Skills For Teaching Assistants in Engineering Laboratories

Research Paper Recommended citation: Di Benedetti, M., Bates, J., Jacobs, M., Lazari, P., & Plumb, S. (2025). Skills For Teaching Assistants in Engineering Laboratories. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631297. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. SKILLS FOR TEACHING ASSISTANTS IN ENGINEERING LABORATORIES M Di Benedettia, 1 , J Batesb, M Jacobsc, P Lazarid, S Plumbe a The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 0000-0001-7870-1323 b The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 0009-0003-8543-7796 c The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 0009-0009-8072-0190 d The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 0009-0009-7169-4218 e The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, 0009-0002-3369-7652 Conference Key Areas: Building the capacity and strengthening the educational competencies of engineering educators, Improving higher engineering education through researching engineering education. Keywords: Teaching Assistant, Teaching Skills, Training ABSTRACT Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) play a pivotal role in supporting teaching within engineering laboratories, yet many begin their roles without sufficient pedagogical preparation, potentially impacting teaching effectiveness and student learning outcomes. This study explores key skills necessary for GTAs within engineering laboratory contexts, examining perceived levels of skills proficiency by both GTAs and academic staff using dimensions of the UK Professional Standards Framework (PSF). Through structured surveys evaluating 29 identified skills across categories, including facilitating learning, technical expertise, student engagement, assessment practices, and classroom management, significant differences between GTA self-assessments and academic staff evaluations were identified. Prominent discrepancies emerged in areas such as facilitating discussions, managing diverse student needs, and applying effective assessment strategies, suggesting critical areas for targeted professional development. The findings underscore the necessity of aligning GTA training interventions with recognised teaching standards frameworks and feedback from GTAs and academic colleagues to enhance GTA teaching effectiveness and support professional growth. 1 Corresponding Author M. Di Benedetti [email protected]c.uk 1 INTRODUCTION Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) are an essential part of higher education (HE), providing flexible, cost-effective teaching support to meet increasing instructional demands (Chadha, 2012). Yet many begin teaching with little or no pedagogical training, affecting both their confidence and student learning outcomes (Tormey et al., 2019). Targeted training is therefore vital to ensure GTAs can teach effectively (Di Benedetti et al. 2022). Such training is often shaped by frameworks that define teaching competencies and guide professional development. Notable examples include the Professional Standards Framework (PSF), widely used in the UK and adopted in Australia (Advance HE, 2023), as well as institutional models supported by networks such as POD in the US (POD Network). While these frameworks offer valuable guidance, their breadth can limit their utility for specific roles, such as GTAs in engineering labs, where distinct pedagogical demands apply. As such, they are most effective when combined with context-sensitive tools to inform tailored training. Aligning GTA development with frameworks like the PSF requires mapping relevant descriptors to the actual pedagogical skills used in practice, supported by feedback from both staff and GTAs. This approach enables targeted training that addresses current strengths and development needs in discipline-specific contexts. 1.1 Teaching Expectations and the PSF as a Framing Tool GTAs often pursue Associate Fellowship of Advance HE (AFHEA), a recognition aligned with the scope of their teaching responsibilities. To achieve this, they must demonstrate respect for individual learners (V1), promote equality of opportunity (V2), and draw on research or scholarship to inform their practice (V3). They are also expected to show knowledge of how students learn (K1), how to teach effectively (K2), and how to reflect critically on their practice (K3). Additionally, they must evidence engagement in at least two areas of activity: designing and planning learning (A1), facilitating learning (A2), assessing and giving feedback (A3), supporting learners (A4), or engaging in professional development (A5) (Advance HE, 2023). These descriptors form part of the UK Professional Standards Framework (PSF), which is widely used to benchmark teaching practices in higher education. However, demonstrating competence in these areas goes beyond awareness—it requires GTAs to develop proficiency in applying pedagogical knowledge in practice. The PSF highlights purposeful practice, critical reflection, contextual awareness, and demonstrable impact as indicators of professional growth. These dimensions underpin this study’s framework for assessing and developing GTA teaching skills. 