Young Grad Student TA

I led a seminar today, and it went really well. My students were so engaged with the readings; they came prepared, and felt comfortable to differ with each other's opinions and back up their points of view with evidence. Today was like every TA's dream seminar: where you have to keep them reigned in, rather than drag responses out of them. There wasn't any single student that dominated the conversation, and the students brought up points that led the discussion in new directions (without me having to direct the discussion). Most times (except when I would get over-excited and jump in, which I'm trying to control), all I had to do was point to students, who were waiting for a turn to contribute.

After the session, I had a meeting with the course's prof, to discuss our seminars. I was gushing about my group, and then he mentioned that his group was a lot more hesitant. And so he asked me what, specifically, I've been doing with my group. This really made me reflect on my seminar-leading style, and the positives and negatives of that style.

It helps that I'm the young TA. I'm not their prof; I'm a student. I make them move their desks into a circle, and we all fill out name tags (I reassure them that there are grad-level classes that also do this, and I'm not treating them like babies). We go around the group introducing ourselves (it's how I do attendance), and I make them answer some kind of silly introduction question. (As the semester progresses, that question becomes increasingly topical.) I'm there to facilitate the discussion, but I am not an authority on the subject. I have more background in the general history of the period than most of them do, but this is an area where I'm not an expert, and they're aware of that. We just discuss and come to a greater understanding of the texts together.

Now, there are some real positives of my discussion style. My students tend to feel at ease around me. Yet again, it helps that I'm not their prof, but instead I'm that crazy person who makes self-deprecating jokes about herself and who loves snack foods to which she's allergic. I referee the discussions, and I jump in when we're neglecting the historical context, but I'm not even the one who marks their essays.

But there are obvious drawbacks to my teaching style. Of course, it is dependent on me being young and not an authority on the subject. (This would not work if I was lecturing.) And the students then don't ask me questions for clarifications about the course: they'll wait to ask the prof (if they feel comfortable enough to ask him, seeing as they don't get him for discussion group). It also gets into that tricky area where I may have to make an unpopular decision, and so I'd better not be too attached to my young and cool image.

But I work for a really good, and really flexible prof. He wants to try to adapt some of my methods, especially the sitting in a circle, having nametags, and trying to get everyone to relax a little. We're also going to switch sections, just for one session, so that my students get a chance to know their prof, and so that his students maybe get a chance to come out of their shell and aren't shocked when their prof introduces a new style.

So, we'll see what happens.