Home别-尘补颈濒：肠补辫谤蔼丑颈谤辞蝉丑颈尘补-耻.补肠.箩辫
(Please replace the full-width ＠ with a half-width @)
This survey was conducted in 2023 by the Center for Academic Practice and Resources at 亚色视频 to examine the professional development experiences of doctoral students. It focuses on the relationship between whether doctoral students hold teaching assistant (TA) qualifications (Qualified Teaching Assistant: QTA; Teaching Fellow: TF) and their self-evaluations of teaching skills. The participants were 108 students enrolled in doctoral programmes at 亚色视频. The analysis examined whether self-evaluations on six teaching skills differed according to possession of QTA or TF qualifications. The six skills assessed were: “Course planning”, “Creating learning environments”, “Teaching methods”, “Assessing student learning”, “Interacting with students”, and “Mastering subject knowledge”. Each item was measured using a 7-point self-rating scale.
Figure. Differences in self-evaluations of teaching skills by type and possession of TA qualification
In “Assessing student learning”, TF holders reported a significantly lower mean score (4.67) than non-holders (5.41) (TF vs non-holders: p = 0.039). One possible explanation is that TF holders, through their direct involvement in marking and providing individual feedback, may engage in deeper reflection on whether their comments genuinely enhance students’ understanding, which in turn may lead them to rate their own skills more modestly. In contrast, higher self-evaluations among non-holders may reflect overconfidence stemming from limited teaching experience and a lack of awareness of the challenges in assessing students' performance. Alternatively, some non-holders may already feel confident in their advanced teaching skills and therefore regard formal qualifications such as the university’s TA certificates as unnecessary. In other words, non-holders may include both those who are “optimistic because they are unfamiliar with the complexity of teaching” and those who “consider themselves sufficiently capable and see no need to obtain such qualifications” (or a combination of these two groups). To examine these interpretations, it would be useful to compare the actual teaching experiences of holders and non-holders as part of validity checking.
For the other five skills, non-holders consistently showed the highest mean scores, followed by QTA holders and then TF holders, although these differences were not statistically significant at the 5% level. For example, in “Creating learning environments”, non-holders scored 5.52, QTA holders 5.32, and TF holders 5.01. These results indicate no substantial differences in self-perceived skills for facilitating active classrooms through group discussion and student presentations.
Overall, the findings suggest a certain pattern in doctoral students’ self-evaluations of teaching skills according to the level of TA qualification. However, this survey alone cannot fully explain the underlying reasons. A tentative interpretation is that qualification holders may tend to rate themselves more conservatively, whereas non-holders may either overestimate their skills due to limited awareness of the difficulty of teaching, or feel sufficiently confident in their existing experience and abilities that they do not perceive a need to obtain formal qualifications. The results indicate that doctoral students’ self-evaluations of teaching skills are potentially related to their TA qualification status, while also being shaped by multiple, complex factors. Differences in the quantity and quality of teaching experience, as well as in views on the value of qualifications, are likely to influence these self-evaluations. Further research and analysis are needed to clarify these influences. Future work could examine the specific nature of teaching experience and learning opportunities in order to consider more appropriate ways to support doctoral students’ development as teachers.
Contact Us
Center for Academic Practice and Resources
