Most economics and computer science majors are accustomed to discussion sections taught by one of their fellow undergraduates. This semester, humanities students are sharing this experience for the first time.
In Adjunct Professor Gerald Wilson’s 100-level history course American Dreams/American Realities, paid undergraduate “discussion group leaders” run each of the five discussion sections. A separate group of four graduate student teaching assistants grade written assignments.
“The department has X number of TAs, but it has X-plus needs,” said Wilson, who is also a senior associate dean of Trinity College and the pre-law adviser. “We’re trying this as an experiment.”
Lining up five graduate student TAs would have been a logistical challenge, so Wilson discussed options with Sarah Deutsch, chair of the history department. Then, he solicited the opinions of undergraduates who had served as TAs in other departments.
“Some of them felt like grading their fellow students was a bit awkward,” Wilson said. To avoid this potential problem, he split the normal duties of TAs. Although the undergraduate discussion group leaders do issue participation grades, Wilson left grading to graduate students.
Wilson chose his undergraduate aides from students who had previously taken the class and done well, he explained. He looked for candidates who were particularly excited and articulate.
Robert Thompson, dean of Trinity College, said he had developed “best processes guidelines” to regulate the selection and evaluation of undergraduate teaching assistants.
“There has to be a systematic evaluation at the end of the semester,” Thompson said. “We’ll see how it works, but we have something to evaluate it against.”
Undergraduate teaching assistants get more out of their jobs than just a paycheck, Thompson pointed out, noting that they have regularly scheduled meetings with the professor of the course.
“There’s a service provided, but it’s not just a work situation,” Thompson said. “It’s a mentoring opportunity.”
Thompson said it was important for undergraduates to be prepared and able to perform their teaching duties, but he noted that many faculty members feel that undergraduates who have previously taken a course are actually better than graduate students at leading discussions.
“I think it’s a great opportunity for students to get help on a level that’s more geared toward undergraduates,” said Elizabeth Dixon, a senior in the American Dreams course. “I think that our TA has done a great job pushing pertinent issues.”
After a few weeks of teaching their sections, Wilson’s discussion group leaders were positive about the experiment.
“There’s less of an age difference, so it can be a little easier for an undergraduate to relate to one of their peers,” said Scott Lemmon, a senior. He said he was glad, though, that he was not responsible for grading papers.
When it comes to running discussion sections, “There’s really no need for graduate students,” said senior Aneil Lala, another discussion group leader.
Wilson said he, along with the director of undergraduate studies for history and the department chair, will decide at the end of the academic year whether or not the pilot program has worked. He also described the start of the semester as a success.
“The enthusiasm of the undergraduate discussion group leaders is incredible,” Wilson said. “Everything I have heard thus far... has been very positive.”
Since increasing the opportunity for class discussion is a constant goal, Thompson said, undergraduate-led discussion sections could become a feature of other humanities courses, as long as the final reviews of Wilson’s class are positive.
“If it works, I think it’s great,” Wilson said. “If it doesn’t, we’ll figure something else out.”
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.