
want to get a good grade, and do not care to understand the material well enough to apply
it to other situations or courses. Every ITA strongly emphasizes the importance of
understanding the material in a much deeper manner than the American students, they
feel, are willing to do.
120
Classroom Management – The ITAs are again quite consistent with the way they
describe their style of classroom management, they talk about being informal, open to
questions, and try to promote discussions and learner-centered interaction in their
classrooms. According to expert observations, although the ITAs have good intentions
and a clear concept of what they think they do, few of their actions match their intentions
in the classroom. For example, Jie expresses that he tries to work the fine line between
informal and formal as well as poses thought provoking questions to get students to think
about information deeper. While observed, he spoke very little to the class, asked few
questions of the students to promote discussion, and dismissed student questions if he did
not know the answer or had a hard time expressing himself in English. This is reflected
in student survey responses to questions about classroom management, recognizing
confusion, and clarity of material presented; the three lowest ratings by his students. His
students expected more explicit facilitation of discussion and more thorough responses to
their questions.
All but one of the ITAs also talk about the importance of watching for non-verbal
cues of confusion and addressing them as they occur. Although most of them had
difficulty reading such cues and responding to them, Gang is the only ITA who does not
feel that it is necessary to have more interaction with the students than to present
problems on the board and answer questions if they are verbally expressed. He admits
that he does not do comprehension checks and does not feel it is his responsibility to
address confusion if it is not explicitly verbally expressed during or after class. Although
121
Gang is considered a good instructor by his students, the ratings on classroom
management were low, thus indicating that he is not meeting student expectations.
Addressing Confusion – All ITAs except Gang express that they address all
confusion when they recognize it, but according to student survey responses, many
students leave class more confused than when they arrived, or, they do not feel that their
questions were answered completely and thoroughly. Three possibilities explain student
perceptions of their ITAs and their ability to address confusion. First, the most obvious,
lack of experience in an instructional role, no matter what school or country of origin.
This is most obvious with Hubert and his students. Although he is aware of and is the
ITA whose approaches are closest to American expectations, he admits that he is still
learning how to facilitate discussion in a manner that promotes deeper thought and
discussion. This is reflected in student ratings, all ratings for Hubert were 4.00 or above
except, „recognizes confusion‟, „students comfortable asking questions‟, and „feel that
ITA knows students‟ needs‟; all categories that reflect Hubert‟s lack of experience in an
instructional position.
Second, American students expect very explicit and thorough explanations in
their lessons and teacher responses to questions. All the ITAs express that they do not
want to give the students too much information; it is the instructor‟s job to present the
bigger picture, and the student‟s responsibility to learn the more detailed pieces to a
lesson on their own. This contradiction in expectations likely provokes students to
interpret ITA instructional approaches as inadequate and/or not meeting their needs as
learners.
122
Third, all nine ITAs observed that their students only do what they must to get a
good grade and are rarely intrinsically motivated to learn more than what is necessary to
be approved to move on to the next class. The most obvious example of this is Ceslav‟s
economics class. Ceslav received the lowest student ratings in almost every category of
instructional skills and overall teaching ability, even though when observed, he seemed to
have a good relationship with the students and worked very hard at creating an interactive
environment that promoted deeper thought and analysis. He was not very successful in
soliciting student discussion, which the expert observer interpreted as lack of experience,
but after reviewing surprisingly low student ratings, the intrinsic/extrinsic observation by
the ITAs seems to be a more accurate explanation for the lack of student participation,
both in Ceslav‟s class as well as in all classes observed. Based on student ratings and
responses to open-ended questions that were quoted earlier in this section about Ceslav, it
is evident that his students do not want to work more than they have to in class and just
want Ceslav to give them the answers to everything. Ceslav tried many different
approaches to get the students to figure out answers to problems and each others
questions, but they were unwilling to do so. This could also be an additional explanation
as to why most students in all classes observed rarely participate in discussions and ask
questions, there is possibly a lack of intrinsic motivation among the undergraduate
students at The Institute.
123

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Summary

This study examined the influence of culture, through the mediation of
international teaching assistants on instructional style and perceived teacher
effectiveness. Additionally, it looked at whether or not language plays a role in perceived
teacher effectiveness. Nine ITAs from a small, private, technological tertiary school in
Southern California volunteered for this study. They were observed while in an
instructional role, interviewed by the researcher, and their students responded to an online
survey. By collecting data from the points of view of the expert observer, ITA, and the
students, the researcher was able to compare and contrast what the ITAs believe they are
doing, what they are actually doing, and the perception their students have about their
ITA‟s teaching abilities. This allowed the researcher to examine the role language and
home culture play in the manner one teaches as well as one‟s perceived instructional
style.
The problem addressed in this study is the negative perception of foreign
instructors by American students. One‟s classroom management style is primarily
determined by the dominant culture that exists in the country one is educated (Stigler &
Heibert, 1999), therefore complaints by American students about their ITAs are not
uncommon. These complaints are often based on the perception that their foreign
124
instructors‟ language ability is inadequate, not that their instructional style may be
different than what American students would normally expect.
The purpose of this study was to perform a deeper analysis on the instructional
styles of ITAs and determine whether or not language really is the issue. If it is not, then
what role does culture play in perceived instructional effectiveness? In general, most
universities have already determined that ITAs have an adequate level of linguistic ability
to teach in the U.S. classroom, but not all of them have carefully examined their ITAs‟
instructional effectiveness. Therefore, without knowing how an ITA presents
information, one cannot know whether or not s/he is presenting a lesson in a manner that
adheres to American student expectations. In addition, not all universities provide
instructional training before sending their ITAs into the classroom. Without being
introduced to the American teaching style and American student expectations, an ITA
will likely teach as s/he was taught back in his/her home country, which is often very
different than in the U.S.