1.2 The Distinct Nature of Lab-Based Teaching While existing frameworks provide broad guidance, they do not always address the unique demands of discipline-specific teaching roles. For example, DeChenne et al. (2017) examined GTA self-efficacy across 15 teaching skills, including motivating students and facilitating discussions, but relied exclusively on self-reported data from GTAs across Science and Engineering. Without external validation or contextual specificity, their findings offer limited insight into the actual pedagogical capabilities required in engineering laboratories. Lab-based teaching presents distinct pedagogical challenges that go beyond those found in traditional lecture formats. GTAs in engineering labs are often the primary facilitators of this environment, supporting practical teaching and skill development through direct interaction with students (Deacon et al., 2017; Smallwood et al., 2022). In-lab teaching promotes experiential learning, where students engage hands-on with equipment, materials, and real-world phenomena to reinforce theoretical concepts (Herrington & Nakhleh, 2003; Deacon et al., 2017). The immediate feedback from experimental errors or unexpected results fosters deep learning through iteration and reflection, skills strongly aligned with professional engineering practice (Advance HE, 2023; Smallwood et al., 2022). These settings also develop communication and teamwork competencies, as students often collaborate in small groups and engage in peer-to-peer teaching (Deacon et al., 2017; Herrington & Nakhleh, 2003). This study responds to those challenges by identifying and refining a set of 29 discipline-specific teaching skills tailored to GTA roles in engineering laboratories. These skills were mapped to relevant PSF dimensions and informed the design of a structured survey instrument distributed to both GTAs and academic staff. 1.3 Perception Gaps and the Case for Comparison Understanding how GTA teaching proficiency is perceived by GTAs themselves, by academic supervisors, and by students provides essential insight into development needs. Prior research shows that GTAs frequently overestimate their teaching abilities relative to external evaluations (Sohoni et al., 2013; Deacon et al., 2017). These perception gaps raise important questions about the reliability of selfassessment and the role of feedback in developing realistic professional selfawareness. Moreover, students tend to value interpersonal traits, such as being approachable, supportive, and inclusive, as much as content knowledge (Sohoni, 2017; Goodwin et al., 2023). If GTAs misjudge their ability to create such environments, it could highlight overlooked skill areas. Conversely, underestimation of GTA capabilities by staff or students might reflect unclear role definitions or limited observation. Comparing perceptions across groups allows us to pinpoint which skills are overor under-valued, and which require clearer training priorities or role clarification. 1.4 Research Questions Building on these foundations, this study addresses the following research questions: ● What key skills are required for GTAs in an engineering teaching laboratory? ● How proficient do GTAs perceive themselves to be in these skills, and how does this compare with academic staff perceptions? By exploring these questions, the study aims to identify discipline-specific skill requirements and proficiency gaps that inform targeted, standards-aligned training. In doing so, it contributes to the development of evidence-based professional development models that better support GTAs in lab-based teaching roles. 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Data collection This study was conducted within the Department of Multidisciplinary Engineering Education (MEE) at the University of Sheffield, which delivers practical instruction for the whole Faculty. Data were collected from three distinct teaching laboratories— Structures, Materials, and Electronics—each employing its own team of GTAs to support hands-on student learning. These labs vary in technical focus and pedagogical demands, offering a valuable context for examining shared and discipline-specific GTA teaching competencies. The study investigates the key skills required for GTAs working in these environments by examining their perceived importance and proficiency. A structured survey was developed, comprising two core questions followed by 29 skill-based items rated on a five-point Likert scale. The first question asked: “To what extent is each of the following competencies important to work as a GTA in a lab?” The second asked GTAs to self-assess their proficiency, while staff rated the proficiency they observed in GTAs. The 29 items were grouped into five thematic areas, informed by existing frameworks. Items 1–7 focused on facilitating learning, including presenting material, managing group discussions, and supporting diverse learners, drawing on Deacon (2017), Herrington & Nakhleh (2003), and DeChenne (2015). Items 8–14 addressed technical and content expertise, such as subject knowledge, equipment use, and safety awareness (Cho et al., 2010). Items 15–19 covered guiding student engagement, including demonstrations and inquiry-based questioning (Deacon, 2017). Items 20–24 examined assessment practices, such as formative feedback and progress monitoring (DeChenne, 2015). Finally, items 25–29 explored managing challenging teaching situations, including student motivation, distress, and harassment (DeChenne, 2015). Two versions of the survey were distributed: one for GTAs working in teaching labs (12 respondents) and one for academic staff overseeing them (6 respondents). GTAs rated both importance (1 = ‘not important’ to 5 = ‘extremely important’) and self-perceived proficiency. Staff rated importance (1 = ‘no confidence’ to 5 = ‘complete confidence’) and assessed GTA proficiency (1 = ‘novice’ to 5 = ‘proficient’). Both groups rated the same 29 skills to enable paired analysis. 