Violence is an issue that permeates contemporary American society in frightening proportions. Over the past two decades, local, state, and national preventive measures have been successfully launched to address this epidemic. These efforts alone, however, are not enough to make the American public feel secure when faced with the brutal incidents of violence that are reported so frequently in the media.  We were shocked at the school shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. We were numbed when we heard of the Los Angeles shootings at a Jewish Community Center and particularly horrified that young children had been targeted. We stared at our televisions in disbelief as the reports of the Atlanta gunman filtered in, not only because it was the second example of lethal workplace violence that week, but also because it is likely that this was the second time this particular man had murdered his own family. 

And while we have not had an example recently that has riveted the nation's attention the way the O.J. and Nicole Brown Simpson case did, the problems of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse continue to be reported at staggering rates. While we are shocked and enraged by these violent events, we simultaneously seek out and glorify incidences of violence in film, on television, in the newspapers, on news programs, and in the world of video games. Some Americans are indignant at the mere mention of gun control. How do we make sense of these events? How can we explain our conflicting yet apparent obsession with and abhorrence of violence? 

A sense of personal concern and responsibility to address these and other questions led to the creation of the learning community, Violence and Gender, at George Mason University's New Century College (NCC).  NCC is an interdisciplinary, student-centered college in which learning communities are team-taught by faculty of different disciplines. The term, "learning community," refers to an interdisciplinary, interactive class in which students take much responsibility for their own learning, often work in study groups, and usually perform some type of experiential learning to complement the academic context. 

The intent of this paper is to discuss our experiences in developing and implementing a model in which we supervised and mentored five undergraduates in their roles as teaching assistants (TAs). This was an extensive process that included exploring the feasibility of using undergraduates as TAs, recruiting, selecting, and preparing the TAs, and developing an organizational structure and teaching approaches for a productive and fruitful collaboration. 

We believe that understanding the intensity of this process is critical to informing our readers' opinions of the final teaching and learning experiences. For this reason, we have structured this paper to describe those processes prior to sharing our assessment of the experience. We also believe that having knowledge of the learning community content and its structure is instructional, and we describe this information in the following section.

Violence and Gender is a 300-level learning community currently taught by a humanist (French/Francophone literature, cultural studies, the arts) and a community psychologist. It carries eight academic credits (with two in service learning, requiring ninety service hours), with equivalencies given in Women's Studies, English Literature, Communication, the Institute of the Arts, Study of the Americas, and New Century College (for service learning).

Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the learning community, we present students with a variety of texts to facilitate learning. We use many primary texts and have put together a lengthy reader, consisting of essays and articles from psychology, sociology, criminology, biology, history, and political science. In addition, we use representation (fiction, poetry, film, and the visual arts) because we have found that it is a particularly effective means of stimulating discussion and analysis. The controversial and sensitive nature of a learning community on violence and gender raises difficult choices about the inclusion or exclusion of specific areas of study. We have included the following broad themes, with numerous sub-topics within each: conceptualizing violence (theories of violence); social construction of gender; youth culture (gangs and school violence); the control of women's bodies (female genital mutilation, abortion, and forced sterilization); family violence and sexual assault (domestic and child abuse, date rape, and male on male rape); violence and sports; media representations of violence (media representation of serial killers, the Montreal Massacre, and images in MTV); censorship issues; and reconstruction, activism, and solutions for the future. 

Other structured assignments provide students with the opportunity to learn about related topics, such as violence against self; institutional violence; pornography and First Amendment rights; offender punishment and rehabilitation; adult popular culture; extremist groups; politics, war, and nationalism; and cultural, ethnic, and racial violence.

Clearly, the material presented in the learning community is quite varied and complex. We believe that it is critical to give students the opportunity to interact with and engage this material in numerous ways. We most often met as a whole group for discussions, although we did occasionally divide the students into small groups. We almost never lectured formally, although we gave "mini-lectures" during each class session. 