Findings
Within the framework of the four research questions posed, the findings in
relation to language and its influence on the perceived instructional effectiveness of
foreign instructors is inconclusive due to the high level of linguistic ability of the
participants in this study. However, it was found that there is a cultural component to
how one organizes information, manages his/her classroom, and addresses
125
questions/confusion in the classroom. These findings are presented relative to the four
research questions.
ITA Self-Perception – Common among almost all of the ITAs is the perception
that American students are only extrinsically motivated (only care about their final
grade), therefore do not want to learn more than necessary about the subjects the ITAs are
trying to teach. In addition, students often come to class unprepared; they do not
complete their homework or the readings, and expect the ITA to give them all the
information they were supposed to learn on their own. This concept of extrinsic
motivation contradicts the view of all the ITAs that an instructor is only there to present
the larger picture and then it is the student‟s responsibility to figure out the details. They
do not feel that they should be giving nearly as much information about problems and
exam content as the students seem to expect. They thus end up giving students more
information than they feel they should, even though their expectations are that students
should come to class prepared, having learned the homework material thoroughly so that
the ITA can build on those concepts, instead of teach them to their students from scratch.
All of the ITAs also believe that they organize their lessons in a manner that is
easy to follow. They feel that by just writing problems on the board, or having the
students write them on the board, is all the content that is needed for students to achieve
the knowledge level necessary to pass the class. In addition, all of the ITAs feel that they
make a good attempt at promoting class discussion and those who are unable to do so,
blame it on the personality of their students, because students at The Institute are known
to be quiet and shy. All the ITAs also feel that they address questions and confusion in a
126
way that is satisfactory to their students and that their students never leave class more
confused than when they came in.
Where the ITAs differ is in relation to their views on friendliness, importance of
eye contact, and how an instructor earns respect from his/her students. All the ITAs
consistently discuss how it is important friendly with students. As discussed earlier,
Pavle recognizes that the term “friendly” may mean different things in Serbia and the
U.S., especially between student and instructor. Similarly, the three Chinese ITAs note
that it is important to be “strict but friendly”, reinforcing Pavle‟s observation that
friendliness may be defined differently between cultures. Being friendly in the U.S.
classroom often refers to being informal and reducing the hierarchy between student and
teacher. In most other countries, a stronger hierarchy of authority exists between
instructor and student, therefore the word “kind” would be more appropriate than
“friendly” to describe the demeanor of many foreign instructors.
In addition, the two of the Chinese ITAs who have only been in the U.S. for a few
months did not believe eye contact is important and do not realize that eye contact is a
very important non-verbal behavior in the U.S. The third ITA (Jie) learned through the
year he has been at The Institute that eye contact is important and expected in most social
and academic situations. Maintaining eye contact with your students tells them that you
are interested in what they are saying and that they are paying attention to you. It also
shows that the instructor recognizes the importance of each individual‟s contribution to
the class. Gang‟s response to the importance of eye contact may explain the Chinese
127
point of view, “what they are taking home is not my personality, they are taking home the
materials”.
All three of the Chinese ITAs believe that to earn a student‟s respect, the
instructor must prove that they are smarter and more knowledgeable than their students.
American students value an instructor who is open to new ideas and one who is able to
admit when s/he does not know something or is wrong. To make sure you always seem
smarter than your students is often interpreted as arrogance and student respect for their
instructor declines instead of increases (as the Chinese ITAs believe).
ITA Self-Perception and Expert Observations – It was found that although ITAs
have the best of intentions, their perception of what they do does not always match their
actual actions in the classroom. Some of this can be attributed to lack of experience, and
the rest is relative to how they have learned to develop expectations of a teacher while
being a student in their home countries. Pavle‟s view on friendliness is a good example
of this, he says that he feels he is friendly with his students, but recognizes that his
definition of friendly is different than for Americans, “Being friendly is important. I try
to be very friendly. But then my idea of very friendly might not be the same as
Americans tend to be really polite and friendly and I can‟t probably reach that point…
that‟s not the way I express myself”. When observed, Pavle appeared to be kind, but not
friendly. He was not negative or mean, but he did not present himself as enthusiastic,
encouraging, nor approachable. His voice was very monotone, he did not smile, and he
kept a definite social distance from his students. Therefore, Pavle‟s definition of friendly
can be interpreted as “kind”, but not friendly from the American point of view.
128
In relation to organization of information, all the ITAs felt that they organized
their lessons well, but their organization did not match the best practices in the U.S. that
were outlined in Chapter 2: start with a review, then introduce the learning goals for that
class, present the main concepts or problems, and then summarize the major points that
should have been learned. ITAs only presented the information necessary for their
students to know how to complete an experiment or problem set. Hubert was the only
ITA who was successful in following this organizational pattern, but he himself admits
that this is not the way it was when he was in Singapore, he learned in an environment
that was very strict, not interactive at all, and rote learning was the expectation, not
individual thought. He attributes his consciousness of the American instructional
expectations to having been an undergraduate student in the U.S. for four years.
Differences in classroom management were most evident with the Chinese ITAs
and Pavle. Although they claim they want to promote an interactive environment, none
of them tried to facilitate a discussion on main concepts or problems. All the ITAs admit
that they are not sure how to promote discussion, they try to ask students questions and
expect them to respond, but all they get is silence, often times, they do not even get a
head nod. Part of this may be lack of facilitation experience, but these ITAs are also not
used to learning in an environment where a student is expected to ask questions or have
an opinion. Therefore, even though say they try to promote discussion, in practice, they
either avoid it, do not feel it‟s important, or are unsuccessful because they have never
been introduced to such methods. Those ITAs who attempted to promote discussion and
were somewhat successful came from backgrounds where individual thought is more
129
prominent in the classroom and teacher-student interaction is more prevalent. For Hubert
particularly, it appeared to be lack of experience that influenced his success in creating
discussion, not difference in cultural expectations.
Ceslav‟s case though, is more multi-faceted than just lack of experience. As with
the other ITAs, he feels that he is good at recognizing confusion and addressing questions
thoroughly, but when observed, he was found to miss quite a few verbal and non-verbal
cues of confusion. When he does answer questions from students, his responses are not
complete because he is trying to get the students to answer their own questions.
Although Ceslav recognizes that American classrooms are very interactive compared to
most other countries, his attempts to promote discussion were aimed at getting the
students to think on their own without receiving some of the basic information students
needed to get that discussion going. He believes that the students should be able to figure
things out on their own without much guidance, but the students were often more
confused the longer the discussion went on because Ceslav rarely highlighted the
important points or conclusions made before moving on to a new concept or problem.
The students expected a review of main points but never received it. Ceslav‟s case is the
most contrastive to American expectations, but in general, it was clear that all the ITAs
had different expectations than their students about how interaction in the classroom
should happen. The ITAs felt the students should do most of their own learning, and the
students felt the ITAs should be giving them more explicit information.

