Becky Henning
Communicative Disorders

Becky noticed a decided mismatch between class activities and her students´ learning and cognitive/thinking styles. Changing her vision of her learners, she used these new perceptions to examine what she was doing, as well as how she was assessing students. She then altered class activities to better match students´ styles.

• Back to Table of Contents

I had established a basic, effective class format, but I wanted to grow in my teaching and try some new activities. The only problem was that I had no idea how to proceed!

The flyers advertising the FACETS seminar series caught my attention early in the Fall 2004 semester. At that time, I had been a faculty member for just one semester and a summer session. I had made it through those initial teaching experiences with positive peer and student reviews, and no major problems. Despite this success, however, I felt a little stagnant. I had established a basic, effective class format, but I wanted to grow in my teaching and try some new activities. The only problem was that I had no idea how to proceed!

I was also facing an upcoming challenge that would force me to make some changes in my teaching. The UWSP audiology program was in the process of collaborating with UW-Madison’s program to offer a clinical Doctor of Audiology (AuD) degree. Beginning in the Spring 2005 semester, I would be teaching courses simultaneously to UWSP and UW-Madison students using videoconferencing. My lectures would probably work fine using videoconferencing, but I was having trouble coming up with ideas for other class activities that would work well in a distance format.

The topics in the FACETS seminar series—the Millennial Generation, learning styles, and “backward” course design—were all interesting to me, and I hoped the seminars would give me some ideas for new things to try in the classroom. The Millennial Generation and learning style topics seemed especially relevant to my distance education challenges. Also, being relatively new to the university, I thought this would be a good chance to interact with faculty from other departments.

My Millennial Students

The topic of the first seminar was the Millennial Generation. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that we would receive a free book at each of the three seminars. It turned out that I was already familiar with the first seminar’s book (Howe and Strause, Millennials Rising). I read through it at the campus bookstore at the University of Iowa because, as a TA I had already begun to notice some differences between the current college-aged generation (the Millennials) and my own generation (Generation X). In general, the Millennials seemed more optimistic, energetic and participatory than my generation; on the other hand, they sometimes appeared compulsively busy and less likely to pause for critical reflection and thinking. The book confirmed some of my observations, but I had never had the chance to discuss these observations with anyone else, so I enjoyed this opportunity at the FACETS seminar.

My group contained a mix of Generation X’ers and Baby Boomers, and our range of perspectives brought out a variety of anecdotes and ideas. Our discussion ranged from serious issues to amusing, hard-to-believe ones. No one had a good solution to the Catch-22 of Millennial students neglecting their schoolwork because they are preoccupied working 30-40+ hours a week to make ends meet and pay tuition. We talked about parents’ increased involvement with this generation, and sat in bewildered shock as a local executive told of receiving angry phone calls from parents when he had to let some of his young adult (i.e., age 18+) workers go.

One of the most valuable things I got out of the discussion was a greater realization that faculty at all levels of experience in all departments continue to have teaching dilemmas.

Though I didn’t learn a lot of new information from this first seminar (since I had read the book several years before), I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion. The inclusion of faculty from UW-Marathon County, as well as local business leaders, brought a greater range of interesting perspectives. One of the most valuable things I got out of the discussion was a greater realization that faculty at all levels of experience in all departments continue to have teaching dilemmas. It was motivating to listen to tenured, experienced faculty who are enthusiastic and excited to grow in their teaching. It was also fun to share our thoughts about various teaching dilemmas. This discussion led me to realize that everyone, not just new faculty, experiences these dilemmas. I felt relieved, less like a fumbling new faculty member, and more like a confident, “real” professor.

Catalysts for Change—Learning Styles and Backward Design

I was quite interested in learning styles, the topic of the second seminar. I was eager to get some ideas about how I could teach to students with different learning styles using videoconferencing. Our group had a lively discussion that included many ideas for teaching visually and kinesthetically. We even came up with an activity for students to “act out” some hearing aid signal processing concepts! Each student could represent a band of frequencies, and their heights, which could vary by sitting, kneeling, or standing, could represent the different amounts of amplification in each band. The group helped me figure out some possible ways to have the students positioned so that the acting would be visible to the other campus over the video. The group also encouraged me to rehearse this beforehand with some colleagues to make sure that it would be effective. I don’t teach the hearing aids class until Spring 2006, and I’m looking forward to trying this then!

The third seminar covered the topic of “backward” course design. I initially thought this would be the least interesting of the seminars, but it actually ended up being the most beneficial for me. The idea of backward design is that the instructor’s first step in designing a course is to identify what students should know or be able to do by the end of the course. The second step is to create assessments that will, as authentically as possible, determine whether students have met the identified objectives. The final step is to plan lessons that will help students meet the objectives. I thought this seminar would be less interesting because I was already using this kind of framework to design my courses. Audiology is a professional field that requires a specific knowledge base and skill set, so I have always designed my courses, assessments, and lessons by thinking, “What do students need to know and be able to do by the end of this class?”

The seminar on backward design confirmed that I was indeed using many of these principles to design and teach my classes. Even so, the information and discussion helped me define and differentiate my course objectives more specifically. I teach “introductory” (first-year) as well as intermediate to advanced (second- and third-year) classes in the AuD program. All of these classes, even the introductory ones, are at the graduate level, so critical thinking and problem solving are required elements. On the other hand, students enter the AuD program with little undergraduate background specifically in audiology. For this reason, I also have to teach a good deal of fundamental terminology and concepts.