Students chose journal partners and kept journals throughout the semester that responded to and reflected upon each of the course themes. While the journal partnering assignment can be characterized as writing to learn, we additionally assigned two formal papers: the first paper was an analysis and integration of materials presented in the first half of the learning community; the second paper was a research paper related to a study group topic. 

Study groups are an important component in the collaborative nature of this learning community. We have found that providing students with opportunities to work collaboratively helps them see multiple perspectives and understand the nature of differences of opinion, particularly with respect to controversial issues. Finally, students develop a creative project that they present to the class. These presentations have been extraordinary and have ranged from videos to power point presentations, talk shows, dramas, comedies, and visual art displays. A final critical component to the overall structure of the learning community is the focus on service learning and the link that is created between theory and practice. 

All students volunteer for ninety hours in a pre-approved site, on or off-campus. Whether it is with a victim assistance hotline, a school for troubled youth, or the criminal justice system, these community internships have proven to be a highlight for students and the loci of significant learning. Students are supervised and evaluated by an on-site mentor, present their experiences orally to the class, submit a mid-term and final written report, and complete an analysis on the experience as it relates to course material. 

In sum, students learn about violence and gender in multiple contexts through multiple methods: through collaborative and independent work; through analysis and reflection; through theoretical and applied knowledge; and through traditional scholarly methods and creative artistry.

Rationale for the Undergraduate Teaching Assistant Model

As we discussed the demanding nature of the learning community, we initially began to look at the possibility of having a graduate teaching assistant. In considering the kinds of activities and responsibilities for a teaching assistant, however, we realized that advanced undergraduates who had already completed the course would be ideally suited for these roles.

In addition, research on peer teaching and mentoring has demonstrated its value for both peer teachers/mentors and those being taught/mentored. Moreover, we reasoned that using undergraduate TAs fit well with the values and philosophy of NCC. NCC has a strong focus on experiential learning and learning by doing. The college also focuses on collaborative learning, believing that students can learn effectively from and with their peers -- provided the professor creates a learning environment that facilitates this goal. While we were excited about the prospect of using undergraduate teaching assistants, we did question the feasibility of this approach. What were the potential limitations of using undergraduate students in this role (as opposed to graduate students)? What were our needs with respect to delivering this learning community? How would the undergraduate TAs benefit from this experience? And finally, would the time and effort spent on teaching and mentoring these TAs be superseded by the benefits to them and the students? 

In thinking about this first question, we considered issues of multiple roles and setting boundaries. NCC is a small, close-knit community. Using undergraduates as TAs invited the possibility that whomever we selected to participate in this more authoritative role would have friends and acquaintances in the classroom. In addition, they might be enrolled in another learning community with some of these same students. Therefore, we would need to have explicit discussions and open lines of communication with the TAs about dealing with these multiple roles and the potential boundary conflicts that could arise. Similarly, we felt that we had to make sure that the students enrolled in Violence and Gender felt comfortable with the students chosen as TAs. After consideration, we concluded that appropriate attention to these issues could sufficiently minimize our concerns.

Compatibility of Teaching and Learning Needs

Given our belief that the above issues were not a major impediment, we turned our attention to the second and third questions posed above. First, we needed confidence that our needs as faculty teaching the learning community and the students' needs as teaching assistants were mutually compatible and could be met. As faculty, we were interested in having assistance with student writing and research, study group creative presentations, facilitation of small group discussions in class, student service learning experiences, and integrating technology into the classroom. 

A benefit to using the undergraduate TA model, unlike the graduate student model, was that the students had already taken the course and were thus familiar with most of the material covered in the learning community. (We did make some revisions to content). As we reflected on the value of this model for the undergraduate TAs, we believed that the opportunity to study issues related to violence and gender from a more experienced, educated, and mature perspective would be invaluable to the academic experience. 

