Content uploaded by Joshua Oluwole Olowoyo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshua Oluwole Olowoyo on Oct 19, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
101
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research
Vol. 19, No. 7, pp. 101-120, July 2020
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.7.6
Perceptions of Students towards the
Postgraduate Biology Practical Demonstrators at
Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University,
Pretoria, South Africa
Liziwe L. Mugivhisa
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6112-5478
Caswell Mavimbela
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5754-439X
Joshua O. Olowoyo
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8601-091X
Abstract. The present study assessed the experiences of junior students
on the ability, performance, and competence of demonstrators or
instructors for practical classes in the Biology department. A total of 148
self-administered questionnaires were completed by the junior Biology
students in years 1, 2, and 3. The result showed that 52.1% and 62.3% of
the participants indicated that the demonstrators had adequate content
knowledge of the practical sessions and were helpful during practical
sessions respectively. Furthermore, 51.4% agreed that the marking of the
practical assessments by the demonstrators was not usually accurate.
Most of the respondents stated that the demonstrators were good
listeners (77.4%), approachable (71.9%) and 83.0% of the participants did
not have any problems with taking instructions from the demonstrators.
The majority (69.0%) of the participants wanted the services of the
demonstrators to be continued and 36.0% felt that there was a need to
increase the number of demonstrators for the practical sessions. Some of
the shortcomings of the demonstrators as mentioned by the respondents
were the use of cell phones during the practical sessions and that the
demonstrators were fond of talking amongst themselves rather than
concentrating on the students they were supposed to assist. In general,
though the demonstrators were considered to be helpful and that their
services should be continued it is however recommended that they
should be required to write pre-practical tests before the practical classes
to improve their competency in marking and giving accurate answers
during the practical classes.
Keywords: Demonstrators; Practical Classes; Laboratory; Postgraduate
Students
102
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The large numbers of undergraduate students enrolled at universities together
with the decrease in the public funding has resulted in postgraduates or senior
students being employed on a part-time basis to assist with the running of
undergraduate classes at institutions of higher learning (Flaherty et al., 2017). This
has assisted with addressing the challenges of high numbers of students even
though there is a low teacher-to-student ratio (Durán et al., 2012). The first-year
class consists of a group of students with diverse backgrounds and academic
abilities, hence, it becomes more difficult to coordinate activities that encourage
the application of concepts outside the lecture such as laboratories (Sana et al.,
2011). Due to the large classes, one lecturer cannot conduct the laboratories and
lectures resulting in an introduction of having postgraduate or senior students to
lead the laboratory sessions which make up a major component of the classes in
the sciences (Chapin et al., 2014). According to Felege, (2018), the use of teaching
assistants who are graduates for several teaching duties has been practiced at
most tertiary institutions.
For the majority of the institutions of higher education, there has been more
reliance on the employment of the graduate teaching assistants who can also be
referred to as demonstrators. Big universities in the United States depend on
graduate students and teaching assistants for teaching the laboratory sessions in
the sciences especially at the introductory levels of subjects such as Biology (Basey
et al., 2014; Schussler et al., 2015). These graduate teaching assistants have been
found to play an important role in the standard of the education of the
undergraduates and to have an impact on the understanding of the
undergraduates when it comes to the comprehension of inquiry-based chemical
concepts in the laboratories (Wheeler et al., 2015). The graduate teaching assistants
who are in the practice of integrating their overlapping roles of being teachers and
students have an impact on the learning of the students (Spike, 2016). The
postgraduates have also been used as teaching assistants in other fields such as
Medicine in the majority of the medical schools in the United States (Lachman et
al., 2013).
Even though these graduate students usually have minimum formal teacher
training or preparation, they should be considered as partners who have an
impact on the influence and support of the learning and education of the students
(Spike, 2014). According to Chiu and Corrigan (2019), from the 1990s, most
managers at the universities have started to realise the significance of having
graduate teaching assistants who are properly trained so that they are able to
provide high-quality support and assistance to the undergraduates and as a
result, there have been efforts made to invest in the training of these graduate
assistants.
The graduate students are used as teaching assistants with responsibilities
ranging from managing laboratory sessions to assessing students in Science
Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields (Weidert et al., 2012).
However, few studies have been done to assess the impact of the demonstrators
on the teaching of the undergraduates (Kendall and Schussler, 2013). In addition
103
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
to their roles as facilitators, graduate teaching assistants in the laboratories are
responsible for marking, giving feedback, setting up materials/types of
equipment, motivating and encouraging students, presenting experimental
techniques and pre-laboratory lectures, and assisting students in scientific
practices (Wheeler et al., 2015).
According to Lama and Joullie (2015), at most Australian universities, enrolments
of students increased when there was a greater emphasis on doing research
resulting in less involvement of academic staff who were employed on a full-time
basis in teaching. As a result, there was a need for demonstrators to offer support
for the learning of the students in the science laboratories. The support of the
learning process for the undergraduate students during the practical sessions is
largely dependent on the demonstrators who have a substantial impact on the
experiences of the undergraduate students in the laboratories (Kirkup et al., 2016).