130
Expert Observations and Student Perceptions – Expert observations and student
perceptions were, for the most part very similar. Both points of view have the same areas
of concern: organization of information, classroom management, and addressing
questions/confusion. Both felt that there was a lack of review, emphasis of main points,
and summary of what should have been learned. Students often felt that they left class
with more questions than when they arrived.
In relation to classroom management, the expert observer found that most ITAs
did not attempt to promote discussion at all and when they performed comprehension
checks, few students would respond. The students in these classes expressed that they
were comfortable asking questions during class, but there was no explanation as to why
they did not do so and no explanation as to why they rarely respond to comprehension
checks. Therefore, cultural background is likely influencing the approach to if and how
an ITA promotes discussion, but culture does not explain why their students are so
unresponsive. Even ITAs with effective methods of addressing questions/confusion had
difficulty getting students to respond. One explanation could be the institutional culture
summarized in Chapter 4: STEM classes are generally not as interactive as classes in the
social sciences, The Institute places much more emphasis on research than coursework,
students are often very introverted and lack confidence in their academic abilities for the
first time, and the accountability for quality of instruction is not a priority at The Institute.
The two ITAs who made a very explicit attempt to promote discussion had very
different reactions from their students. As stated earlier, Hubert has consciously and for
the most part, successfully adapted his instructional style to what he knows to be what
131
U.S. students expect of him and achieved the most interactive classroom of all ITAs in
this study. Other than lack of experience, he does a good job, both from the student and
expert observer points of view. Ceslav on the other hand, uses a few different approaches
but never makes explicit references to main points or conclusions. From the expert
observer point of view, his approach can be a very effective way to get students to
participate more in class and become more intrinsically motivated, but one must be a very
seasoned facilitator to be able to get students to come to their own conclusions. From the
student point of view, they felt that Ceslav never stayed on topic, he had a hard time
recognizing when they were confused, and moved on to new subjects without making
sure they understood the previous topic. As a result, their respect for Ceslav was low and
perception of his instructional ability inadequate.
Views on how ITAs address confusion and respond to student questions are
similar between the expert observer and students. All ITAs often miss verbal and non-
verbal cues, and some avoid responding to questions if they cannot answer them.
Missing cues is likely due to two factors; lack of experience, and the cultural definition of
the role of an instructor. All the ITAs believe it is important to make sure every student
understands a concept before moving on to the next, but not all of them have the same
approach to making sure their students fully comprehend something. Gang, for example,
admits that he only relies only on explicit verbal feedback. If no one says specifically
that they have a question, he just moves on. Other ITAs would consistently perform
comprehension checks, but most did not wait for any responses from their students before
moving on. Those who waited for a response either got nothing from their students, or
132
sometimes volunteered incomplete responses when they were asked questions or
recognized confusion. These ITAs have the appropriate language ability to respond
thoroughly to student questions, but sometimes do not give thorough answers because
they believe it is the student‟s responsibility to put the pieces together. As a result,
students rated their ITAs lower on survey items related to clarity of response to questions.
Another ITA, Jie, performed regular comprehension checks, responded the best
he could, but when he did not know how to express his answer thoroughly, he would just
move on and not answer the question. This is a good example of an ITA with both a
language issue and difficulty adapting to the U.S. classroom. Jie admits that when he
does not know the answer to a question, this is not good because then he could lose
respect; an instructor should always be smarter than his/her students. Therefore he will
not admit he does not know something, he will just move on. Jie also admits that when it
is difficult for him to express complicated concepts in English (sometimes even in
Chinese), he avoids that subject and/or question so he does not lose his students‟ respect
due to perceived lack of intelligence. His students, not understanding the linguistic and
cultural implications behind this lack of addressing confusion/questions, interpret his
actions as not being aware of student needs and not caring whether or not they learn the
required material.
Influence of Different Perspectives on Student Perceptions of ITA Instructional
Ability – Both the ITAs and their students feel that language does not affect the students‟
ability to learn from their ITAs. What does clash is the expectations of how information
should be presented and how discussion should be promoted. As stated in previous
133
sections, students and ITAs have different expectations when it comes to how an
instructor earns respect, how information is organized, how a classroom is managed, and
how confusion/questions are addressed. When expectations for these areas do not match
between student and instructor, the students often view their teacher as having inadequate
pedagogical skills. In this study, the students did not recognize that when ITAs did not
meet their expectations, the ITAs were using a different pedagogical approach that
contradicted their students‟ expectations, not a lack of instructional ability. This resulted
in lower scores for the areas mentioned above, thus reducing the perceived instructional
ability of the ITAs, most notably is Ceslav. His linguistic skills are near-native with a
very British and easy to understand accent. His pedagogical approaches were very
unfamiliar to his students and his lack of facilitation experience made him seem like he
did not care if students learned the material or not. Students left class angry and confused
because they were never given a direct answer. They did not realize that Ceslav was
trying to get them to answer their own questions and promote deeper analysis of the
economics concepts for that day, something they were not very motivated to do. They
wanted answers, final answers, not additional questions that still needed answers.

Limitations
After completing the analysis of this study, the limitations were found to include:
the small sample population, the narrow academic focus of the institution used to recruit
study participants, the culture of The Institute, limitations in obtaining a comprehensive
student point of view, and ITA linguistic ability.
134
Small Sample Population – Since The Institute is a small, technological tertiary
institution with only 2133 students, some of the information produced in this study may
only apply to institutions of similar size and academic focus.
Narrow Academic Focus of Institution – Since it is often found that instructors in
math and science present information in a less interactive manner than in the social
sciences, it is likely that similar practices and instructional values will be found at this
institute since it only offers majors in math, science, and engineering. Although the best
practices outlined in Chapter 2 illustrates that these methods should be applied to all
classes, social and hard sciences, the general approach to instruction at The Institute does
not promote an interactive classroom as prescribed by these best practices. Therefore, the
findings in this study may yield different results if the study were conducted at a liberal
arts school with social science options.
Institute Culture – Since The Institute‟s focus is more on high quality research
than academics, this creates a very specialized and competitive environment for students.
The Institute only admits the best and the brightest, therefore some of the ITA
observations relative to the behavior of their students (e.g. intrinsic/extrinsic motivation)
may be due to the institute culture created by such a specialized academic setting as well
as the high quality of students admitted to this institution.
Student Point of View – Since students of ITAs were recruited to complete an
online survey that included only a few open-ended questions, the qualitative portion of
the student point of view lacks depth of analysis. Consequently, even though this study
did not focus on student motivation, certain ITA assumptions, such as why they do not
135
come to class or why they do not participate in class could not be confirmed with the
students.
ITA Linguistic Ability – None of the ITAs who volunteered for this study had
major linguistic issues when interacting with their students, therefore due to their high
level of English ability, conclusions cannot be made in this study as to whether or not
linguistic ability influences perceived instructional ability.

