A set of developing beliefs guides the manner in which I work to connect students with course content.  These include beliefs that:  1) experiential, reflective learning results in greater mastery of course content and skills;  2) a balance between course rigor and accessibility must be achieved in order for the learner to have a satisfactory learning experience; and 3) college students are adult learners who should be engaged in self-directed, mastery-oriented learning.    I consider myself to be a learner in formation, just as my students are, and therefore my learning process regarding the practice of teaching is reflected in the explanation of my beliefs and teaching philosophy to follow. (Links to the syllabi for the courses cited as examples are included at the foot of this page.)

Experiential Learning

First, I value experiential learning opportunities — as long as experience leads to meaningful reflection on what has been learned.  I believe the opportunity to reflect on the experience is often of greater value than the experience itself, particularly for the discipline of Communication Sciences and Disorders.  The experience may be interesting, exciting, fun, challenging, difficult, negative. . but what did I learn from it?

The structure of several courses, particularly my graduate level courses, reflects these values and that belief.    For example, in the Diagnostic Theory course–ComP 659, (which I teach as a complementary module with ComP 610), students first conduct actual diagnostic evaluations (after an introduction on how to do that), and then create therapy plans based on those evaluations. In the second module of the semester, Advanced Study of Language Disorders–ComP 610, they go on to actually provide language therapy for the students they assessed utilizing the therapy plans created earlier.  Each semester students indicate that this experience was valuable to them.  In one fall semester’s course evaluation comments, 70% of the comments referenced this experience, and the comments were unanimously positive about the impact this “real life” experience had on student learning.

So, how does personal reflection fit into this experience?  It is difficult, if not impossible, to assign a mastery grade for the process of conducting therapy.  The grade for this activity comes from submission of a portfolio containing weekly therapy plans and daily data collection forms.  The students are required to show how strategies were adapted based on the client’s needs and performance in therapy.  They are asked to relate the client’s progress (or lack of progress) in a session to elements of the therapy provided.  They are asked to reflect on what they learned about themselves as clinicians and about the therapeutic process as a result of this activity and they are graded via a rubric which evaluates their engagement in the process.  The fact that they may have struggled to implement a specific technique, or that they had to modify their data collection strategy four times across four weeks, is fine as long as these experiences inform reflective learning.  I want them to see what can be learned from their mistakes.  These reflection papers are very honest and very rich as students pull from within what they have learned.

I will definitely generalize the skills I learned regarding targeting goals during therapy and continue in other settings to work on growing those skills.  I will also carry over [what I learned regarding] documentation.  Once I nailed that into place I found myself to be a more present and effective clinician.

When I allowed myself to be more flexible in the therapy sessions, my client was more comfortable and he was able to learn and grow.

I need to find a better balance of documenting and interacting with my client, and not be too focused on one aspect of therapy.  I learned I am a work in progress, and that making mistakes comes with the territory.  It is taking what you learn and applying it that makes the difference.

Rigor and Accessibility

Another belief is that coursework in our discipline should academically challenge each student in a way that forms these developing professionals into self-starting learners who believe that given adequate resources they can master most subjects. The university-wide discussion which has ebbed and flowed during the past few years regarding course rigor has centered on an apparent perception on the part of ACU students that some of our programs may lack rigor (according to results from our students on the National Survey of Student Engagement in 2011).  Reflecting on this topic has led me to ask myself the following questions:  are my courses rigorous? Is it important to the students that any given course be perceived as rigorous? What does rigor mean for my discipline and for my specialty areas (child language/ assessment/bilingualism).

I’m still observing and reflecting, but this is where I currently am operating:  it is my observation that students engage more in a course that they perceive as rigorous.  Furthermore I believe that mastery of course content in a course perceived as rigorous leads to greater learner satisfaction as well as increased self-efficacy with the content learned (very important in a preprofessional program).  Feedback on course evaluations would appear to support this belief; students have made comments such as these:

Her assignments were tough, but useful and required creativity and thoughtfulness. . .

She really challenges you, but you learn a lot.

I always have to work hard for my grade in Dr. Austin’s class and I actually appreciate having to do so. . .