Only through the work that is carried out in the laboratories, can the practical
work in science education be guaranteed (Gudyanga & Jita, 2019). Leaners acquire
actual experiences of the natural world in the laboratories. When improvements
are done globally with respect to the science curriculum, changes also have to be
considered when it comes to the large-scale components of the practicals
including how experimental work is conducted by the students (Gudyanga & Jita,
2019). According to Russell and Weaver (2008), there is a belief that within science
education there is a coalition of practice and theory in the laboratories. Taking
part in proper research in a laboratory for an undergraduate who wants to pursue
a career in the scientific research seems like a noble opportunity (Linn et al., 2015;
Bowling et al., 2015; Bangera & Brownell, 2014). According to a survey by Linn et
al., (2015) at 200 institutions, undergraduates appreciated the research experiences
which they gained in the laboratories.
Laboratory sessions play a role of being the core element of the courses in the
sciences and they are for the development of experimental skills and sometimes
even being for emphasizing the theoretical concepts and principles (Braun &
Kirkup, 2016; Gardner & Jones, 2011). The hands-on activities which take place in
the laboratories are considered to be essential for science degrees (Hofstein &
Lunetta, 2004). According to Wilson et al., (2011), experiences that undergraduates
can gain in conducting research in the laboratories have been associated with
improvement of the educational experiences of the undergraduates and increased
retention rates of the graduates. Also, there is an enhancement of the skills in
research and increased perseverance to the undergraduate degree and selection
of a career in STEM when students engage in research in the laboratories.
According to DeBeck and Demaree (2012), in most cases, teaching assistants play
roles as the primary contact for the students and as a mediator between the
students and the professors. As a result, demonstrators end up interacting directly
more with the students. When demonstrators are given contracts by university
management, it is usually for the whole year meaning that the undergraduates
may be in contact with the same demonstrators for the whole year. As a result, the
contact that the demonstrator has with the students becomes 2 to 3 times more
104
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
than the time the student would spend with any other academic member of staff
(Braun & Kirkup, 2016; Gardner & Jones, 2011). In the laboratories, the
undergraduate students are more exposed to one-on-one experiences with the
demonstrators compared to when they are in with lecturers (French & Russell,
2002).
In the large lectures, students do not usually get a chance to interact with the
content of the lecture actively or get a chance to ask questions because they may
feel frightened to participate in such big groups and to also interact with the
lecturers which they might not be familiar with (Drane et al., 2014). Besides,
lecture classes are much bigger than the laboratory sessions pointing towards the
importance of the role of demonstrators in the learning of science (French &
Russell, 2002).
Interactions between demonstrators and students which are effective can
contribute to the success of the laboratory sessions through students' engagement
with the products and processes of science in the laboratories (Kirkup et al., 2016).
The positions of teaching assistants are usually associated with esteem, respect,
power, and authority in the undergraduate laboratories and classrooms (Chapin
et al., 2014). Usually, these positions are given to academically sound
postgraduate students. The experiences of the undergraduates are important in
determining whether the students are retained in the sciences and have a good
understanding of the subject content which they will use later in their professions
(Kendall & Schussler, 2013).
According to Flaherty et al., (2017), it has been stated in a national Australian
report that the laboratory demonstrators are the most significant resources
associated with the undergraduates’ experiences as they know what is to be done
in the laboratories and also how it should be done. Also, they set the tone of the
learning environment for the undergraduates. In the study of Kirkup et al., (2016),
demonstrators were seen as having powers to make a laboratory experience of the
undergraduates either miserable or great. Irrespective of how important the
demonstrators are, there has been little effort carried out in assessing the influence
they have on the experiences of the students in the undergraduate laboratories
where the main focus is on the experiments (Wyse et al., 2014). Few studies have
also been done to assess the impact of the demonstrators on the teaching of the
undergraduates (Kendall & Schussler, 2013).
Due to the changes in the global economy, there has been an escalation in the
demand for STEM professionals (Wilson et al., 2011). There is also a need for ways
to reconceptualise STEM education at the tertiary level at the nation's universities
and colleges because of an escalating need for professional engineers and
scientists together with fears about the absence of commitment in science careers
(Drane et al., 2014). However, below 50% of the students who have enrolled in the
STEM undergraduate curricula, will eventually graduate with a degree in STEM
in the United States (Wilson et al., 2011). As a result, this can contribute to a decline
of about one million science graduates from colleges in STEM over the coming
decade (Graham et al., 213). Policy-makers and educators have stressed that there
105
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
is a need for a shift in the STEM education from the model of traditional lectures
to methods that encourage teaching based on research to enhance the learning of
the students (Carlson et al., 2016).