2.2 Data analysis A systematic analytical approach was employed to identify key pedagogical skills for GTAs and to compare perceptions of proficiency between GTAs and academic staff. For each of the 29 skills, median values were calculated to summarise Likert-scale ratings, and percentage agreement was computed for scores rated as important (≥4) or proficient (≥4). Low proficiency was also identified using the complementary threshold (≤3). Skills were then visualised using grouped bar charts (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3) and quadrant plots (Fig. 4) to highlight areas of high importance and low proficiency. The bar charts were initially sorted from highest to lowest based on GTA responses and subsequently by staff responses, displaying the most relevant skills on the left-hand side. All analyses were descriptive and non-parametric, due to the ordinal nature of the data and the small sample size in the staff group. Table 1. The 29 skills used in the survey and their relevant PSF dimensions Skill Relevant PSF dimension Part 1: Facilitating learning 1 Presenting material to a large group of students A2, K2 2 Presenting material to a small group of students (2-6 students) A2, K2 3 Facilitating lab group discussions A2, K2 4 Interacting professionally one-on-one with students A2 5 Teaching diverse groups of students A4, V1 6 Understanding when to provide support to students A4, K3 7 Understanding how to provide support to students A4, K3 Part 2: Demonstrating technical expertise 8 Level of expertise on the subject (technical knowledge/ academic knowledge K1 9 Operating equipment A2 10 Familiarity with Health and Safety and Standard Operating Procedures A5, K5, V3 11 Signposting students to relevant teaching resources A4, V2 12 Knowledge of how activities are being delivered A1 13 Knowledge of Blackboard VLE A4, K4 14 Familiarity with teaching subjects/materials A5, K1, V3 Part 3: Guiding student engagement 15 Giving a lab demonstration A2, K2 16 Responding to students’ questions during labs A2, K2 17 Responding to students’ answers during labs (building on students’ answers) A2, V2 18 Asking appropriate questions to encourage learning A2, K2 19 Encouraging students to make links to other learning A2, V2 Part 4: Assessment practices 20 Asking questions aimed at gauging students’ progress A2, K3 21 Developing assessments A1, A3, K2 22 Marking using a predefined marking scheme A3, K2 23 Encouraging students to ask questions during lab sessions A2, K3 24 Providing constructive feedback A3, V2 Part 5: Managing challenging teaching situations 25 Motivating students or providing support/encouragement to students who are having difficulty learning A4, K3 26 Assisting distressed students A4, V1 27 Teaching students with different skill/knowledge levels A4, K3, V2 28 Managing disruptive students A4, V1 29 Dealing with harassment A4, V1 3 RESULTS To determine which skills are considered most important for GTAs in engineering labs, we first examined the percentage of respondents rating each of the 29 skills as important (score ≥4). As shown in Fig.1, a strong consensus emerged around a core set of priorities. Skills 2 (presenting material to small groups), 4 (interacting professionally), 5 (teaching diverse groups of students), 7 (how to provide support), 16 (responding to students’ questions during labs), and 27 (teaching students with different knowledge levels) were rated important by at least 75% of both GTAs and staff. GTA-only priorities focused more on interpersonal and motivational dimensions. These included Skills 6 (when to provide support), 10 (familiarity with health and safety), 12 (how activities are being delivered), 18 (asking questions to promote learning), and 20 (asking questions to gauge progress). In contrast, staff placed greater emphasis on technical and evaluative competencies such as Skills 9 (equipment operation) and 24 (providing feedback). Proficiency ratings revealed lower agreement overall (Fig.2). Only Skills 2 and 4 were rated as proficient (score ≥4) by at least 75% of both groups. GTAs generally rated themselves more favourably than staff did, particularly on Skills 6, 10, 17 (responding to students’ answers), and 20. Staff, however, identified consistent gaps in areas such as Skills 24, 25 (supporting struggling students), and 26 (assisting distressed students), pointing to broader concerns around interpersonal and pastoral responsibilities. Low proficiency ratings (score ≤3) (Fig.3) further illustrate this divergence. GTA self-assessments identified weaknesses in Skills 21 (developing assessments), 25, 28 (managing disruptive students), and 29 (dealing with harassment). Staff again expressed concern over a wider range of competencies, including Skills 5, 6, 7, 17, 18, 23 (encouraging students to ask questions), and 24. Fig.1 Percentage of GTAs and staff rating each skill as important (score ≥4). Fig.2 Percentage of GTAs and staff rating each skill as proficient (score ≥4). Fig.3 Percentage of GTAs and staff rating each skill as low proficiency (score ≤3). Fig. 4 