Reflection on SPLH 660s

Research Methods in Communication Sciences focuses on developing students’ ability to read, evaluate, and apply scientific research to clinical decision-making in speech-language-hearing. Students learn how to identify sound research design, analyze data, and write and present research proposals, all while beginning to build their foundation in evidence-based practice. The course includes a combination of lectures, team projects, and independent writing assignments.

In my role as a Graduate Teaching Assistant, I contributed to the course through multiple dimensions—assessment, instruction, student support, and communication. I graded student assignments, research proposals, and literature reviews, ensuring my evaluation was timely, fair, and based on clearly communicated rubrics. I made it a priority to provide detailed, constructive feedback aimed at helping students improve both their writing and their understanding of research principles.

As part of my teaching contribution, I independently led a session focused on science communication and public understanding of research, using Chapters 9–11 of Autism’s False Prophets as a discussion anchor. Students engaged with complex issues such as media framing, celebrity influence, public trust in science, and the societal implications of misinformation. For the session I led, I created and guided a class discussion using open-ended questions that encouraged students to think critically about how personal stories can influence public opinion, what responsibilities scientists have in public debates, and how scientific findings are often misunderstood or misrepresented. We also talked about how researchers might better share their work with general audiences. The conversation was lively and thoughtful, and it gave me a chance to practice leading discussions on complex, real-world issues in a way that felt meaningful and grounded. 

Outside of class, I stayed in regular contact with students through email and Canvas, kept the course materials organized and up to date, and held weekly office hours to support students with assignments or questions they had about course content. Students used this time to ask questions about APA formatting, study design, or how to refine their hypotheses, which gave me a chance to reinforce course concepts in more individualized ways.

Importantly, I was not just a GTA in this course—I also saw myself as a learner. I used the course materials and activities to improve my own research skills, particularly in areas like writing research questions, developing literature reviews, and understanding experimental design. Observing how the course guided students through these foundational steps helped me strengthen my own process as a doctoral researcher and clarified how I might structure future methods courses as an instructor.

One of the most rewarding parts of this experience was helping students develop confidence in their ability to read and critique scientific literature—especially those who felt intimidated by the research process at the start. I came to appreciate how important it is to scaffold analytical thinking, particularly through formative activities that prepare students for larger writing assignments and peer-reviewed team presentations.

Overall, working on SPLH 660 deepened my understanding of how to support novice researchers, balance detailed feedback with clarity, and help students connect research methodology to their future clinical work. These insights will continue to shape my teaching in future courses that blend theory with applied communication sciences.