Teaching assistants have been shown to play a crucial and fundamental role in the
teaching of undergraduates in computer science (Patitsas, 2012). The performance
of teaching assistants at twenty-three laboratories at the University of British
Colombia in North America was found to be affected by aspects such as
demonstrators getting support from the lecturers. In a large urban university at
the United States research-intensive university, carefully chosen undergraduate
teaching assistants were employed and supported to assist with supporting
students in the general chemistry course for preliminary STEM majors so that the
performance of the students could be enhanced (Phillipp et al., 2016b). In addition
to other several studies in Phillipp et al., (2016b), the presence of the teaching
assistants was found to correlate with the determination of the students to
proceed to the next semester of the course irrespective of how the students had
performed.
According to Felege (2018), research has shown that there is more engagement of
the students with the demonstrators. Students tend to seek assistance from the
teaching assistants because of the latter being less intimidating. This has also been
shown to have several benefits related to the learning of the students. The teaching
assistants are also considered to be more flexible, sociable, and casual by the
students and this encourages the students to reach out and approach them instead
of teaching staff. Students tend to approach the teaching assistants more for help
and this contributes to a decrease in the demand and workload on the teaching
staff (Kendall & Schussler, 2012). However, according to Weidert et al., (2012),
there is more workload put on teaching staff when teaching assistants are
involved because they need to be trained, supervised and mentored and also time
can also be spent on correction of mistakes made or addressing of confusion
brought about by the teaching assistants.
In some universities such as where the present study was conducted,
postgraduate students or undergraduate students who have good grades and are
about to finish are usually employed as demonstrators to assist with practical
classes. This assistance often comes with stipends that are paid to the
demonstrators at the end of each month. To the best of our knowledge, no studies
have been carried out to investigate the experience of the Biology students on the
performance and competence of the practical demonstrators at most of the
universities in South Africa although they are usually employed as part-time
student assistants. Hence, the study aimed to assess the experiences of the Biology
students on the performance and competence of the practical demonstrators in
the Department of Biology in the School of Science and Technology at Sefako
Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South Africa.
2. Materials and Methods
The study was quantitative and involved completion of a total of 148 Self-
administered questionnaires (Appendix 1) consisting of open and close-ended
106
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
questions by the Biology undergraduates to assess the effectiveness of the
postgraduate students (Honours, Masters, and Ph.D.) who are laboratory
demonstrators in the Biology department in the School of Science and Technology
at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University (SMU) in the north of Pretoria.
The study was purposive, based on voluntary participation and the willingness
of the students to partake. Consent was first sought from the students before they
could participate. The students were informed that their participation was purely
voluntary, that they could withdraw from the study at any time, and that their
unwillingness to participate in the study would not affect them in any negative
way or disadvantage them. The questionnaires were distributed to the students
during the afternoons which were scheduled for their practicals before the
commencement of the practicals. This was done so that participants would not be
inconvenienced in any way.
The postgraduates who were assessed by the participants were responsible for
running the undergraduate Biology practical classes (years 1, 2, and 3) usually
under the supervision of a staff member who provides instructions before the
commencement of the practical classes and oversees the running of the entire
practical sessions. The students who participated in the study were from Year 1
(9.0%) Year 2 (89.0%) and year 3 (2.0%) with the age distribution of 16-20 (50.0%),
21-24 (47.0%) and 25 – 29 (2.0%). The majority (77.0%) of the participants were
females with males only making up 21.0% of the participants while 2.0% of the
respondents did not indicate their gender.
The practical classes are offered once a week for each level (years 1, 2, and 3) for a
duration of three hours in the afternoons. The laboratory practical classes are done
in conjunction with the content of what the undergraduates are taught in lectures.
The practical marks form part of the formative assessment and count
towards the final year marks of the students. In addition, there is also a practical
exam written by undergraduates at the end of each semester. The information
sought from the participants included the demographics (year of study, age, and
gender). The main information which was sought was on the experiences of the
undergraduates on demonstrators such as whether they felt the demonstrators
were helpful during practical sessions, if the demonstrators had enough
knowledge on the content of the practical sessions, if the demonstrators were well
prepared for practical sessions and if they were fair in the assessment of their
submitted work. Data was represented using frequency tables and graphs. An
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also used to assess if there was any significant
difference between some of the responses of the students.
The current practice at the university (Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences
University) is that postgraduates who assist in the laboratories are employed as
students' assistants and are remunerated based on the number of hours they have
worked. As a result, the postgraduate demonstrators value the work they do as it
assists them financially during their postgraduate courses. All the postgraduates
who assist in practical classes have a strong academic background in Biology as
they have to score above a minimum of 60% for them to be admitted into the
postgraduate level and be able to assist with practical sessions.
107
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
3. Results and Discussions
The result as shown in Figure 1 indicate that more (49.0%) participants indicated
that the people who qualified to be demonstrators were the postgraduates while
39.0% of the participants felt that any senior student could work as a demonstrator
at any level which is below his or her level. A high number (12.0%) of the
participants did not respond to a question on who qualifies to be a demonstrator.
This challenge of the students choosing not to respond to some of the questions is
the first shortfall of self-administered questionnaires in the study.
Figure 1. Responses of the participants on who qualifies to be a demonstrator.