Further, we thought that gaining experience and insight into the process of teaching, including decisions about how to present curricular materials, manage small group discussions, monitor classroom dynamics, and meet diverse student needs, would further help to develop their competency in areas such as critical thinking, problem solving, social interaction (working effectively in groups), and effective communication. With NCC's focus on experiential learning, we reasoned that a student could sign on for two or three credits of experiential learning for their experience as an undergraduate teaching assistant. 

We gave a lot of thought and consideration to the fourth question posed earlier, regarding whether or not the amount of time and effort it would take us to teach and mentor the undergraduate TAs would be offset by the value of the experience to both the TAs and the students in the class. After much reflection and discussion, we came to the conclusion that although there would be additional responsibility and supervision, the model represented the values and academic goals of NCC and reflected our personal commitment to the mentoring of students. Discussions with students and colleagues deepened our commitment to and enthusiasm for this idea. Therefore, we turned our attention to recruiting and selecting the undergraduate TAs. 

Recruitment and Selection of the Teaching Assistants

We aimed to select teaching assistants by March 1998, five months before the next offering of Violence and Gender. We initially sent a letter to twelve students who had performed exceptionally well in the learning community and who had subsequently deepened their understanding of violence and gender (e.g. continuing to volunteer on or off-campus, taking a related course, continuing to read about the issue). In the letter, we explained our interest in developing an undergraduate teaching assistant model, discussed some of the responsibilities we imagined the TAs would fulfill, and asked them to contact one of us within two weeks. We were pleased that all twelve students were interested and ten scheduled an interview. 

We had already decided that we would select five students. Our rationale was that five students would be able to share the work effectively without overwhelming them with responsibilities, that five additional students constituted the limit we wanted to add to our classroom setting, and that we would not be able to supervise effectively more than this number of students in this role. We conducted one-hour interviews with each student, consisting of a set series of questions: their interest in becoming a teaching assistant; their strengths and weaknesses; their desired TA responsibilities; and their ability to commit to the job. This was an agonizing decision because we were fortunate to have a strong pool of candidates. 

In the end, we considered multiple factors in the composition of our final teaching team. A first factor was an individual candidate's strengths and weaknesses and her/his fit with the responsibilities we needed to fulfill as a whole. Not all of the candidates were equally strong in the areas of writing, research, group facilitation, organizational skills, and technology. Thus, we needed to be sure that we had strengths in each of these areas well represented on our team. We also felt strongly about having broad demographic groups represented by the TAs, if possible. Finally, since we had the advantage of knowing these students and wanted an effective working group, we considered who would work well with us and with the team as a whole. In the end, we selected a diverse group of students: an Islamic woman; a male student; a returning adult female student; and two Caucasian female students, all with a variety of career goals and interests.

We held two all-day retreats with the TAs, one at the end of the spring semester and the second at the end of the summer. The first retreat primarily focused on the learning community content, as we were in the midst of reviewing and revising the syllabus and readings. Accordingly, we asked for feedback about the use of specific books, articles, essays, poems, films, and documentaries. We also sought their input regarding the placement of various texts within the learning community. Perhaps our most significant accomplishment was to gain input from the TAs regarding the study group creative presentation topics. Together, we refined the topic areas for the study groups, specified a number of subtopics within each so that students could easily choose individual research papers, and agreed upon a method for assigning students to the various study groups. 

Thus, from the very beginning of our work with the TAs we established a collaborative climate in which their participation was vital. Moreover, the TAs realized not only that we valued their input, but also that it was going to be influential in making decisions about the learning community. We strongly believe that establishing this climate and communicating our definition of teamwork early on was a critical component to the success of our teaching team. 

During the second all-day retreat we focused on their roles and responsibilities as TAs and addressed the ethical and personal issues that we suspected would arise, such as their multiple roles, boundary setting, professionalism, confidentiality, and procedures regarding student disclosures of experiences of violence. These ethical and personal issues  are particularly important due to the nature of the learning community content. 