Before I read the book on backward design, I had never consciously thought about the fact that my introductory courses covered a wide range of cognitive levels. I believe this new awareness will lead to some improvements in my courses. I previously presented information at a variety of cognitive levels simultaneously; I would present new terminology and concepts at the same time that I presented a hypothetical problem to be solved. I have since revised some of my lectures and class activities to present the essential terminology and concepts first, followed by a problem-solving or critical thinking exercise that uses the terminology and concepts. I like this approach better because it separates, yet still connects, the different levels of thinking. It proceeds in a logical fashion of, “Here is the essential information, and now here is how that information is used in a real-life situation.” I think this is clearer than presenting all levels of information at once. It also clarifies to the students that they are responsible for knowing the essential terminology and concepts, as well as how to apply and evaluate that information in various contexts.

FACETS has given me more ideas on how to effectively relate to students. Before FACETS, I had always considered that students’ backgrounds (whether generational, cultural, socioeconomic, geographic, etc.) might be different from my own, and I tried to respect those differences instead of becoming frustrated with them. In addition, I assumed that students came to my classes with a variety of learning styles, and I attempted to take that into account when designing lessons and assessments, and when helping students individually. Now that I’m more familiar with the Millennial Generation and different learning styles, I think I do a better job of taking those factors into account.

Stipend project—Support for change

Even before the seminar series began, I decided to apply for a FACETS research stipend. I wanted to spend some time thoughtfully revising my distance education courses so that they would be of more benefit to students with a variety of learning styles. Unfortunately, this is the kind of goal that is difficult to pursue during the day-to-day “busyness” of a regular semester. I was pleased to see that FACETS was offering a summer stipend for course revisions and associated research. I prepared my proposal over winter break, and turned it in as soon as the program would accept it in the spring. I was thrilled when I found out that it was accepted.

In Amplification II, I’ve included debate, an activity one would not normally find in an audiology course. Students will prepare their cases and debate one another on the relative merits of two different methods of fitting hearing aids, which is a matter of some contention in the audiology “real world.”

Following the meeting with other research stipend awardees in May, I defined my project more specifically. I decided to complete the project on two of my videoconferencing classes—Amplification I and Amplification II, both to be taught in Spring 2006. I plan to evaluate whether students with different learning preferences and strategies perceive the content delivery methods, class activities, and assignments are beneficial. I’m going to begin the semester by asking the students to take an on-line assessment of their learning preferences and strategies. I plan to discuss this assessment with the students, and explain how a greater awareness of their own style(s) can help them generate helpful study strategies.

I have revised these two courses to include some more visual presentation of concepts, and a mixture of small-group and individual activities that are active and reflective and include both writing and speaking. My group’s discussion during the seminar on learning styles gave me some specific ideas for activities. I’ve also used the principles of backward design in making the revisions. In Amplification I, I’ve divided the lessons into terminology and concepts, and hypothetical real-world applications of the terminology and concepts. The “applications” exercises include a mix of written and spoken individual and small-group work. In Amplification II, I’ve included debate, an activity one would not normally find in an audiology course. Students will prepare their cases and debate one another on the relative merits of two different methods of fitting hearing aids, which is a matter of some contention in the audiology “real world.” Previously, I’ve just told students about this issue, but now they’ll have the opportunity to become more actively involved in it. An added bonus regarding these changes is that many of them will require the students to interact with the students on the UW-Madison campus. Since the AuD is a joint, collaborative program, we want to encourage the students to feel more unified than separated.

Even though my research project will be focused on the Amp. I and Amp. II classes, I’ve begun making revisions to my other classes using the principles of learning styles and backward design. I feel like it will become natural for me to approach all my courses this way.

FACETS—A Framework for Branching Out

I originally became interested in the FACETS seminars and research project because I wanted to grow as a teacher and as a new faculty member. The information I learned and the discussions I had with fellow participants gave me a framework for “branching out” and adding new activities to my classes, such as the debate and kinesthetic activities. Much of what I learned about teaching has already started to become second nature to me, and I’m looking forward to using these ideas in my future classes. I’ve been revising some lessons to account for different learning styles, as well as using the principles of backward design. Finally, my interactions with more experienced faculty members helped my confidence grow, as I realized that everyone shares some of the same teaching dilemmas.

Afterthoughts—Looking Backward

During this past fall semester, I taught one distance education course, Clinical Research Methods. This was the first time I had ever taught a research course, so I had decided not to use this course for my FACETS study. I didn’t want any first-time “bugs” to interfere with the results, and I didn’t have the time to simultaneously put the course together and work out the research logistics. I still, however, tried to design the course using what I had learned about the Millennial Generation, learning styles, and backward design.

A centerpiece of this course is a large research project. I gave each student a choice of following one of two major formats for this project, as well as choosing their own topic. One reason I did this is that audiology students, in general, tend to be more interested in clinical work and less interested in research. I gave them choices for this project because I wanted them to follow their own interests and strengths, and I realized that there are many ways in which one can participate in research. On the course evaluations, many students stated that they appreciated the opportunity to follow their own interests in this class. Another activity I incorporated into this class was small-group work that required the students to find answers to questions I had posed. After they had done this, we came back together as a class and discussed the answers. I included this small-group work for two reasons: to add some variety beyond the lecture format, and to be more beneficial for students who learn more actively. As a professor, small-group work feels different, sometimes uneasy, in a distance education class because it is usually hard to tell if the students at the remote campus are staying on task. My students did come up with good answers most of the time, though, so they must have been working! On the course evaluations, many students said that they enjoyed the mix of lecture and small-group work in this class.

It has also been more fun for me to design my classes to include more variety. As I said at the beginning, I started my teaching career with a basic class format that seemed to be effective, but I felt a little stagnant and wasn’t sure how to grow from there. FACETS has given me a variety of ideas for different class activities, and I’m looking forward to continuing to use these ideas to branch out and grow in my teaching.