synthesises this information by mapping perceived importance (≥4) against low proficiency (≤3). Several GTA-rated priorities appear in the upper-right quadrant, notably Skills 11 (signposting students to resources), 19 (encouraging links to other learning), and 25, indicating key areas for development. Staff identified overlapping concerns around Skill 25, as well as Skills 3 (facilitating group discussions), e, 6 and 24. In contrast, Skills 26 and 29 were rated as low proficiency but also low importance, suggesting ambiguity in GTA role boundaries for students' wellbeingrelated tasks. Together, these findings reveal a well-aligned core of essential skills and several divergent perceptions that may warrant clearer role definition and targeted support. Fig.4 Combined plot showing skills with high importance and low proficiency 4 DISCUSSION The results reveal clear discrepancies between GTAs’ self-perceived proficiency and academic staff evaluations, particularly in skills related to communication, feedback, and classroom dynamics. While GTAs frequently recognised their limitations in areas such as student motivation, supporting struggling students, and effective questioning, academic staff identified broader concerns, especially around interpersonal skills, feedback provision, and classroom management. These mismatches have direct implications for training, highlighting the need for clearer role definition and structured development opportunities. Addressing these gaps requires targeted, evidence-informed training aligned with established frameworks such as the PSF. Doing so will not only strengthen GTA teaching practice but also enhance student learning outcomes in the laboratory environment. 4.1 Linking findings to the PSF The identified proficiency gaps align closely with key dimensions of the PSF, particularly: ● A2 (Teach and support learning through appropriate approaches and environments) – GTAs' self-identified challenges in managing student questions and employing effective questioning techniques underline the necessity of training interventions focused explicitly on student engagement. ● A3 (Assess and provide feedback for learning) – Staff-rated gaps in GTAs’ ability to provide constructive feedback and develop assessments point to a need for proficiency development in evaluation and student feedback strategies. ● V1 (Respect individual learners and diverse groups of students) – The challenges GTAs face in teaching students with varying skill levels and assisting distressed students suggest a need for training in fostering inclusive and supportive learning environments. By explicitly mapping training interventions to these PSF dimensions, GTA professional development can be more strategically aligned with institutional and sector-wide expectations for effective teaching practice. 4.2 Proficiency development and the PSF While the survey revealed clear perception patterns, its reliance on self-assessed and observer-rated Likert scales presents interpretive limitations. Proficiency, as framed by the PSF, is not just about awareness or confidence—it involves purposeful practice, critical reflection, contextual awareness, and demonstrable impact. Yet Likert data provide no direct evidence of these elements. For example, two GTAs may both rate themselves a “4” in feedback provision, but one may give vague praise while the other offers actionable, student-responsive comments. The next step is therefore to triangulate these perception-based insights with more objective data, such as structured observations, peer feedback, or reflective teaching portfolios. These approaches would allow institutions to evaluate not only whether GTAs know a skill, but also whether they apply it effectively and adaptively in practice. 4.3 Implications for GTA training To address these gaps, GTA development programmes should move beyond generic induction and focus on building proficiency in targeted areas. Three strategies are recommended. ● Targeted workshops on student engagement and assessment – Addressing questioning techniques, feedback provision, and assessment design will help bridge gaps identified in staff evaluations. ● Structured mentoring and peer observation programs – Providing GTAs with ongoing feedback from experienced educators can enhance the development of reflective teaching practices. ● Clear proficiency-based - progression pathways – Using the PSF as a guiding framework, training programs should be designed to support GTAs in improving their long-term teaching efficacy. Together, these strategies—when underpinned by the PSF—support GTA development while also helping institutions ensure that lab-based teaching aligns with sector-wide expectations for quality and effectiveness. 5 CONCLUSIONS This study identified significant gaps between GTAs’ self-perceived proficiency and academic evaluations of essential teaching skills in engineering laboratories. Key areas for development include student motivation, supporting diverse learners, and providing effective feedback. Aligning GTA professional development with relevant dimensions of the Professional Standards Framework (PSF) can support progression from basic awareness to applied, reflective practice. Future work should evaluate how structured, skill-specific training influences GTA teaching effectiveness over time, providing evidence to enhance professional development across engineering education contexts.