However,  I also believe that if a course is perceived as too difficult for mastery to occur, then this leads to frustration, anger at the professor, and finally  learner burnout —unfavorable states for learning to occur.   Students have let me know when this has happened in my courses; I’ve gotten feedback such as this:

Granted the material is more upper level, but I think she could have found ways to make it more understandable throughout the semester. . .

Sometimes that large amount of information we had to read and learn in such a short time was overwhelming. . .

Attaining a balance between rigor and accessibility is a significant challenge. My on-going efforts to develop and refine my courses so that they achieve that balance are directed toward instilling the following specific beliefs/perceptions in students:  1) this content is very important to my future practice as a speech-language pathologist.  2) In order to master this content I am going to have to think and apply the things that I am learning; it is not going to be sufficient for me to merely memorize information.  3)  I am going to have to spend significant amounts of time engaging with and using this material in order to be successful in learning it, and 4) although this is a challenge my professor will help me with the resources and guidance  I need to learn this material– if I am willing to put forth the effort required to do so.

As I reflect on accessibility, I realize that both the course content and the course instructor must be accessible in order for students to perceive that they are able to master the course knowledge and skills.  To me this has meant that as I introduce a challenging topic, I must provide some guidance on how to master, or work with, that content.  I’ve seen that exposure to and opportunities to engage with the content via experiential learning, but without guidance, do NOT lead to success with the content.  I’ve had to give some thought to learning preferences to try to provide each student with an optimum learning experience.    I do feel that good lecture is a useful tool and yet I am learning that it alone is unlikely to create the desired perceptions and level of engagement in students.  Feedback has been positive about my incorporating a variety of teaching and learning formats in each class session; students have noted the following:

Followed the text book and gave thorough explanations, showed lots of video clips/other resources.

Stories and examples helped.

I like that she incorporates group discussions and projects/activities with her lectures.

Targeting the student perceptions and attitudes that I outlined above has also required me to consider and revise how I use class time.  My original course designs on beginning to teach in 2008 were fairly “traditional” in nature, focusing on lecture, written individual assignments completed outside of class and, of course, examinations. As previously highlighted, I’m now incorporating more elements of experiential or application learning and using those during class time.  This means employing at least one relevant activity requiring use of the course content in each class session.  An example of such a learning activity, in Normal Language Development (ComP 330), consists of having pairs of students analyze the vocalizations of three infants in video clips and identify their stages of preverbal development. I utilize a similar activity or activities in each class.  These learning activities are usually graded; somehow that seems to increase the likelihood that students will participate wholeheartedly (I wish that they would simply do it for learning’s sake!).

Course assignments have also evolved with an eye toward making course concepts accessible.  Most of my courses now feature at least one major project per semester that involves actual clinical service delivery (graduate) or simulated clinical service delivery (undergraduate and graduate).  An example of one of these projects is found in Speech and Language Services in Schools (ComP 471) where assessment teams are charged to “create” a client based on specific characteristics and write an evaluation report showing the likely speech and language profile of that client.  Another example is found in Normal Language Development, where teams are required to select a video clip of a child identified with a disability, analyze the clip thoroughly, and provide a brief clinical writeup of the results.  Sample of student work_ComP 330_language sample analysis and evaluation These major assignments each require analysis and reflection on completion.

With these types of assignments I frequently group students in teams or pairs (with a built-in “group effectiveness” assessment process which holds each student accountable).  I believe that these assignments make content more accessible because of the process through which they are completed: some work occurs in class as I circulate to answer questions; students may come in to see me and discuss their work; and if in groups, the groups in which they work are carefully designed so that there is a mix of capabilities and previous knowledge levels in the group.  They learn from one another; there is shared construction of learning for this challenging content. For most assignments feedback is given via carefully designed rubrics that allow the students to clearly see the differences between poor work, good work, and excellent work.  I believe that providing the rubrics in advance also contributes to making the content accessible.

Students have responded favorably to these types of assignments, as seen below:

She made learning activities an almost daily thing which kept us on our toes. .

Allowed opportunities to apply the course content to real life situations. .

. . .Chances to use the skills we were learning about and applying the concepts really helped them stick.

The class was very interactive and that was nice to have for a change, compared to all lecture courses.

