Teaching Reflection: SPA 34104 Speech and Language Development
On 11/29/10, I guest-lectured on the topic of assessing language and speech development in Dr. Burgess’s Speech and Language Development course. The class has roughly 100 registered students, all of whom are undergraduate and each of whom plan to enter the speech/language pathology program. The class takes place in person for an hour and 15 minutes several times each week in Nixon Hall. Prior to delivering my lecture (which was far more interactive than strict lecture), I met with Dr. Burgess on several occasions to discuss what approach I planned to take. In the end, I chose to focus on the aspect of assessing speech and language and development and endeavored to deliver this information by and large through the use of a case study- my son.
I must admit, I was rather nervous about lecturing to such a large group of students, given that it has been quite some time since I spoke publicly to a group that size. However, as soon as I walked into the lecture room I was completely comfortable and much to my surprise the entire lecture/session flowed smoothly and without issue.
I had a PowerPoint (attached to this post) that I used to guide my discussion. The text on the PowerPoint was limited on each slide so that I could ensure that I elaborated on main points and did not read from the slides. I had printed out lecture notes to use to make sure I hit upon the foci I had intended but as it turned out, I did not need my notes.
While I had planned to introduce myself to students and give some background, Dr. Burgess beat me to the punch and explained to the class who I was and what I would be talking about before I spoke. As she turned the class over to me, I thanked Dr. Burgess and simply reiterated briefly who I was and what I would be talking about. I walked students through an overview of what the presentation would entail, and then we embarked on a short review of sorts (given what I was told they should know) about why understanding typical language development is essential for determining atypical language patterns. Students responded to questions about what was typical, and given that I could safely assume they understood the context for how we determine whether atypical patterns are existing, I moved on to talk broadly about the types of communication disorders children can experience. Again, as I asked students if they could explain the difference between speech and language, one student responded and others nodded in agreement. This then brought me in to the distinction between delay and disorder, and from there we went on to talk about some common disorders as well as types/forms of challenges children experience dependent upon the issue. At this juncture, students were not quick to volunteer information and after giving them roughly 25 seconds to respond, I would then explain. After the presentation, Dr. Burgess suggested that with undergraduates, it helps to give them hints or more information to see whether I can elicit a response before moving on, or even simply waiting longer because inevitably someone will feel the pressure to speak up.
Much of the rest of the presentation was rather interactive. The class uses clickers, and so within my presentation I had embedded about 15 various clicker questions after various topical sections. As we ended the discussion of language and speech delays/disorders, students answered about 6 clicker questions by way of review. By and large, students responded correctly each time, with all students answering questions correctly on two of these instances. After I posted the results of their clicker answers each time, I would take a couple of minutes to provide for more context and to explain why the answer was as such (all clicker questions were true or false).
During the next portion of the lecture, I showed the class a 5 minute clip from Inside Edition about developmental Apraxia. Before the video, I told the class what to look for, and as the video was playing I noted that many students were in fact taking notes. After the video, I had the class talk to the students in their vicinity about the types of speech and language patterns they observed. I walked around the room in case anyone had questions, but no one asked any- however, I was able to overhear their discussions and they were talking about the video and writing notes, as opposed to taking the opportunity to chat about life. This was encouraging. I went over and spoke with Dr. Burgess and she said the presentation was going very well, though she said it would help if I gave them examples of speech and language patterns to jumpstart their memories. Thus, when we returned to large group, I asked the question again but this time did provide those contextual clues. A couple of students speaking for their groups shared what they found, but after providing some time for more people to volunteer no one did. Therefore, I asked targeted questions- is apraxia a speech or a language disorder? Did you notice articulation, fluency, or voice issues? To these questions, many students spoke out.
We then moved on to assessment. This section began by my explaining the difference between standardized, norm-referenced, criterion-referenced, and curriculum-based assessments. I gave concrete examples that some students would be familiar with. Students tended to raise their hands to show awareness as opposed to speaking up. For example, when I asked whether they knew the difference between norm and criterion-referenced tests, many students raised their hands. However, when I asked that someone explain what they thought the difference was no one was willing to share (or at least not within the 25 seconds I gave them to respond). I felt that my discussion of this topic was well-received and that I explained it well; however, I believe that having handouts with more specific information would have been helpful. Unfortunately, though I had created them, I was unable to print them. 100 students times the 6 handouts I wanted to provide would have cost too much money.
Next, I told them we would consider assessment by considering the case study of my son. I gave the class a developmental history, and talked about how and when I became concerned about his intelligibility of speech. I discussed how I had to get a script from the pediatrician for him to be evaluated by an SLP, and I then described the assessment process that was used. In doing so, I gave examples of what types of questions were asked. I told the students which tests were used, and then provided them with a picture sample from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test. Having this sample on the screen as I described how my son missed many points by not pointing to the picture and instead finding examples in the environment really helped to drive home the possible problems with using such a test as the sole indicator of eligibility and performance monitoring. In fact, a few students commented during this time about how the pictures were hard to distinguish, and that if asking a child which picture shows someone sleeping, there could have conceivably been two answers. Before moving on, I concluded that I was not suggesting that the test did not have its place or that it is not useful, but rather that for certain children it may not represent their true functionality.
