Changing the way we teach

Ian Clark

University of South AustraliaUniversity of South Carolina

Acknowledgements Dr Yvonne Zeegers from the School of

Education, UniSA made a significant contribution to the planning and development of this project.

Professor Patrick James and Dr Christopher Clark (Uni Adelaide) helped with the field teaching

Introduction Purpose and background to the study

Teaching methodology

Evaluation of teaching & learning

Purpose of the Study Promote meaningful learning Make students responsible for their own

learning Demonstrate that constructivist

methods are appropriate in tertiary classroom Confine content Control products

Purpose Action research

Pilot methodologies Investigate various methods of collecting data

We know what we are doing works, but how do we show it

Limitations of the research No control group Uncontrolled variables

Background Nature of the course

Taught for 5 years prior to this Optional, full semester course Final year course for Env Mgt students 4th year course for double degree students

Eng/Env Mgt About 30 students/year

Most had completed same introductory earth science course

Few had another introductory earth science coursecouple had no previous experience

Background Course content

Introduction to the Earth System Biogeochemical evolution of the Earth Mass extinction Bolide impacts Greenhouse/icehouse – Snowball Earth Cambrian-Precambrian boundary

Background Nature of the Problem

Traditional didactic teaching methods Lectures, laboratories, show-&-tell fieldwork,

assignments & exams Student Evaluations

Students not engaged Assessment

Rote knowledge Lack of understanding Poor performance on higher order thinking skills

Problem-solving, analysis, synthesis, evaluation

Teaching methodology Constructivist approach

All learners construct their own ideas about the world

Learners actively construct knowledge and meaning from their interpretation of what is happening around them, based on their own experiences and understandings

Learning is an interpretive process that entails challenging and enriching one’s own thinking

Constructivist Teaching

No single teaching approach is always most suitable

Constructivist approach demands a teaching style that differs greatly from traditional “chalk & talk”

Teaching Approach De-emphasised traditional content-

driven approach Recognised enormous possible scope of

content Acknowledged it was too great for time

allocated

Encouraged students to think about their own learning Assess their needs Explore an area of interest

Teaching Approach Teaching strategies focussed on:

Eliciting students’ prior knowledge;

Providing a range of exploratory activities designed to engage and challenge students’ thinking;

Providing opportunities for students to raise questions and then investigate an area of interest

Eliciting students’ prior knowledge

what the students already knew about the ‘Earth System’

activity served two purposes to challenge the students’ thinking in ways

that made them consider what they already knew, and then what more they wanted to know about the Earth System

to collect information that would assist us to plan the content of future workshops

Post Box technique

Post-box questions What do you think the term “Earth System”

means? What are three (3) things that are currently

having an impact on the Earth System? What are two (2) things that have occurred in

the Earth’s past that have had an impact on the Earth System?

What are two things that could be done to protect the Earth System?

What are two (2) things about the Earth System that you would like to know more about?

Exploratory Activities

Two sets The first activity made links to concepts that

the students had been introduced to in previous courses (in classroom)

The second was to demonstrate evidence that has been used to develop a model for the evolution of the Earth System (in field)

Teaching Approach Encouraged interpretive discussions

Change in roles Lecturer became a facilitator Student changed from a “ passive absorber

of knowledge” to an active participant taking responsibility for learning

Teaching methodology

Explain how this rock might have formed?

Clasts angular

Clasts unsorted

Range of compositions

Conclusion: probably glacial

Explain how this rock might have formed?

New information

Rock formed near sea-level, near equator

Teaching methodology

Teaching methodology

Teaching Approach Teaching strategies focussed on:

Eliciting students’ prior knowledge;

Providing a range of exploratory activities designed to engage and challenge students’ thinking;

Providing opportunities for students to raise questions and then investigate an area of interest

Field notebooks Traditional use

Record observations Record what instructor says

Added use Record questions

Provided the students with a mechanism for reflecting on their learning

Provided us with a means of gaining some insight into the development of their thoughts and understandings about the Earth System

Raising Questions Questions were a pivotal part of the

teaching and learning approach Big and little questions

Little question ‘What causes the layers to become tilted?’

Big question What caused Snowball Earth to return to normal

Earth?’