Conclusions and Implications
Overall due to the high level of ITA linguistic ability, this study is not able to
make conclusions about how linguistic ability affects perceived instructional
effectiveness. It also finds that culture influences instructional style, most notably in
three categories: organization of information, classroom management, and manner of
addressing confusion/questions.
Organization of Information – Those ITAs who have experience with the U.S.
education system make an effort to organize information in the manner outlined in
Chapter 2: review, introduction, body, summary. Those ITAs who have no prior
experience in the U.S. education system present only the information necessary and
believe that the instructor‟s role is to provide the big picture, not every detail as their
American students expect. This creates a significant difference between student
expectations and the expectations of their ITA. Students perceive their ITAs as not
knowing and not meeting their needs, and the ITAs perceive their students as unprepared
and unmotivated.
136
Classroom Management – Most of the ITAs in this study come from cultures
where the expectations are rote memorization and little or no classroom interaction
between teacher and student. It is therefore difficult for them to meet American student
expectations and create an open, interactive classroom environment. Those who attempt
to do so have difficulty getting their students to respond, then they do not know how to
get the students to learn for themselves without giving them all the answers. Students
thus feel like they do not understand the main points of a lesson and feel unprepared for
future classes, homework, and exams. The ITAs on the other hand, perceive their
students as shy, unmotivated, and/or uninterested.
Manner of Addressing Confusion/Questions – Consistent comprehension checks
and explicit feedback to highlight main points is an important expectation that American
students possess. Since all of the ITAs in this study believe that their role as an instructor
is to provide the big picture and the little details are the responsibility of the student, they
often do not do this. Their students consequently feel they are not getting enough
information to successfully complete their homework and exams. They often feel they
are more confused when leaving class than upon arrival. Yet, the students rarely
participate in class or say anything directly to their ITA about their expectations,
therefore the ITAs feel that they are providing more than enough information and must be
doing a good job helping the students understand it.

137
Recommendations
The findings of this study lead to common themes that can be applied to
recommendations for ITA training program content, The Institute, and areas for further
study.
Findings suggest that three critical areas of ITA training are organization of
information, classroom management, and addressing confusion/questions. It is
recommended that ITA training programs include these areas as part of their training
curriculum. As illustrated in Chapter 2, the best U.S. instructors are considered to be
facilitators, not transmitters, of knowledge. They use a constructivist approach to
learning and therefore present lessons that build on their students‟ prior knowledge. They
also use strategic questions to stimulate deeper discussions and an active learning
environment where students are encouraged to challenge ideas and concepts so as to
promote a more individual responsibility to learning. Therefore, it is important for
people who teach in the U.S. to possess the appropriate facilitation skills and understand
how detailed they are expected to be when presenting a lesson.
The findings of this study reveal that foreign instructors are likely to come from a
learning environment with different student expectations than in the U.S. Most of the
ITAs in this study recognize that the U.S. classroom is expected to be more interactive
than what they experienced at home. They also observed that their students expect more
detailed information than they felt it was necessary to provide. Although most of them
felt that it is the responsibility of the student to learn the smaller details of a lesson, they
attempted to adapt their instructional approaches to promote a more active learning
138
environment. Some ITAs gave up quickly and moved on with their lessons when they
did not receive an immediate response from their students. Those who were able to
stimulate discussion had difficulty facilitating the conversation in a direction that helped
the students come to their own conclusions. Consequently, students felt that their ITAs
were not able to appropriately assess their needs as learners and often left class feeling
unprepared for future homework assignments and/or exams. It is thus recommended that
ITA training programs place special emphasis on American student expectations in the
classroom as well as what has been outlined in Chapter 2 as best teacher practices. More
specifically, ITAs should learn:
 How information is organized in the U.S. classroom – American
students expect a review of previous material before moving on to new
concepts. They also want to know what the goals of class will be that
day, and expect as much detailed information as possible, so much that
they would not mind if the answers were given to them explicitly. At
the end of class, they expect a review of the main points that were to
be learned that day as well as a preview of what is expected of them
for the next class.
 Appropriate facilitation skills – Specialized skills are necessary to
facilitate a conversation and direct it in a manner that the participants
are able to come to the correct conclusions without being explicitly
told what they are expected to learn. ITAs face two obstacles when
trying to create an active learning environment: knowing how to
139
facilitate a conversation appropriately, and knowing how to do it in
their second language.
 Effective approaches to addressing questions and confusion – ITAs
were found to give incomplete answers and/or did not consistently
recognize confusion among their students. Another part of successful
facilitation in the classroom also includes the ability to present
unprepared information in an unpredictable environment. Learning
skills such as how to provide responses to questions that may not have
been prepared ahead of time, performing consistent comprehension
checks while presenting prepared information, and recognizing non-
verbal cues relative to student confusion will help ITAs acquire the
ability to think and perform when unprepared. Additionally, linguistic
compensations strategies can be very helpful when a language barrier
may be present.
It is therefore recommended that The Institute provide comprehensive, mandatory
training for ITAs before they are allowed to serve in an instructional role. Based on the
findings of this study, to be more effective, ITAs need to learn American student
expectations, especially in relation to organization of information, classroom
management, and addressing confusion/questions. Most ITAs did not learn in such an
interactive classroom, therefore will not likely possess the ability to promote the
interactive learning environment that is expected in the U.S. classroom. Therefore, to be
140
most effective in the U.S. classroom, ITAs must learn American student expectations,
and acceptable pedagogical approaches before being assigned to an instructional role.
Additionally, it is recommended that the culture of The Institute be assessed. In
this study, the ITAs perceived their students as unprepared, unresponsive, and
extrinsically motivated only by grades. The Institute would benefit from examining
student satisfaction of their classes and instructors. Based on ITA and student responses
in this study, it seems that institutional culture, the typical Institute student, and
differences in teacher/student expectations are creating a learning atmosphere that may be
hindering learning potential in The Institute‟s classrooms. By recognizing that the
learning process is more than problem sets and exams, fostering stronger student
assistance programs (personal and academic; i.e., within student affairs), and promoting a
higher value on quality instructional practices, professors and teaching assistants could
work together to foster a stronger, more intrinsic learning environment, thus creating an
even higher caliber of students.
Recommendations for Further Study – This study is very broad and complex, and
used ITAs from several different countries in a very small sample. Therefore the
researcher was not able to go deeper into where the cultural differences in instructional
approaches come from and why they exist. Therefore recommendations for further
research include:

141
1. Similar studies using larger, more homogeneous samples so as to learn
what pedagogical characteristics are specific to which culture.
2. Studies that focus specifically on each of the three trends found in this
study: organization of information, classroom management, and
addressing confusion/questions. By studying each of these areas
separately in relation to foreign instructors in the U.S. classroom, a
deeper understanding of American student expectations, foreign
instructor adjustment issues, and training development can be
achieved.
3. Replication studies using two primary sample populations,
international and American TAs so as to compare them to each other
to find out what instructional approaches are cultural and which are
due to lack of instructional experience or training.
The above recommendations are proposed based on this study‟s methodology,
findings, and limitations. Because this study was broad and its subject matter complex,
smaller studies which focus on more intricate details of the influence of language and
culture on pedagogical practices will continue to provide even deeper insight. By no
means should one be limited to the above recommendations only, the methodology,
findings, and limitations of this study suggest additional directions for further research.
142

REFERENCES

Allen, R.R., Rueter, T. (1990). Teaching assistant strategies: An introduction to college
teaching. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Althen, G. (1991). Teaching “culture” to international teaching assistants. In J.D.
Nyquist, R.D. Abbott, D.H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.). Preparing the professoriate
of tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 350-355). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Bailey, K.M. (1982). Teaching in a second language: The communicative competence of
non-native speaking teaching assistants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.