This took us to the topic of authentic assessment, and after explaining what that is, I honed in on the idea that it must be systematic. What did I mean by that? I then had the class take out a paper and writing utensil and told them to take the next few minutes to examine the room and write down any observations. I gave a few examples. I explained they could list anything at all that they could see (I am compelled to note that I ‘borrowed’ this activity from a wonderful presentation I attended while assisting with the ODEC conference in Findlay this past August. The topic had been authentic assessment and the presenter used this activity to demonstrate the importance of systematic observation). As I noticed most students in the front row had long lists and were still going, I called time on the activity and asked that everyone compare notes. What did they write that was the same? What was different? In the end, as I probed the group of their comparisons, they saw that while some observations were similar, others were not. I explained how this illustrates the need for systematic authentic assessment- that we need to have markers, or milestones, or criterion, that we know to observe, and then we can evaluate the extent to which a child meets those standards. If we don’t agree about what we are looking for, observational data will not be useful to us.
Dr. Burgess asked if I could give an example of an authentic assessment, and of course my next two slides and discussion revolved around the AEPS. Finally, I had the students view a clip of my son. I asked them to note his speech patterns and informed them that they would be discussing in small groups what they observed. While the clip played, students were very engaged in watching the clip. They found him very adorable and funny as well (which of course he is!) Afterwards, I again walked around the room as students chatted and I had several students ask questions. When we came back to large group, students were much more willing to discuss their thoughts at this juncture, and some students shared personal anecdotes and experiences as well. I explained to them about the song he sang in the video, which got many laughs (the beginning of the presentation had a picture of my son shopping at Giant Eagle…I brought it all back to this by telling the group that in this instance perhaps it is good not everyone can understand what he says given that he sings the Acme jingle as we shop at GE. Oh the irony!). I was able to give them specific examples of the speech/articulation errors Gabriel makes by referring to the clip they had watched. I ended the presentation with a comic, and then, much to my surprise, the presentation had indeed lasted the entire length of the class session. Afterwards, one student came up to shake my hand and thank me for coming in and asked me a variety of questions about where she could obtain information for families and how she could include family input more within clinical settings.
Specific examples of how my lecture/presentation was grounded in best practice for adult learners:
- I brought my expertise from the field of Early Intervention to a group of pre-service Speech Language Pathologists. Their perspective on language development and assessment differs in that field generally (though not necessarily for these students, since they are not yet in the field). Thus, Dr. Burgess’s gracious acceptance of my request to guest-lecture was a sample of interdisciplinary collaboration. Collaboration among professional fields often improves the delivery of instruction as well as student learning outcomes (Schuster, Francis-Connolly, Alford-Trewn, & Brooks, 2003)
- The majority of my presentation was grounded within the context of a case study (my son). By providing a real-world, practical example, students were provided with an introduction to how the study of language development has very applicable purposes for assessing young children. Thus, the relationship of the content to both practical and applied contexts was explored, which further offered students with a starting point to become critical consumers of assessment methods; competencies that can improve learning and career outcomes (Benson, et al., 2006; Piercy & Lee, 2006; Honawar, 2007; Chambers, Cheung, Slavin, Smith, and Laurenzano, 2010)
- By using clickers with the class, I was able to increase the interactivity among students with the content (Beckert, Fauth, & Olsen, 2009; Quinn, 2010)
Considerations for future face-to-face lectures:
- With undergraduate students, be more recursive; that is, repeat information at various junctures. Using clickers for content checks was wise, but perhaps the same questions should be used again but stated differently
- If students do not respond to requests for information or feedback, provide more time for them to do so. Offer contextual clues as needed. Additionally, do not feel rushed to provide the results of clicker questions. Students may need up to 90 seconds or even longer to get their answers in- make sure all responses are in before showing results
- Offer more explanation on items students are unlikely to be familiar with, even if it is inconsequential to the lecture (I briefly mentioned about my son’s occupational therapist without getting into the details of why he sees one or what they do). If you are going to mention it, it is only fair to the students to elaborate.
In closing, I am so glad I had this experience. I feel much more prepared to teach courses face-to-face now, and to provide professional presentations. While I had not planned on eliciting student feedback, I have decided that I will. Dr. Burgess said she would provide them with a link to survey monkey to answer my questions. She also provided them with a copy of my PPT and will have questions from my presentation on her final exam. I believe the feedback I receive will be invaluable to me going forward when I present in front of a very large group next time.
References
Beckert, T., Fauth, E., & Olsen, K. (2009). Clicker satisfaction for students in human development: Differences for class type, prior exposure, and student talkativity. North American Journal of Psychology, 11, 599-611.
Benson, M., Allen, K., Few, A., Roberto, K., Blieszner, R., Meszaros, P., et al. (2006). Transforming the Master's degree in human development and family science. Family Relations, 55(1), 44-55. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00355.x
Chambers, B., Cheung, A., Slavin, R. E., Smith, D., & Laurenzano, M. (2010). Effective early childhood education programmes: A best evidence synthesis. Berkshire, UK: CfBT Education Trust
Honawar, V. (2007). Teacher colleges urged to pay heed to child development. Education Week, 26(35), 11.
Piercy, K., & Lee, T. (2006). Graduate distance education in family relations: A case study. Family Relations, 55(1), 67-79. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00357.x
Quinn, A. (2010). An exploratory study of opinions on clickers and class participation from students of human behavior in the social environment. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 20, 721-731. doi:10.1080/10911351003749102
Schuster, E., Francis-Connolly, E., Alford-Trewn, P., & Brooks, J. (2003). Conceptualization and development of a course on aging to infancy: A life course retrospective. Educational Gerontology, 29, 841-850.