Evaluation of Teaching & Learning

Comparison of marks

Student evaluation of teaching questionnaires

Focus group interviews

Informal observations

Results Comparison of marks

Traditional teaching

Constructivist teaching

High +ve correlation with other courses

High +ve correlation with other courses

No significance difference between course means

significant difference between this course mean and 2 of the other 3

Results Student evaluation of teaching

questionnaires

Summative part – 10 questions –7 point Likert scale

Mean = 5.59 SD = 0.25

All questions skewed towards Strongly Agree

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Q1*Q2Q3

Q 1 Aims & objectives clear from outsetQ2 Staff member made course interestingQ3 Staff member motivated me to do my best work.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

*Q4*Q5Q6*

Q 4 provided adequate opportunities for me to pursue my own learning

Q5 Staff member helped me develop my understandingQ6 Staff member displayed genuine interest in my learning

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 0 0 0 7 13 5

Q7Q8Q9Q10

Q 7 gave me helpful feedbackQ8 Staff member used up-to-date T&L approachesQ9 made University grad qualities clearQ10 overall satisfaction

ResultsQ11- The course was taught in a way that facilitated

my learning.

02468

101214

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Score

Fre

quen

cy

OldNew

Results

Q19- My understanding of the subject has been increased as a result of the way this course has been

taught.

0

5

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Score

Fre

quen

cy

OldNew

Results

Q20-My learning has been enhanced by the way this course was taught.

0

5

10

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Score

Fre

quen

cy

OldNew

Results Student evaluation of teaching

questionnaires

Formative part What were the best parts

Field work Being able to choose own topic “none-the teaching sucks”

How could teaching method be improved More help in refining the research question Give more information (small number) Have more lectures (one person)

Results Focus Group

Question 1 – Do you think the emphasis on recording (in your notebooks) your questions for later discussion & clarification helped your learning?

All students agreed. Several thought more time should have been spent addressing the questions. It was considered especially helpful when completing the research project. There was strong agreement that the process aided learning.

Results Focus Group

Question 2 – Did the process of framing your own research question make a difference to the way you approached the assignment

The response was mixed (No = 4 Yes = 3) Those who did not like the process wanted more direction such as a set of questions to choose from. Others liked the freedom to pursue a topic of interest. There was also some concern about conflicting ideas in the literature

Results Focus Group

Question 3 – Did you perceive the workload for this course to be any different to that of other courses that you have or are doing?

• The consensus was no difference, but some students spent more time researching their question than they would normally have done for a set question

Results Focus Group

Question 4 – Do you think this approach to teaching helped your learning

• All agreed that it was better than ‘lecture, classroom’ approach; it encouraged thinking; students gained better understanding. It was suggested that it suited some students more than others

Results Focus Group

Question 5 – In what ways do you think this approach to teaching affected your learning?

• No consistent theme in answers to this question.

Results Student cohorts

No significant difference in marks between student groups (EM, Eng, etc.)

Content Students’ assignment questions very similar

to those used during the more traditional approach

Conclusions Generally +ve evaluations suggest students

like method Evidence suggests that this approach does not

disadvantage students Possible to confine content Improvements

Allow more time for students to develop their questions

Explain the methodology better to students Introduce the method earlier in program

Conclusions

Improving Student learning As Ramsden (1988) asserts,

“improving learning is about the relations between the learner and the course matter and an essential aspect of teaching and learning is to understand the students’ perspectives, their perceptions of learning and their previous experiences”.

However we also need to be aware that students’ perspectives of what supports their learning is not necessarily the same for each student, nor the same as that of the instructor

Adelaide Fold Belt Intracratonic trough Continuous deposition

from ~900-500 mya 24 km of shallow water

clastics & carbonates Deformation produced

broad open folds & faults Exposed ever since

Outcrop

Adelaide

Brachina Gorge

Probable extent

Corridor through time

Brachina Gorge15 kilometres

Wilk

awill

ina

FmPa

rach

ilina

Fm

Poun

d Q

tzW

onok

a Fm

Bun

yero

o Fm

AB

C R

ange

qua

rtzi

te

Bra

chin

a Fm

Nuc

cale

ena

Dol

omite

Ela

tina

Fm F

mT

rezo

na F

m

Eno

ram

a Fm

Etin

a Fm

Precambrian/Cambrian boundary

Features of Corridor Through Time

Stromatolites

Features of Corridor Through Time

Ejecta layer

Volcanic fragment

Features of Corridor

Through Time

Ediacara fossil layer

ArchaeocyathaEarly Cambrian fossils