Bailey, K.M. (1984). The “foreign TA problem”. In K.M. Bailey, F. Pialorsi, & J.
Zukowski/Faust (Eds.). Foreign teaching assistants in U.S. universities (pp.3-
15). Washington, D.C.: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs.

Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

Banks, J.A. (2001). Multicultural education: characteristics and goals. In J.A. Banks &
C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (4
th
ed.,
pp. 3-30). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Banks, J.A. (2004). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and
practice. In J.A. Banks & C.A.M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on
multicultural education (2
nd
ed., pp. xxvi). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bennett, C. (1986). Comprehensive multicultural education: Theory and practice.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research. 71(2). 171-217.
Bresnahan, M., & Kim, M.S. (1993). Predictors of receptivity and resistance toward
international teaching assistants. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 4(1), 3-
14.
Bullivant, B. (1993). Culture: Its nature and meaning for educators. In J.A. Banks and
C.A.M. Banks (Eds.). Multicultural eduation: Issues and perspectives (2
nd
Ed., pp.
29-47). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
143
Byrd, P. (1987, July). Questions to guide thinking about pedagogy and language in FTA
training. In Constantidides, J.C. (Ed.), Wyoming institute on foreign teaching
assistant training: Working papers (2). Laramie, WY.
Byrd, P., & Constantinides, J. C. (1992). The language of teaching mathematics:
Implications for training ITAs. TESOL Quarterly, 26(1), 163-167.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J.
Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.) Language and Communication (pp. 2-28).
London: Longman.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases for communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Cartledge, G. (1996). Cultural diversity and social skills instruction: Understanding
ethnic and gender differences. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Christy E.E., Rittenberg, W. (1987, July). Some typical problems in the training of
Chinese teaching assistants: Three case studies. In Constantidides, J.C. (Ed.),
Wyoming institute on foreign teaching assistant training: Working papers (2).
Laramie, WY.
Cohen, D.K., & Spillane, J.P. (1992). Policy and practice: the relations between
governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18, 3-49.
Davis, W.E. (1991). International teaching assistants and cultural differences: Student
evaluations of rapport, approachability, enthusiasm and fairness. In J.D. Nyquist,
R.D. Abbott, D.H. Wulff, & J. Sprague (Eds.). Preparing the professoriate of
tomorrow to teach: Selected readings in TA training (pp. 446-451). Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Erickson, F. (1997). Schools as sociocultural systems. In Saha, L.J. (Ed.), International
encyclopedia of the sociology of education. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Erickson, F. (2001). Culture in society and in educational practices. In J.A. Banks &
McGee Banks, C.A. (Eds.), Multicultural education:Iissues and perspectives (4
th

ed., pp. 31-58). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Finder, A. (2005, June 24). Unclear on American campus: What the foreign teacher said.
The New York Times, pp. A1, A18.

Fleisher, B., Hashimoto, M., & Weinberg, B.A. (2002). Foreign GTAs can be effective
teachers of economics. Journal of Economic Education, 33(4), 299-325.

144
Freeman, D., & Richards, J.C. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and the education of
second language teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 193-216.

Gallego, J.C. (1990). The intelligibility of three nonnative English-speaking teaching
assistants: An analysis of student reported communication breakdowns. Issues in
Applied Linguistics, 1, 219-237.

Gass, S. & Varonis, E.M. (1984). The effect of familiarity on the comprehensibility of
nonnative speech. Language Learning, 34(1), 65-89.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching; theory, research, & practice. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gillespie, J.K. (1988). Foreign and U.S. teaching assistants: An analysis of verbal and
nonverbal classroom interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.

Gorsuch, G.J. (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences on
teachers‟ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34(4), 675-
710.

Gorsuch, G.J. (2003). The educational cultures of international teaching assistants and U.S.
universities. TESL-EJ, 7(3). Retrieved March 24, 2007, from http://tesl-
ej.org/ej27/al.html.

Graduate college handbook: Chapter VI. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from University of
Illinois, Urbana Champaign, Graduate Handbook Web site:
http://www.grad.uiuc.edu/gradhandbook/chaptervi/section11.asp.