Figure 2 shows that more of the participants felt that the demonstrators had
adequate knowledge on the content material of the practical compared to the
participants who felt that the demonstrators did not have adequate knowledge of
the content material of the practical classes. These results are in agreement with
those in Kirkup et al., (2016) and Tulane and Beckert (2011), where the
demonstrators were found to be knowledgeable about the experiments in the
laboratories. In Fernald et al., (1975), the mastery of content knowledge was one
of the criteria which was used for the selection of undergraduate teaching
assistants. However, about the knowledge on the content material, in Filz and
Gurung (2013), knowledge on the content of the course was not seen as an
important feature required for undergraduate teaching assistants.
Slightly more than half (52.0%) of the respondents responded that demonstrators
were prepared for the practical sessions was whereas 41.8% of the respondents
responded that the demonstrators did not come to the practical classes prepared
(Figure 2). The participants did not respond to the question on the preparedness
of the demonstrators during practical classes was 6.2%. These findings compare
with the findings in Kirkup et al., (2016), where the demonstrators took time to
prepare for experiments before going to the laboratory sessions. In Buerkel-
Rothfuss et al., (1993), the participants felt that the teaching assistants were
Postgraduates
49%
Any senior
student
39%
No response
12%
108
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
qualified, prepared, organized, responsible, and as interested in teaching as the
lecturers.
The majority of the participants (62.3%) as shown in Figure 2, indicated that the
demonstrators were helpful compared to fewer participants (32.2%) who
indicated that the demonstrators were not helpful during the practical sessions
while 5.5% of the participants did not indicate whether the demonstrators were
helpful or not helpful. These results of the majority of the students finding the
demonstrators helpful agree with those of Kirkup et al., (2016); He et al., (2018)
and Braun et al., (2018) where the students stated that the demonstrators were
helpful when it came to the explanations and demonstrations of the experiments
in the laboratories. According to Filz and Gurung (2013), being helpful is one of
the characteristics that demonstrators have to possess before they can be hired.
Figure 2. Responses on preparedness, helpfulness, and knowledge of demonstrators.
Participants who doubted the responses that the demonstrators gave on some of
the aspects of the practical sessions made up 50.7% while 45.2% of the participants
stated that they did not doubt the responses of the demonstrators on some aspects
of the practical sessions and 4.1% of the participants did not respond to the
question as shown in Table 1. These findings are not in agreement with those in
He et al., (2018) where only 11.0% of the participants had stated that the teaching
assistants had occasionally given them wrong information. In Brauna et al., (2018),
2.0% of the participants in the Chemistry class doubted the expertise of the
demonstrators compared to 24.0% of the participant in the Physics class who
doubted the knowledge of the demonstrators. In Philipp et al., (2016a), the
majority (90.0%) of the undergraduate teaching assistants had confidence in their
knowledge of the content material and could provide answers to the questions
raised by the students. The teaching assistants also felt that they contributed to
the understanding of the students.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Adequate
knowledge
Preparedenss
for practicals
Helpfulness of
demonstrators
Number of participants
Responses of the participants
Yes
No
No response
109
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
According to Table 1, 52.1% and 43.8% of the participants understood the role of
the demonstrators and did not understand what the role of the demonstrators was
during the practical sessions respectively while 4.1% of the participants did not
indicate if they understood or did not understand the role of the demonstrators.
As a result, 13.0% of the participants had a problem with taking instructions from
demonstrators during practical sessions with more (83.6%) of the participants not
having problems with taking instructions from the demonstrators. These findings
in the present study are comparable to those in Braun et al., (2018) where 93.0%
and 76.0% of the participants in the Chemistry and Physics respectively
acknowledged the important role that the demonstrators played in their learning
process. According to Chapin et al., (2014), teaching assistants or demonstrators
end up gaining skills in giving instructions and being confident.
A smaller (28.1%) number of participants described the demonstrators as being
impossible and hard to deal with compared to a much larger (64.4%) number of
participants who described demonstrators as not being impossible or hard to deal
with during practical sessions with 7.5% not responding (Table 2). The majority
(61.0%) of the participants indicated that they would report the demonstrators to
the seniors if they mistreated them compared to 32.9% of the participants who
indicated that they would not report them while 6.2% of them did not indicate
whether they would report or not report the demonstrators if they mistreated
them.
With regards to the responses on whether the demonstrators can listen to the
complaints or queries by the participants, (115/148) participants felt that the
demonstrators were able to listen to their complaints or queries while only
(26/148) participants indicated that the demonstrators did not have the patience
to listen to the complaints or queries with (7/148) participants not responding. In
McKeegan (1998), being patient and responsible were some of the traits which
undergraduate teaching assistants had to possess. In Philipp et al., (2016), the
undergraduate teaching assistants stated that it was important that teaching
assistants had patience and willingness to understand that not all the students had
the same background.
Most (64.4%) of the participants felt that the demonstrators were fair and did not
show any favouritism towards the students while 29.5% of the participants felt
the demonstrators were not fair and showed favouritism towards some of the
students while 6.2% did not respond to the question. In Buerkel-Rothfuss et al,
(1993), the authors mentioned that the teaching assistants were softer when it
came to grading compared to the staff members and that it was important to
remind teaching assistants regularly to be objective and fair when grading the
students' work.
110
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Table 1. Responses of the participants on the demonstrators.
Responses
Yes
No
No
response
Do you doubt the knowledge/responses of the
demonstrators?
50.7
45.2
4.1
Do you understand the role of a demonstrator in a
practical?
52.1
43.8
4.1
Do you have any problems with taking instructions from
demonstrators?
13.0
83.6
3.4
Are the demonstrators difficult/impossible to work
with?
28.1
64.4
7.5
Are demonstrators able to listen to complaints/queries
by participants?
77.4
17.8
4.8
As shown in Figure 3, students believed that demonstrators could mark the
practical reports even though most of the participants felt that the marking of the
demonstrators was inaccurate. More participants had prior complaints on the
marking of the demonstrators compared to those who had not complained about
the marking of the demonstrators. The accuracy of the marking of the scripts by
the demonstrators is crucial as the practical marks (weekly marks and practical
exam) contribute towards the final mark of the students which qualify them for a
pass or a fail in the Biology course. Inaccurate marking can give a false
representation of the performance and the learning of the students.
Figure 3. Responses of participants on the marking abilities of the demonstrators.
Figure 4 shows that the majority (69.0%) of the participants felt that technical
officers had a final say in what happens during practical sessions compared to
only 23.0% of the participants who indicated that it was the lecturers who had a
final say in what happens during the practical session whereas 8.0% of the
participants did not respond on who should have a final say during practical
sessions.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ability of
demonstrator to
mark
Marking of
demontrators
accurate
Previous
complaints about
demonstrators
marking
Number of participants
Responses on the marking of demonstrators
Yes
No
No response
111
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Figure 4. Responses on who has the final say in the case of disputes between
demonstrators and students.
Table 2 shows that the majority (71.9%) of the participants responded that the
demonstrators were approachable when there were queries while the least (11.6%)
of the participants felt that the demonstrators were not approachable when there
were queries. A high number (16.4%) of participants did not respond to whether
the demonstrators were approachable or not (Table 2). These findings agree with
those in Braun et al., (2018) where the majority (94.0%) and (82.0%) of the
participants in Chemistry and Physics classes respectively reported that the
demonstrators were more approachable compared to lecturers. According to
Gardner and Jones, (2011), the undergraduate students may find the postgraduate
demonstrators more accessible and approachable compared to the lecturers
because of the smaller differences between their social status and ages resulting
in them consulting the demonstrators more than they would approach the
lecturers.
In Buerkel-Rothfuss et al., (1993), the teaching assistants were considered to do
well in teacher-student relationships such as being friendly and more willing to
listen to alternative viewpoints of the students. However, in He et al., (2018) 2.0%
of the participants had stated that the teaching assistants were usually unavailable
when they were needed. According to Chapin et al., (2014) and Gardner and
Jones, (2011), the laboratory demonstrators have been rated by the
undergraduates as being more engaging and approachable compared to the
lecturers who are considered to be more boring and formal even though they are
experts when it comes to content. According to Kendall and Schussler (2012), the
teaching assistants are considered to be less intimidating compared to the
lecturers even though they might not be as knowledgeable, experienced, and
competent about the course content. As a result, students tend to think
demonstrators are more approachable, understanding, and flexible.
Lecturer
23%
Technical
officer
69%
No response
8%
112
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
A significantly higher number of the participants indicated that the demonstrators
did not use their cell phones during practical sessions or spoke amongst
themselves when they were supposed to be assisting the students during the
practical sessions ((p<0.05). The use of cell phones can be considered to be a
distraction on the attention of the demonstrators on their effectiveness to run
practical sessions and should hence be prohibited. The use of cell phones by the
demonstrators could also be seen as a deterrent for the students to engage and
interact with them. Quite a large number of participants (11.0% and 10.7%) did
not respond to whether the demonstrators spoke on their cell phones or amongst
each other during the practical sessions.
A relatively higher number (61%) of participants had reported the demonstrators
to the seniors (lecturer or technical officer) if they were unhappy with their
conduct or the way they treated them compared to only 32.9% who had never laid
any complaints about the demonstrators. This could have been due to the
participants being afraid of intimidation from the demonstrators if they reported
them or maybe it could also be because they have not encountered unpleasant
situations from the demonstrators.
Table 2. Participants’ responses on the ability of the demonstrators to be competent and
behave during practical sessions.
Responses
Yes
No
No
response
Do you feel free to approach demonstrators in the
laboratory?
71.9
11.6
16.4
Do demonstrators talk amongst themselves and do not pay
attention to participants?
38.4
50.7
11.0
Do demonstrators use cell phones during practical sessions
instead of assisting participants?
38.7
50.7
10.7
Do demonstrators show favouritism?
64.4
29.5
6.2
Have you ever reported a demonstrator if you were
unhappy?