Also, in my efforts to increase content accessibility I have begun to incorporate instruction on evidence-based learning strategies at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.  Some class time is spent on note-taking and memory-enhancing techniques.  The importance of guiding students’ learning and memory strategies was brought home to me by an Adams Center presentation given by Dr. Robert McKelvain, and I will discuss in more depth the impact of that presentation in the section on Pedagogical Approaches.  However, here I want to note that providing some instruction in this area appears to have increased students’ positive perceptions of their ability to manage the course content, as judged by comments such as this:

I think it would be even better if we had more outside assignments such as the mind map (sic).  Things like these are fun and also help me learn.

As a final note in this discussion of rigor with accessibility, it is clear to me that students’ views of the instructor’s personal accessibility to them has a significant impact on their level of engagement.  Throughout the semester I work to establish an atmosphere of instructor accessibility through strategies such as: getting to know the students via planned coffee dates (undergraduate) or meals in my home (graduate), communicating frequently via email, having “work days” in class where teams or individuals work on projects as I circulate to provide feedback, and generally working to create a positive, entertaining (even funny at times) and inviting classroom environment.  This has had a positive effect in my classes:

Dr. Austin was always available when I needed to ask a question, she was concerned with my grades and general welfare in the class, and made sure to talk to me if she noticed I was struggling.

Dr. Austin was accessible to us  She asked for our input  on class and how she could make class better. . .

 

Students as Self-Directed Learners

The last point I wish to emphasize in the explanation of my teaching philosophy is my belief that post-secondary students, as adult learners, need to take ownership of their learning.  I believe that this ownership includes targeting mastery of the knowledge and skills involved rather than directing efforts toward achieving a particular grade.  I felt significant frustration during my first two semesters of teaching as it seemed that the students required continual reminders and prompting in order to complete readings and assignments, and that completion of the work wasn’t a given even with prompts.

In attempting to address this challenge, I began to implement an individual goal-setting process in some courses.  For example, for the course ComP 330 (Normal Language Development) students must have a strong foundation in the structure of English in order to understand acquisition of language in English-speaking children (and to be able to understand parallels between the acquisition of English and the acquisition of other languages).  I had observed in previous semesters that many students lacked this knowledge; yet I did not have time during the semester to address the area thoroughly.  This need, paired with my desire to view students, and have students view themselves, as adult learners with a responsibility for determining what they needed to know and going after that knowledge, prompted the following strategy.   Students take an assessment of their English grammar and syntax knowledge and use the results of that measure to identify areas in which they needed more information. (ComP 330 Grammar_Syntax PreTest )They do this by analyzing the results of the assessment (Grammar_Syntax self assessment), and then specifying targets for study.  A workbook is provided for this purpose.  Neither the syntax test nor the analysis worksheet are graded (although they are submitted for a completion check).  The students are responsible for demonstrating their mastery of syntax/grammar on tests and on the final exam.  I provide minimal direct instruction in this area.  And, as might be expected, performance in this area at the end of the semester ranges from very poor to highly proficient.

Mid-semester and end-of-term evaluations have been mixed; some students feel that they have achieved something of significance by mastering (or re-mastering) knowledge of the structure of the English language. Others feel that the self-study required in this process is too much to ask for one class (along with the actual course content).  After incorporating the syntax self-study in my curriculum for 3 semesters, and now reviewing it, it strikes me that the reflection piece of self-directed learning needs to incorporate personal reflection on “why I need to learn” as well as “what I need to learn.”  I lecture on the importance of knowledge of grammar and syntax for practitioners at the beginning of the semester, but I have not asked the students to individually reflect on why or even if such knowledge is important to them personally.   I will be including a “why” component to the students’ individual goal-setting in this course next spring.

What I am realizing is that operating from a self-directed learning orientation involves releasing control of many aspects of instruction to these adult learners; something which sounds easier to do than it actually is (for me)! However, I feel that engaging my students as adult learners is essential for preparing them to be lifelong learners as speech-language pathologists, equipped to engage in evidence-based practice.  With that end in mind I continue to seek specific areas in each course where I can learn to release control of elements of the curriculum to the students.

I have outlined my teaching philosophy in this section and have employed examples from my pedagogy in order to develop the ideas I wished to explain.  I will further reflect on my pedagogical strategies in the next section.

471syllabusF2013      659syllabusF2013      610syllabusF2013     ComP330syllabusS2013

Next. . .Pedagogical Approaches