Gravois, J. (2005, April 8). Teach impediment. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 10.
Halleck, G. B., & Moder, C. L. (1995). Testing language and teaching skills of
international teaching assistants: The limits of compensatory strategies. TESOL
Quarterly, 29(4), 733-758.
Hinofotis, F.B., & Bailey, K.M. (1981). Undergraduates‟ reactions to the communication
skills of foreign teaching assistants. In Fisher, J.C., Clarke, M.A., & Schacter, J. (Eds.).
TESOL ’80: Building bridges: Research and practice in teaching English as a second
language. Washington D.C.: TESOL.
History and law of language assessment. Retrieved March 24, 2007, from University of
Missouri, Columbia, Graduate School Web site:
http://gradschool.missouri.edu/ita/language/history.html.
145
Hoekje, B., & Linnell, K. (1994). “Authenticity” in language testing: evaluating spoken
language tests for international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 103-
126.
Hoekje, B., & Williams, J. (1992). Communicative competence and the dilemma of
international teaching assistant education. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 243-269.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions,
and organizations across nations (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (1972). Reinventing anthropology. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Inglis, M.A. (1988). Variables that affect undergraduates’ evaluations of non-native
speaking teaching assistants’ instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Memphis State University, Memphis.
Institute of International Education (2006). Open Doors 2006 online: Report on
international educational exchange. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=89192.
Institute of International Education (2007). Open Doors 2007 online: Report on
international educational exchange. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from
http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=113743.
International teaching assistants and assistant instructors. Retrieved March 24, 2007,
from University of Texas, International Student and Scholar Services Web site:
http://www.utexas.edu/international/isss/students/new/ita.shtml.
Kiley, C. (2005, April 19). North Dakota bill targets TAs with accents. Badger Herald.
Retrieved June 1, 2007, from
http://badgerherlad.com/news/2005/04/19/north_dakota_bill_ta.php.
Kim, Y.Y. (2001). Becoming intercultural: An integrative theory of communication and
cross-cultural adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
146
Langham, C.K. (1989). Discourse strategies and classroom learning: American and
foreign teaching assistants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, San Diego.
Luo, J., Grady, M.lL., Bellows, L.H. (2001). Instructional issues for teaching assistants.
Innovative Higher Education, 25(3), 209-230.
Lustig, M.W., Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal
communication across cultures (3
rd
ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
McKeachie, W.J., Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s teaching tips; Strategies, research,
and theory for college and university teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
Company.
McNamara, L.A. (1987, July). Cross-cultural considerations in designing a foreign TA
training program. In Constantidides, J.C. (Ed.), Wyoming institute on foreign
teaching assistant training: Working papers (2). Laramie, WY.
Murray, H.G. (1997). Effective teaching behaviors in the college classroom. In R.P.
Perry & J.C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and
practice. )pp. 171-204). New York: Agathon.
Nelson, G.L. (1992). The relationship between the use of personal, cultural examples in
international teaching assistants‟ lectures and uncertainty reduction, student attitude,
student recall, and ethnocentrism. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
16, 33-52.
Novinger, T. (2001). Intercultural communication: A practical guide. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Nyquist, J.D., & Wulff, D.H. (1996). Working effectively with graduate assistants.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
O‟Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., & Aronoff, M. (1989). Contemporary linguistics: An
introduction. New York, NY: St. Martin‟s Press.
O‟Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., & Aronoff, M. (1993). Contemporary linguistics: An
introduction (2
nd
ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin‟s Press.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
147
Pialorsi, F. (1984). Toward an anthropology of the classroom: An essay on foreign
teaching assistants and U.S. students. In K.M. Bailey, F. Pialorsi, & J.
Zukowski/Fause (Eds.). Foreign teaching assistants in U.S. universities. (pp. 16-
21). Washington, D.C.: National Association for Foreign Student Affairs.
Pica, T., Barnes, G.A., Finger, A.G. (Eds.) (1990). Teaching matters: Skills and
strategies for international teaching assistants. New York, NY: Newbury House
Publishers.
Ramsden, P. (1988). Studying learning: Improving teaching. IN P. Ramsden (Ed.).
Improving learning: New perspectives. London: Kogan Page.
Rao, N. (1994). The OH NO! syndrome: A language expectation model of
undergraduates’ negative reactions toward foreign teaching assistants.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Rounds, P.L. (1987). Characterizing successful classroom discourse for NNS teaching
assistant training. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 643-671.
Rubin, D.L., Smith, K.A. (1990). Effects of accent, ethnicity, and lecture topic on
undergraduates‟ perceptions of nonnative English-speaking teaching assistants.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 337-353.
Sarkisian, E. (1990). Teaching American students: A guide for international faculty and
teaching assistants in colleges and universities. Cambridge, MA: Derek Bok Center
for Teaching and Learning.
Score use: Setting score requirements for the TOEFL iBT. Retreived April 27, 2008 from
the Educational Testing Service website:
http://www.ets.org/portal/site/ets/menuitem.1488512ecfd5b8849a77b13bc3921509/?
vgnextoid=e3872d3631df4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD&vgnextchannel=33
3bd898c84f4010VgnVCM10000022f95190RCRD.
Sequira, D.L., (1986, July). ITAs and the road to communication competence: Learning
to map a department. In Constantidides, J.C. (Ed.), Wyoming institute on foreign
teaching assistant training: Working papers (1). Laramie, WY.
Shade, B.J. (1989). Culture, style and the educative process. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas Publisher.

148
Shaw, P.A. & Garate, E.M. (1984). Linguistic competence, communicative needs, and
university pedagogy: Toward a framework for TA training. In K.M. Bailey, F.
Pialorsi, & J. Zukowski/Fause (Eds.). Foreign teaching assistants in U.S.
universities. (pp. 22-42). Washington, D.C.: National Association for Foreign
Student Affairs.
Smith, J., Meyers, C.M., Burkhalter, A.J. (1992). Communicate: Strategies for
international teaching assistants. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice Hall.
Smith, R.M., Byrd, P., Nelson, G.L., Barrett, R.P., Constantinides, J.C. (1992). Crossing
pedagogical oceans: International teaching assistants in U.S. undergraduate
education (Report No. 8). Washington, DC: The George Washington University,
School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED RI-88-062014).
Stage, F.K., Muller, P.A., Kinzie, J., Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learner centered
classrooms: What does learning theory have to say? (Report Volume 26(4)).
Washington DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education
and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED422778).
Stigler, J.W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s
teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Free Press.
Strauss, A.L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Summary of Carnegie Mellon University policy on evaluation and certification of English
fluency for instructors. Retrieved March 24, 2007 from Carnegie Mellon University,
University Policies website:
http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/EngFluency.html.
Tyler, A. (1992). Discourse structure and the perception of incoherence in international
teaching assistants' spoken discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 713-729.
Tyler, A. (1994). The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: Signaling logical
and prominence relations. Applied Lingistics, 15(3), 243-261.
Tyler, A., & Davies, C. (1990). Cross-linguistic missteps. Text, 10, 385-411.
Tyler, A., Jeffries, A.A., Davies, C. (1988). The effect of discourse devices on listener
perceptions of coherence in non-native university teacher‟s spoken discourse. World
Englishes, 7, 101-110.
149
Villegas, A.M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A
coherent approach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching; Five key changes to practice. San
Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Williams, J. (1992). Planning, discourse marking, and the comprehensibility of
international teaching assistants. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 693-711.
Wiggins, G.P. (1998). Educative assessment: Designing assessments to inform and
improve student performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
150
APPENDIX A
EXPERT OBSERVATION FORM
ITA: DATE:

COMMENTS
I. Language Skills
Pronunciation / Accent Heavy Light

-accuracy (individual sounds/phonetics) 1 2 3 4 5
-appropriateness (stress, intonation) 1 2 3 4 5
-comprehensibility 1 2 3 4 5
Knowledge of Grammar Weak Strong

-accuracy (lexicon, syntax) 1 2 3 4 5
-appropriateness (word choice & structure) 1 2 3 4 5
-comprehensibility 1 2 3 4 5
Fluency Not Fluent Highly Fluent

-accuracy (use of connotations, slang, idioms) 1 2 3 4 5
-appropriateness (flow, rhythmic patterns, pauses) 1 2 3 4 5
-comprehensibility 1 2 3 4 5
Overall Comprehensibility Weak Strong

-one-way communication (prepared lecture) 1 2 3 4 5
-two-way communication (interacting w/students) 1 2 3 4 5

TOTAL SCORE, LANGUAGE SKILLS
of 55

II. Teaching Skills
Organization of Information Disorganized Very Organized

-logical development of ideas 1 2 3 4 5
-structure (review, new concepts, summary) 1 2 3 4 5
-important points appropriately emphasized 1 2 3 4 5
Clarity of Information Unclear Very Clear

-remain on topic 1 2 3 4 5
-appropriate amount of new material (ZPD; i+1) 1 2 3 4 5
-use of supporting detail (examples, models) 1 2 3 4 5
Relevance of Content Never Always

-clearly connected to familiar contexts 1 2 3 4 5
-use of previous material; supports new material 1 2 3 4 5
-content is useful and clear 1 2 3 4 5
151
Visuals/Blackboard Never Always