61.0
32.9
6.2
Figure 5 shows that the order of the responses of the participants on the overall
attitude of the demonstrators during practical sessions was "good" (64.0%) >
"excellent" (16.0%) > no response (11.0%) > "bad" (9.0%).
113
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Figure 5. Responses to the overall attitudes of the demonstrators.
The majority of the participants (69.0%) did not want the services of the
demonstrators with regards to them assisting in practical sessions to be
terminated while only 16.0% of the participants felt that the services of the
demonstrators could be terminated with 15.0% of the participants not responding
to whether the services of the demonstrators during practical sessions could be
terminated or not. The results in the present study, agree with those in He et al.,
(2018) where the majority (97.0%) of the participants stated that they strongly
agreed that the continued use of the teaching assistants could be beneficial.
Figure 6 shows that only 36.0% of the participants, responded that the number of
demonstrators allocated to the practical sessions should be increased compared
to 53.0% of the participants who felt that the number of the demonstrators was
adequate and did not need to be increased while 11.0% of the participants did not
indicate whether there was a need or no need of the number of demonstrators to
be increased.
More (69.0%) participants mentioned that they wished they could also become
demonstrators when they became seniors compared to only 24.0% of them
indicating that they do not wish to become demonstrators when they are senior
students whereas 13.0% of them did not indicate their preferences shown in
Figure 6. The findings of the majority of the participants wanting to become
demonstrators when they get to the upper levels of study are in line with the
findings of He et al., (2018), where about 64.0% of the participants said that the
positive contribution that the teaching assistants had made to their learning had
encouraged them to want to take a similar role in their future.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Excellent Good Bad No response
Number of responses
Attitude of the demonstrators
114
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Figure 6. Responses of the participants on services of demonstrators and desire
to become a demonstrator.
4. Conclusion
The present study assessed the experience of currently registered undergraduate
Biology students on the competence and ability of either postgraduate students
or senior undergraduate students that are employed as demonstrators for
practical classes. From the study, it can be concluded that in most of the critical
areas, there are mixed feelings on the competencies and the abilities of the
demonstrators to provide the needed information for the undergraduate students.
Areas such as getting prepared for classes, marking of scripts, behaviours of the
demonstrators during the practical classes as regards the use of cell phones, and
talking amongst themselves during the practical classes are areas where
improvements are needed on the part of the demonstrators. Some of the
participants sometimes doubted some of the answers that the demonstrators gave
them and also felt that their marking was not accurate. However, the majority of
the participants indicated that the demonstrators were approachable, helpful, and
had adequate content knowledge of practical sessions and that their services
should be continued. It is hence suggested that the laboratory demonstrators
should be equipped with skills and guidance on how to fairly assess the students'
laboratory reports, receive training on how to relate and respect the
undergraduate students, and how to give feedback to them positively and
constructively. The guidance and training would provide the demonstrators with
more confidence, knowledge, better communication skills, and even confidence
for them to teach and have a passion to pursue a teaching career. It is also
suggested that the demonstrators have weekly classes on what will be discussed
in the practical sessions and write pre-practical tests before they assist the
undergraduate students with the practical sessions to improve their competency
in marking and giving accurate answers during the practical sessions.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Services of
demonstrators be
discontinued
Number of
demonstrators
should be
increased
Consideration to
become a
demonstrator
Number of participants
Responses of participants
Yes
No
No response
115
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Acknowledgments
The authors would sincerely like to thank all the students who completed the
questionnaires and participated in the study.
5. References
Basey, J. M., Maines, A. P., & Francis, C. D. (2014). Time efficiency, written feedback, and
student achievement in inquiry-oriented Biology labs. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2).
http://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080215
Bangera, G., & Brownell, S. E. (2014). Course-based undergraduate research experiences
can make scientific research more inclusive. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 13(4), 602-
606. Retrieved from https://www.lifescied.org/doi/pdf/10.1187/cbe.14-06-0099
Bowling, B., Doyle, M., Taylor, J., & Antes, A. (2015). Professionalizing the role of peer
leaders in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 16(2), 30.
Braun, M., & Kirkup, L. (2016). Non-physics peer demonstrators in undergraduate
laboratories: a study of students’ perceptions. European Journal of Physics, 37.
http://doi.org/10.1088/0143-0807/37/1/015703
Brauna, M., Kirkupabc, L., & Chadwicka, S. (2018). The impact of inquiry orientation and
other elements of cultural framework on student engagement in first year
laboratory programs. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics
Education, 26(4), 30-48.
Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., & Fink, D. S. (1993). Student perceptions of teaching assistants
(TAs). Basic Communication Course Annual, 5(8). Retrieved from
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/vol5/iss1/8
Carlson, K., Turvold Celotta, D., Curran, E., Marcus, M., & Loe, M. (2016). Assessing the
impact of a multi-disciplinary peer-led-team learning program on undergraduate
STEM education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(1).
Chapin, H. C., Wiggins, B. L., & Martin-Morris, L. E. (2014). Undergraduate science
learners show comparable outcomes whether taught by undergraduate or
graduate teaching assistants. Research and Teaching, 44(2), 90-99.
Chiu, P. H. P., & Corrigan, A. P. (2019). A study of graduate teaching assistants’ self-
efficacy in teaching: Fits and starts in the first Triennium of teaching. Cogent
Education, 6:1. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1579964
DeBeck, G., & Demaree, D. (2012). Teaching assistant-student interactions in a modified
SCALE-UP classroom. Paper presented at the 2011 Physics Education Research
Conference (1413, pp. 167-170). Omaha, Nebraska, 3-4 August 2011.
Drane, D., Micari, M., & Light, G. (2014): Students as teachers: Effectiveness of a peer-led
STEM learning programme over 10 years. Educational research and evaluation -
An International Journal on Theory and Practice, 20(3), 210-230.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.895388
Durán, C. E. P., Bahena, E. N., Rodríguez, M. de los Á. G., Baca, G. J., Uresti, A. S.,
Elizondo‐Omaña, R. E., & López, S. G. (2012). Near‐peer teaching in an anatomy
course with a low faculty‐to‐student ratio. Anatomy Science Education, 5, 171–176.
http://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1269
Felege, C. J. (2018). The long-Term Significance of working as an undergraduate teaching
assistant. Theses and Dissertations, 2209. Retrieved from
https://commons.und.edu/theses/2209
Fernald, P., Chiseri, M., Lawsom, D., Scroggs, G., & Riddell, J. (1975). Systematic
manipulation of student pacing, the perfection requirement, and contact with a
teaching assistant in an introductory psychology course. Teaching of Psychology, 2,
147–151. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top0204_1
116
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Filz, T., & Gurung, R. A. R. (2013). Student perceptions of undergraduate teaching
assistants. Teaching of Psychology, 40(1), 48-51.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312465864
Flaherty, A., O’Dwyer, Mannix-McNamara, P., & Leahy, J. J. (2017). Aligning perceptions
of laboratory demonstrators’ responsibilities to inform the design of a laboratory
teacher development program. Journal of Chemical Education, 94, 1007-1018.
http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00210
French, D., & Russell, C. (2002). Do graduate teaching assistants benefit from teaching
inquiry-based laboratories? Bioscience, 52(11), 1036–1041.
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[1036:DGTABF]2.0.CO;2
Gardner, G. E., & Jones, M. G. (2011). Pedagogical preparation of the science graduate
teaching assistant: Challenges and implications. Fall, 20(2).
Graham, M. J., Frederick, J., Byars-Winston, A., Hunter, A.-B., & Handelsman, J. (2013).
Increasing persistence of college students in STEM. Science, 341(6153), 1455-1456.
Gudyanga, R., & Jita, L. (2019). Teachers’ implementation of laboratory practicals in the
South African physical sciences curriculum. Issues in Educational Research, 29(3).
He, K. D., B S, W. T. L., & Zhang G. A. (2018). Program of medical students as teaching
assistants in an Anatomy course: Effectiveness and improvement. Austin Journal
of Anatomy, 5(2), 1081.
Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for
the twenty-first Century. Science Education, 88(1), 28-54.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106
Kendall, K. D., & Schussler, E. E. (2013). Evolving impressions: Undergraduate
perceptions of graduate teaching assistants and faculty members over a semester.
Life Sciences, 12, 92-105. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-07-0110
Kendall, K. D., & Schussler, E. E. (2012). Does instructor type matter? Undergraduate
student perception of graduate teaching assistants and professors. CBE-Life
Sciences Education, 11(2), 187-199.
Kirkup, L., Varadharajan, M., & Braun, M. (2016). A Comparison of student and
demonstrator perceptions of laboratory-based, inquiry-oriented learning
experiences. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education,
24(2), 1-13.
Lachman, N., Christensen, K. N., & Pawlina, W., (2013). Anatomy teaching assistants:
Facilitating teaching skills for medical students through apprenticeship and
mentoring. Medical Teacher, 35, e919-e925.
https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.714880
Lama, T., & Joullie, J. (2015). Casualization of academics in the Australian higher
education: Is teaching quality at risk? Research in Higher Education, 28, 1-11.
Linn, M. C., Palmer, E., Baranger, A., Gerard, E., & Stone, E. (2015). Undergraduate
research experiences: Impacts and opportunities. Science, 347.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261757.
McKeegan, P. (1998). Using undergraduate teaching assistants in a research methodology
course. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 11–14.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2501_4
Meyer, K. R., & Mao, Y. (2014). Comparing student perceptions of the classroom by U.S.
American and International teaching assistants. Higher Learning Research
Communication, 4(3), 12-22. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v4i3.206
Patitsas, E. (2012). A case study of environmental factors influencing teaching assistant job
satisfaction. In Proceedings of the ninth annual international conference on
International computing education research (ICER '12), (pp. 11-16). Association
117
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2361276.2361280
Philipp, S. B., Tretter, T. R., & Rich, C. V. (2016a). Development of undergraduate teaching
assistants as effective instructors in STEM courses. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 45(3), 74-82.