We assigned each TA specific responsibilities. One coordinated the (90-hour) service-learning placement, with our supervision, for all the students in the class. Three facilitated the five-person study group creative presentations and served as resources to students throughout the process of planning and coordinating these innovative projects. Two offered support for individual research and writing, helped students log onto Town Hall (a web-based discussion forum), and set up a listserv for the learning community. Finally, each one helped facilitate small group discussions in the classroom.  This strict classification of their individual responsibilities, however, is somewhat misleading. We encouraged fluid boundaries and sharing of responsibilities when necessary and discouraged the compartmentalization of tasks. This seemed to work quite effectively; consequently, they often offered help to each other throughout the semester. 

We also discussed the potential conflicts arising from their multiple roles. We asked them to keep the lines of communication open and to come to us with any uncomfortable situation before it became a problem. We role-played how they might set boundaries with friends and acquaintances. We discussed the importance of confidentiality with respect to conversations in the classroom and as a teaching team. Finally, we developed procedures regarding how they were to handle situations of student disclosure. 

Past experience in teaching issues related to violence and gender had already prepared us for the certainty that some students would disclose their own experiences of violence and those within their families and/or peer groups. On the first and second days of class, we invite representatives from our student counseling services and from our sexual assault services office to come to class, serving to familiarize students with campus resources where they can receive professional help, if needed. 

We assumed that some students might feel more comfortable disclosing personal information to the TAs because of their similarity in age. Our policy was that the TAs should not engage in discussions about personal matters with a student. The TAs were also instructed to refer that student to one of us as the instructors of record for the learning community, at which point we would refer them to the appropriate campus resource. Students enrolled in the class were informed from the very beginning (in class and on the syllabus) that anything that they might disclose to a teaching assistant would be passed on to both of us. We also decided that TAs were not to reveal or discuss student disclosures with each other.

Everything we have described up until this point in the paper was in preparation for including the undergraduate TAs as members of our teaching team. In fact, our real work together had not yet begun. Once the semester started, we met weekly for three hours. At these team meetings we would review the past week's progress (within the classroom and with respect to the individual responsibilities of each teaching assistant), discuss issues and concerns for the following week, and troubleshoot any problem areas. 

We worked hard to ensure that this was truly a collaborative effort. In some situations, for example, a student may have approached the TAs to ask about a problem with the class or with her or his group, and the TA might have been unsure of the appropriate feedback. If it were appropriate for them to respond, then we would all discuss the potential strategies for intervention and determine how to approach a particular student or issue. The undergraduate TAs were never asked to deal with any student issue with which they felt uncomfortable, and we, as the professors of record, would then respond. In such a scenario we would often discuss our strategy or policy first as a group.

In effect, these energizing weekly seminars were a combination of learning from each other with respect to reviewing course content, discussing pedagogical strategies for approaching specific course content, debriefing the past week's classes, problem-solving any student or classroom issues, and team-building among the faculty and the TAs. This is exemplified in the reflections of one of the TAs who wrote:

"The weekly team meetings provided the most satisfaction for me. It was here that I most felt I was a contributing member of the class and that I discovered the learning experience provided by my interactions with the students. Drs. Eby and Gilbert were always respectful of our concerns, yet guided us towards an understanding of the teaching process at the same time. Issues that begin as personal failure and conflict were examined and possible solutions presented. Each team member was involved in this process. Within these interactions there existed an intrinsic level of respect that was never lost."

We also agree that the team meetings were the most rewarding moments of our collaboration with the TAs. It was at these meetings that the intellectual stimulation and energy surpassed all expectations. After teaching the second three- or four-hour class period of the week, along with other teaching responsibilities on the same days, we would come to these meetings physically and mentally drained but would leave re-energized and enthusiastic. Although we both have always taken our responsibility to mentor students quite seriously, our appreciation of the benefits of this relationship for both student and faculty member has deepened. In addition to these weekly team meetings, we were in constant communication with each other via e-mail, in discussions before and after class, and around campus.

In addition, we had written requirements for the TAs. They completed weekly progress reports that documented their hours, summarized what they had accomplished in the previous week, established goals for the following week, and raised any issues or concerns. We required the TAs to write four reflective essays throughout the semester, with a final, cumulative reflection and analysis at the end of the semester. 

Evaluating the Undergraduate Teaching Assistant Model

As we consider the value of the undergraduate teaching assistant model we need to assess its effectiveness from a variety of perspectives, using multiple methods. First, one of our Cultural Studies' doctoral students interviewed a randomly selected group of students and asked them generally about the course and specifically about the undergraduate TAs. We also have a University course evaluation as a source of information, along with an individually designed NCC evaluation form for the learning community. Additionally, as her senior project, one of the TAs created and distributed a questionnaire to the students in the class at the end of the semester, inquiring about several dimensions of having the TAs participate in the classroom. The reflective essays that the TAs were required to complete are yet another helpful source. Lastly, we have our own observations of the TAs in the classroom and in our weekly seminars. Using these sources, we can begin to answer questions about the value of this undergraduate teaching assistant model. 

First, what did the undergraduate teaching assistants think of their experience? Did they feel that it was an effective learning experience or beneficial to them in any way? The answers to these questions are uniformly indisputable. The five TAs reported that it was a tremendous and transformative learning experience. They talked in their written reports about the first time that they took the learning community (as students) as a pivotal point in their lives. Revisiting the experience from a different, more mature perspective was one way that they saw themselves continuing their involvement with issues of violence of gender. Often in our weekly seminars they would discuss with enthusiasm how a particular text was more accessible, more interesting, more troubling, or perhaps less powerful than it had been the first time. They also talked about making connections across the various texts that they had not previously seen. One of the TAs put it best when she wrote, "It is true that by teaching others you learn more."

The Experiences of the Teaching Assistants

Several noted how their experience as a TA furthered learning in their specific fields of study. As one explained: 

"The assignment of group work complemented my field of study through both research and practice. I found that through observation of my groups and the dynamics in the class I noticed different trends related to group work. These observations have helped me begin noticing the same patterns in different classes and forums. I would be interested in pursuing research on some of these trends in the future."

In fact, as we look at where each of the TAs is now, we can see how this experience strengthened their commitment to their fields of interest and study. Two of the TAs are in graduate school in conflict analysis and resolution programs; one is continuing community service work abroad, including work in the area of violence prevention; one is teaching elementary school students; and one is hoping to work studying issues of violence and gender internationally. 

Furthermore, the TAs were struck by the amount of work that is required to prepare and deliver a course successfully, particularly a complex, interdisciplinary, team-taught learning community. They reported that they had no idea of the time commitment, the level of collaboration, and the thought that goes into teaching a course. They were also taken aback at the effort that is required to respond thoughtfully to students, whether about work required for the class or issues external to the classroom environment. A TA addressed this idea when he wrote: 

"Another important aspect of my experience was to learn how to effectively communicate to the students and how to ask relevant and poignant questions in the classroom. . . . I have learned body language and voice tone also impact how students will respond to you, and that certain dynamics (i.e. comfort level and patterns of interaction or participation) are not always obvious unless the professor gives them special attention."

Another TA expressed her surprise at how invested she felt in one student's academic success after providing feedback on early drafts of papers and offering assistance with writing. She reported that she had never imagined that her professors might care so much about what she learned and how she performed in their classes:

"I found that I was always very hopeful that the students would do well and was quite saddened when they failed to do well on various tasks. I often found myself stopping to talk to the students outside the classroom . . . discussing certain issues that may have been brought up in class or ensuring that they understood why I wrote certain comments on their rough-drafts. In a way, I felt as though their success was also my success."

Finally, perhaps more than anything else, all of the TAs expressed amazement at the sense of community that we developed as a teaching team, and how that contributed to success in the classroom. As one TA wrote: 

"I believe the essence of this experience lies in Drs. Eby and Gilbert choice of team members and the underlying structure of the team's interaction, which they orchestrated. The members of the teaching team possessed unique strengths and abilities that enhanced the overall team effort. In addition, there was a unity of commitment and enthusiasm with which each member approached this project. The combination of unique ability and harmony of effort created an atmosphere that inspired excellence."

While we are certainly rewarded by the fact that the TAs had such a positive experience, they are not the only ones to consider in evaluating the usefulness of the undergraduate teaching assistant model. Arguably more important is whether or not the students in the learning community found the undergraduate TAs to be helpful, or at least we needed to be assured that they did not hinder student learning in any way. 

In the survey distributed by our TA, the students overwhelmingly cited the teaching assistants as valuable "role models." In addition, the vast majority of students reported that they enjoyed having the TAs in the class (93%), felt comfortable discussing issues in their presence (90%), agreed that they effectively helped to facilitate classroom discussions (93%), disagreed that their presence was intimidating (86%), and agreed that they were helpful and approachable (90%). The students overwhelmingly disagreed with a statement that they would prefer not to have the TAs present in the class (97%). In the interviews with students the following semester, however, the results appear to suggest some ambivalence about the TAs' helpfulness, with some students reporting that they found them to be very or somewhat helpful, while others did not need their assistance. A final question we must raise when discerning the worth of this model has to do with our experience, as professors, with the undergraduate teaching assistants. We continue to feel extremely positive about this experience, and we would repeat it again without a second thought. While it is true that the model may not actually be a "time-saver," given the continuing supervision and the weekly team meetings, it is also true that the TAs provided past experience, student perspectives, and insights that added to the intellectual richness of the learning community. One could argue that having more perspectives in the classroom, through the TAs' participation in class, and having the student perspective at our faculty team meetings resulted in a more effectively taught course. Moreover, the insights that we have gained about student reactions to course material and effective strategies for presenting the various course themes will undoubtedly impact our teaching of the learning community in the future. 

Workload issues aside, the personal rewards, most particularly that of developing such rich mentoring relationships with each of the TAs, cannot be understated. This was an extraordinary experience that provided us with the opportunity to enrich our own learning, to serve students better through a demanding senior-level mentoring experience, and to provide the students in the learning community with important role models and peer resources. But perhaps most importantly, we have had the opportunity to develop friendships with each of these teaching assistants -- friendships that will last far into the future.
  

Kimberly K. Eby (keby1@gmu.edu), an ecological-community psychologist, is an Assistant Professor in New Century College at George Mason University and a faculty affiliate with Women's Studies and the Department of Psychology.  She has taught multiple integrated studies learning communities, including "Violence and Gender" and "Self as Citizen", as well as courses in adolescent psychology and lifespan development.  Her research interests revolve around the scholarship of teaching, particularly examining faculty roles in collaborative work, and issues related to violence and gender, such as domestic violence, sexual assault, health sequelae of violence, and violence intervention and prevention.

Paula Ruth Gilbert (pgilbert@gmu.edu) is Professor of French, Canadian, and Women's Studies. She teaches courses in nineteenth-century French literature, Quebec literature, comparative Canadian and Quebec fiction, violence and gender, women's studies, honors in general studies (Reading the Arts), and cultural studies (on Canadian and Quebec nationalism and on domestic violence). She is the former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and was one of the 1999 recipients of a Teaching Excellence award. She has published three books and numerous articles on Quebec women writers and French Symbolist poetry. Her co-edited collection of essays, Doing Gender: Franco-Canadian Women Writers of the 1990s, has just been accepted for publication, and her Violence and Gender: A Critical Reader, co-edited with Kim Eby, is under review for publication. She has just been awarded a National Endowment for the Humanities Faculty Research Fellowship for work on her book, Violence and the Female Imagination: Quebec Women Writers Confront Gendered Cultures.