-well-chosen methods/compensation methods 1 2 3 4 5
-easy to read follow 1 2 3 4 5
-doesn’t distract from content 1 2 3 4 5
Non-Verbal Communication Never Always

-appropriate eye contact 1 2 3 4 5
-appropriate facial expressions/gestures 1 2 3 4 5
-appropriate use of space 1 2 3 4 5
Audience Awareness Never Always

-recognizes non-verbal and non-verbal cues 1 2 3 4 5
-responds appropriately to student cues 1 2 3 4 5
-performs regular comprehension checks 1 2 3 4 5
Interaction Never Always

-approachable 1 2 3 4 5
-comfortable with challenges to ideas 1 2 3 4 5
-friendly 1 2 3 4 5
Teacher Presence Never Always

-leader but not dictator 1 2 3 4 5
-has respect, knows it’s “earned” 1 2 3 4 5
-aware of audience needs/does not alienate 1 2 3 4 5
Aural Comprehension Never Always

-understands students at normal speech rate 1 2 3 4 5
-normal amt of requests for clarification 1 2 3 4 5
-comfortable asking for clarification 1 2 3 4 5
Method of Handling Questions Never Always

-comfortable responding to questions 1 2 3 4 5
-responds quickly 1 2 3 4 5
-repeats/rephrases when appropriate 1 2 3 4 5
Clarity of Response to Questions Never Always

-focus on question/answers directly 1 2 3 4 5
-concise yet substantial 1 2 3 4 5
-quality of information 1 2 3 4 5

TOTAL SCORE, INSTRUCTIONAL SKILLS
of 165

OVERALL TEACHING ABILITY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 = Not ready for the American classroom.
5 = May be ready to teach, but needs training.
10 = Teaches as if s/he were trained professionally in the U.S.
152
APPENDIX B
COPYRIGHT AUTHORIZATION
Pearson Education

153
APPENDIX C
INTERNATIONAL TEACHING ASSISTANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this study. I would like to remind you
that all your answers today are completely confidential and all the information collected
will be used only for this study. Therefore, your responses will have no influence at all
on your current and future teaching assignments. To uphold the integrity of this study,
please answer each question honestly and to the best of your ability. Do you still agree to
be interviewed?

Background Information

1) Where are you from?

2) Is English your first language?

3) If not, what is your first language?

4) Do you speak any other languages? Which ones?

5) How many years did you study English in school?

6) Did you take the TOEFL? If so, do you remember your score?

7) Have you ever taught a class before? If so, when, where, and how many times?

8) What was your favorite class and why?

9) What is your teaching philosophy?

10) How do you learn best?

11) How do you think your students learn best?
154
Language

Pronunciation
1) Do you think you have a strong accent when you speak English?
a) Please rate your accent on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being a very strong, and 5 being
no accent.

1 2 3 4 5

2) Do you think your students are able to understand you even though you have an
accent? What makes you easy/difficult to understand?
a) Please rate how well you think your students understand you on a scale from 1 to
5, 1 being that they do not understand you at all, and 5 being they always
understand you.

1 2 3 4 5

3) Do you think your accent is distracting your students from learning the course
material?
a) Please rate how much you think students are distracted by your accent on a scale
from 1 to 5, 1 being very distracting, and 5 being not distracting at all.

1 2 3 4 5

Grammar
4) How well do you know American English grammar?
a) How often do you think you make grammar mistakes? Rate yourself from 1 to 5,
1 being all the time, and 5 being never.

1 2 3 4 5

5) Do you think your grammar is better when you speak or write? Why?
a) How often do you think you use words or phrases that do not make sense? Rate
yourself from 1 to 5, 1 being all the time, and 5 being never.

1 2 3 4 5

155
6) Do you think your use of English grammar is distracting to your students from
learning the course material?
a) Please rate how much you think students are distracted by your use of English
grammar on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being very distracting, and 5 being not
distracting at all.

1 2 3 4 5

Fluency
7) Are you comfortable using American slang?
a) How often do you feel you use American slang appropriately? Rate yourself from
1 to 5, 1 being never use American slang, and 5 being you always use it correctly.

1 2 3 4 5

8) Do you still translate directly from your first language to English when speaking in
English? If not, when did you stop translating?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, do you think you speak at a pace easy for your students to
understand? 1 being never speaks at a comprehensive speed, and 5 being you are
always speaking at a comprehensive speed.

1 2 3 4 5

9) How well do you think your students understand what you say?
a) Please rate how often you think your students understand what you say on a scale
of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

Overall Comprehensibility
10) How well do you think your students understand your lectures?
a) Please rate yourself on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the students never understand
your lectures and 5 being they always understand your lectures.

1 2 3 4 5

156
11) How well do you think your students understand you when you are interacting with
them in class? (i.e., responding to questions, helping them solve problem sets, etc.)
a) Please rate how well you think your students understand you when you interact
with them on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the students never understand you, and 5
being they always understand.

1 2 3 4 5

Teaching Skills

Organization of Information
1) How do you organize your lectures?
a) Please rate how well you think your students are able to follow your presentations
on a scale from 1 to 5, 1 being they never follow you and 5 being they are always
able to follow.

1 2 3 4 5

2) How do you emphasize an important point? (i.e., something that may be on a test)
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never and 5 being always, how often do you think
your students understand what points are most important in a lesson?

1 2 3 4 5

3) Do you review previous class material before moving on to the topic for class?
a) How often do you review class materials, please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being
never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

Clarity of Information
4) How do you know when your students are ready to move on to the next subject?
What signs do you look for, verbal or non-verbal?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always, how often do you feel you
stay focused on the topic while presenting a lesson?

1 2 3 4 5

157
5) How do you create a challenging environment for your students without presenting
information that is too difficult for them to understand?
a) Please rate how challenging you think your class is, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being
not challenging at all and 5 being too difficult.

1 2 3 4 5

6) How do you clarify the main points of your lessons? Do you use examples? If so,
what kind?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate how often you use examples to clarify main
points, 1 being never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

Relevance of Content
7) How familiar to you feel your students are with the content of the course you are
teaching?
a) Please rate their knowledge on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the students are very
familiar with the course content, and 5 being that they are not familiar at all.

1 2 3 4 5

8) Do you use previous concepts the students have already learned to introduce new
concepts?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always, please rate how often you
use previous concepts to reinforce new concepts in your lessons.

1 2 3 4 5

9) How do you know if the students understand the relevance of the course content to
the goals of the class?
a) Please rate how often you think the students feel that the course content is
relevant to the goals of the class on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being
always.

1 2 3 4 5

158
Visuals / Blackboard
10) Do you use visuals? Which type do you prefer to use? Why?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always, how often do you use
visuals in your lessons?

