FINAL REPORT

Can student learning of aging theories, concepts and research be enhanced by small group discussion. Specifically, will the learning which occurs in small group discussion result in greater depth of knowledge compared to last year’s class which did not utilize small group discussion?

This comparison of learning will be made by comparing this experimental class’s termpapers and exams to the previous year’s termpapers and exams

How much, if any, content will be sacrificed in the interests of depth of understanding? Will it be an acceptable exchange?

This will be measured by my own observations and perceptions.

Randy Bass’ observation that "having a problem" in teaching is good thing rather than something we try not to have was enormously freeing to me. It has allowed me to approach my teaching more experimentally, to allow myself some room to explore. The periodic discussions of readings and experiences with other SOL colleagues gave me a wealth of new ideas that sometimes led me "astray" from the original intent of my project. Overall, I think this was a good thing. I found myself trying on new approaches in class, based on feedback from my SOL colleagues, that weren’t part of my original plan, Naturally, that wouldn’t be acceptable in a controlled scientific study. This allowed me to improve upon my project midstream. It was fun! Now that’s not something I’ve said previously about my research!!!!

Learning Question 1: The results for this question are mixed. Exam scores improved only slightly between the Fall 03 classes and the experimental Fall 04 classes. The term papers improved more demonstratively between the Fall 03 and the Fall 04 classes. More students incorporated concepts and theory into their papers than did students in the previous year class. Even more than in term papers, I noted that students readily incorporated concepts and theories into class discussions of readings. Because this was the first time I’ve used Group Discussion in the Late Adulthood class, comparisons cannot be made to previous years. Discussions in this experimental class were lively and they generally included content from lectures. Students were particularly fond of Selectivity Theory and the concepts "Cohort", "Cohort Flow" and "Dependency Ratio". These concepts and theory came up again and again in discussion of the essays; students were able to correctly apply the concepts to problems presented in the essays.

During the first class I gave a questionnaire to students that asked them to identify five facts regarding the older population and to articulate how they felt about someday becoming an old person. I gave the same questionnaire at the end of the semester. The "facts" they listed in the first questionnaire were more often myths and stereotypes compared to the facts that they listed at the end of the class. By the end of class students listed accurate facts, many which represented variant aging patterns. Furthermore, they made comments which illustrated their appreciation for the complexity of later life development and the complexity of social problems associated with this stage of life.

In general, students felt negatively about growing older at the beginning of class and somewhat more positive at the end of class. Their perceptions about aging and older people were more realistic than at the beginning of class, rather than extremely negative or very sentimental. Again, their comments reflected their appreciation of complexity. I view that as growth. One point that most students grasped was the connection between health status and life satisfaction. Many of them commented at the end of class how much their understanding of that correlation motivated them to maintain (or improve) their own health.

Students can memorize theories, but I find they often have difficulty applying theory to real life situations. Over and over again, the students in the experimental classes brought up Selectivity Theory in discussions and many mentioned it in the final questionnaire. I believe it was the discussion of essays helped them apply this theory. The theory appealed to them from the beginning in lecture, but they were able to talk about it in a more meaningful way when they could apply it to behavior they saw in their older consultants (the term paper assignment), as well as in older characters portrayed in the assigned essays. Grappling with ideas out loud helps a student make meaning of the idea in a way that is useful. It becomes real rather than abstract and they can apply it to the real world where they work and live.

While the discussion of readings turned out to be a positive change in my teaching strategy, adjustments are necessary. Over the years of my career, it has become abundantly clear to me that if students aren’t rewarded with grades (points), they will not do the work. I’m sorry to say that I only occasionally meet a student who demonstrates real intellectual curiosity. I realized that if I wanted students to do the required reading of essays to prepare for class discussion, then I would have to assign points to that assignment. It’s very difficult to evaluate 30 individual students on class discussion at the end of each class; therefore, I developed the following grading strategy. Students were broken up into six groups. I posed questions related to the readings to each group in order to get the discussion started and then the discussion generally took off on its own. Rather than six small groups discussing by themselves, we were in a whole group situation, but different questions were posed to each group. The group received a discussion grade, but out of five students in a group, often only three or four students contributed. The grading agreement was that if a student was present for the discussion, s/he would receive the group grade. Only absence from the group was a penalty. Generally speaking, at least one or two people in each group were able to do an outstanding job answering the question and broadening/deepening the discussion. So in the end, groups all got very strong grades. The problem was that each group had a couple of lazy students who likely didn’t even read the assignment and certainly didn’t contribute any ideas. These students, simply by their attendance, received a good grade. Discussion grades were approximately 20% of the final grade and at the end of the semester, final grades were skewed fairly high. I had students in this class who received grades that I thought did not reflect their performance for the semester. I’ll have to rethink this for future classes.

Overall, the discussion idea was a good one. It deepened understanding. My guess is that it deepened understanding even for the weak/lazy students, but the payoff for these students in terms of grades seemed unfair. In the end, I think they were positively reinforced for "using" their classmates. Most dismal to me was that it seemed to be continually the same students who failed to read and contribute.

Learning Question 2: I did have to cut some content from the experimental classes, but I think it was an acceptable exchange. What I cut from the content often came up in discussion and I was able to elaborate upon it briefly. For example, I cut out content on long-term marriages. However, that subject came up in an essay and I was able to interject some comments regarding the research in that area. While it did not give them the same depth as a full lecture, I think what they gained in discussion was worth the little bit they lost in content.

• Reducing content by approximately 20% and utilizing that time for group discussion of readings is a worthwhile exchange.
• Group discussion of readings results in an increase in student ability to apply both theory and concepts to real life problems.
• Evaluation of student participation in group discussion should be done on an individual basis. In other words, each student should be held individually responsible for reading and offering meaningful contributions to discussion.

I will continue to use discussion of readings as a significant part of the final grade for students. However, I am no longer going to put students in small groups and grade them as a group. I like the Socratic method to jumpstart class discussion. I also like that it makes students a little nervous. That kind of discomfort seems to make them read more carefully. Next semester (Spring 04) I will again have 30 students in each class. My classes are generally broken up into _ discussion and _ lecture/ Q/A. It’s impossible to expect all 30 students to participate in a time-limited discussion. Therefore, I will begin each discussion session by having students respond to the jumpstart question on paper. That will give me the opportunity to check reading/comprehension of each student. Then I will allow for verbal discussion and expect that over the course of the semester, every student will demonstrate an ability to articulate ideas related to the readings. I will again have to experiment with this evaluation method, but my goal will be to hold each individual student responsible for reading and discussion.

During Fall 2004 I will be on sabbatical and will spend the entire semester at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, MA. This is a selective women’s college and I will be teaching one course there that I teach every Spring at UW-Stout (HDFS 332 Death and Bereavement). Because the MHC classes are small (approximately 10-15), I hope to have a chance to improve my skills in facilitating class discussion. My hope is to grow in the scholarship of teaching and to implement what I learn in classes on my home campus.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the 2003 University of Wisconsin Scholarship of Teaching/Learning Project.