Philipp, S. B., Tretter, T. R., & Rich, C. V. (2016b). Undergraduate teaching assistant
impact on student academic achievement. Electronic Journal of Science Education,
20(2).
Russell, C. B., & Weaver, G. C. (2008). Student perceptions of the purpose and function of
the laboratory in science: A grounded theory study. International Journal for the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2).
http://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2008.020209
Schussler, E. E., Read, Q., Marbach-Ad, G., Miller, K., & Ferzli, M. (2015). Preparing
Biology graduate teaching assistants for their roles as instructors: An assessment
of institutional approaches. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 21, 14(3).
http://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-11-0196
Sana, F., Pachai, M. V., & Kim, J. A. (2011). Training undergraduate teaching assistants in
a peer mentor course. Transformative dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 4(3).
Spike, B. T. (2014). An investigation of the knowledge, beliefs, and practices of Physics teaching
assistants [Graduate Thesis]. University of Colorado.
Spike, B. T. (2016). Design and application of a framework for examining the beliefs and
practices of physics teaching assistants. Physical Review Physics Education Research,
12. http://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.12.010114
Tulane, S., & Beckert, T. E. (2011). Perceived utility and knowledge of graduate teaching
assistants. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 44 – 55.
Weidert, J. M., Wendorf, A. R., Gurung, R. A., & Filz, T. (2012). A survey of graduate and
undergraduate teaching assistants. College teaching, 60(3), 95-103.
http://doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.637250
Wheeler, L. B., Maeng, J. L., & Whitworth, B. A. (2015). Teaching assistants' perceptions of
a training to support an inquiry-based general chemistry laboratory course.
Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16(4), 824-842.
http://doi.org/10.1039/c5rp00104h
Wilson, Z. S., Holmes, L., deGravelles, K., Sylvain, M. R., Batiste, L., Johnson, M., McGuire,
S. Y., Pang, S. S., & Warner, I. M. (2011). Hierarchical mentoring: A transformative
strategy for improving diversity and retention in undergraduate STEM
disciplines. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 148–156.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9292-5
Wyse, D., Fentiman, A., Sugrue, C., & Moon, S. (2014). English language teaching and
whole school professional development in Tanzania. International Journal of
Educational Development, 38, 59-68. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.04.002
118
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
Appendix 1
Perceptions of Students towards the Postgraduate Biology Practical
Demonstrators at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Pretoria, South
Africa
1. Age
2. Gender
Male
Female
3. Year of Study
BSc 1
BSc 2
BSc 3
The experience about Science Tutors and
Demonstrators
4. Do you think that the demonstrators/tutors
are helpful to you during the practical
classes?
Yes
No
5. Do you understand the role of the
demonstrators/tutors
Yes
No
SEFAKO MAKGATHO HEALTH SCIENCES UNIVERSITY
School of Pathology & Pre-Clinical Sciences
Biology Department
PO BOX 139, MEDUNSA, 0204
Email: Caswell.mavimbela@smu.ac.za
119
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
6. Do you have a problem like taking
instructions from them?
Yes
No
7. Do you think demonstrators/tutors/ tutors
have enough knowledge of the content of
the practicals/tutorials?
Yes
No
8. Do you feel like they are well prepared for
practicals/tutorials?
Yes
No
9. Do you ever doubt their responses or
knowledge on some aspects of
practicals/tutorials?
Yes
No
10. Do you think that they are qualified to mark
your scripts?
Yes
No
11. Do you think they mark your scripts
accurately?
Yes
No
12. Have you ever complained about their
marking being inaccurate?
Yes
No
13. If you have a query are they willing to listen
to your complaint?
Yes
No
14. Do you feel that the demonstrators/tutors
are fair and do not have favourites when
they mark/assist in practicals/tutorials?
Yes
No
15. Do you believe that the
demonstrators/tutors have the final say in
cases of you not being happy with the way
they have marked your scripts?
Yes
No
16. If No who do you feel has the final say?
Lecturer
Technical
officer
17. Is it easy for you to approach
demonstrators/tutors if you have queries?
Yes
No
18. Do you think they are impossible to deal
with?
19. If a demonstrator mistreated you would you
report them to the members of staff?
Yes
No
120
©2020 The authors and IJLTER.ORG. All rights reserved.
20. How would you rate their attitudes towards
you
Excellent
Good
Bad
21. Do you think they talk too much among
themselves and not pay attention to you?
Yes
No
22. Have you ever noticed them using their cell
phones when they were supposed to be
helping you?
Yes
No
23. Would you recommend that we increase the
numbers of demonstrators/tutors in your
class?
Yes
No
24. Would you recommend that we do away
with the use of demonstrators/tutors?
Yes
No
25. Can you provide an area where you think
they should improve?
Yes
No
26. Would you also apply to become a
demonstrator/tutor when you reach a
senior level?
Yes
No
27. Which level of students do you feel should
be allowed to demonstrate?
Post-graduate
Any senior
level