1 2 3 4 5

11) When do you use visuals, and what purpose do they serve?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always, please rate how often you
use visuals that the students can follow easily.

1 2 3 4 5

12) Have you ever used visuals that you felt were more distracting than helpful? If so,
please give examples.
a) Please rate how often this happens on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being
always.

1 2 3 4 5

Non-Verbal Communication
13) Do you feel eye contact with students is important?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate how often you make eye contact with your
students, either one on one, or as a class, 1 being never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

14) Do you ever use facial expressions or gestures that the students do not seem to
understand?
a) Please rate how often this happens, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being
always.

1 2 3 4 5

159
15) Do you use the entire classroom as a teaching resource? If so, how? (give examples
if necessary)
a) How often do you leave the front of the classroom when presenting a lesson?
Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

Audience Awareness
16) How do you know when students do not understand?
a) How often do you think you recognize when your students do not understand
something? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

17) What do you do when you know they do not understand something?
a) How often do you address confusion when it occurs? Please rate on a scale of 1
to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

18) Do you make sure everyone understands a concept or lesson before moving on to the
next one?
a) How often do you do this? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5
being always.

1 2 3 4 5

Interaction
19) How much interaction do you have with students in the classroom?
a) Do you think your students are comfortable asking you questions in class? How
comfortable do you think they are, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not comfortable at
all, and 5 being very comfortable.

1 2 3 4 5

160
20) How formal are you with your students? Are you open to students who have opinions
different from your own?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate how comfortable you are addressing student
opinions when they are not the same as your own, 1 being not comfortable at all,
and 5 being very comfortable.

1 2 3 4 5

21) How important is it for an instructor to appear as friendly to his/her students?
a) How friendly are you with your students? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being
not friendly at all, and 5 being very friendly.

1 2 3 4 5

Teacher Presence
22) What do you think the role of a teacher is? How should a class be managed?
a) How much do you think your students like the way you manage your classroom?
Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not at all, and 5 being very much.

1 2 3 4 5

23) How do you earn respect from your students?
a) How much respect do you think your student have for you? Please rate on a scale
of 1 to 5, 1 being no respect at all, and 5 being you are highly respected by your
students.

1 2 3 4 5

24) Are you aware of the needs of your students? How do you know?
a) Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not aware at all, and 5 being very much
aware, how aware you are of your students needs.

1 2 3 4 5

161
Aural Comprehension
25) Do you understand everything your students say? When do you have the most
difficulty understanding them?
a) From your students‟ point of view, please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, how often your
students do not think you understand them, 1 being they never think you
understand them, and 5 being they always think you understand them.

1 2 3 4 5

26) What do you do when you do not? Are you comfortable asking your students to
repeat their questions or comments?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always, how often do you ask
your students to repeat or clarify what they said?

1 2 3 4 5

27) Are you comfortable asking for clarification when students make unsolicited
comments or ask questions in class?
a) How often do you feel you ask students for clarification when they ask questions
or make comments? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being
always.

1 2 3 4 5

Method of Handling Questions
28) How comfortable are you responding to questions or unsolicited comments by
students during class?
a) How often do you think students feel it‟s OK to ask questions or make comments
in class? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

29) Do you think students are generally satisfied with your answers to their questions?
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always, how often do you think
your students are satisfied with your responses to their questions?

1 2 3 4 5

162
30) How do you know when a student doesn‟t understand your answer to their question?
What do you do to clarify?
a) How often do repeat, rephrase, or elaborate on your answers to student questions?
Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always.

1 2 3 4 5

Clarity of Response to Questions
31) How detailed should you be when responding to a student‟s question? Are you a
direct or indirect communicator? (define direct and indirect if necessary)
a) On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate how direct of a communicator you are, 1 being
very indirect, and 5 being very direct.

1 2 3 4 5

32) How do you know when you have given an answer with which your students are
satisfied? How do you know when something is unclear to them?
a) Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being never, and 5 being always, how often you
feel your responses to student questions are complete and thorough.

1 2 3 4 5

33) Do you think your students ever leave class with more questions than when they
arrived?
a) Please rate on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being always, and 5 being never, how often
students have more question after a lesson than before it began.

1 2 3 4 5

163
Overall Personal Rating

1) What is your perception of the American teaching style?

2) How close do you think your teaching methods are to this?

3) Overall, on a scale of 1 – 10 (10 being the best), how would you rate your teaching
abilities? Why?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4) Any additional comments or personal observations about teaching in the United
States?

164
APPENDIX D
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
165
166
167

168

169

170

171
172
173

174

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Foreign instructors who teach in U.S. universities often enter the classroom without an introduction to American student expectations. The American classroom tends to be more interactive and more informal than classrooms in other countries. In addition, there is a specific format that American students expect information to be presented to them that often differs from how foreign instructors learned in their home countries. Research has shown that a teacher will use instructional approaches typical of the classroom where s/he learned. This creates the potential for conflict between a foreign instructor and his/her students, thus hindering the learning environment. This study examines the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness by comparing three points of view: international teaching assistants (ITAs), their students, and an expert observer. Interviews, questionnaires, and classroom observations make up the triangulation methodology used in this study. A qualitative analysis of ITA self-ratings, student ratings of their ITA, and expert observations yields three common differences between ITA and student expectations which suggest culture does influence one s instructional style: how one organizes/presents information, approach to classroom management, and manner of addressing confusion/questions.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Models of teaching: indicators influencing teachers' pedagogical choice

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

PDF

Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom

PDF

The relationship of teachers' parenting styles and Asian American students' reading motivation

PDF

What is the relationship between self-efficacy of community college mathematics faculty and effective instructional practice?

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

"Thinking in the middle" what instructional approaches are employed by urban middle school teachers to effect changes in African American students' learning outcomes and performances?

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Teacher management style: its impact on teacher-student relationships and leadership development

PDF

Supporting world language teachers to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

The effect on teacher career choices: exploring teacher perceptions on the impact of non‐instructional workload on self‐efficacy and self‐determination

PDF

The influence of teacher characteristics on preference for models of teaching

PDF

Factors that influence the ability of preservice teachers to apply English language arts pedagogy in guided practice

PDF

Factors influencing gifted students' preferences for models of teaching

Asset Metadata

Creator Trentin, Athena (author)

Core Title A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2008-08

Publication Date 06/26/2008

Defense Date 05/06/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag communicative competence,International Teaching Assistant,ITA,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy,Teacher Training

Language English

Advisor Stromquist, Nelly P. (committee chair), Jackson, Michael L. (committee member), Jun, Alexander (committee member)

Creator Email trentin@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1294

Unique identifier UC195061

Identifier etd-Trentin-20080626 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-83819 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1294 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Trentin-20080626.pdf

Dmrecord 83819

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Trentin, Athena

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu