Changing the way we teach

1. Changing the way we teach Ian Clark University of South Carolina University of South Australia

2. 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

3. Introduction • Purpose and background to the study • Teaching methodology • Evaluation of teaching & learning

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 course couple had no previous experience

7. Background • Course content • Introduction to the Earth System • Biogeochemical evolution of the Earth • Mass extinction • Bolide impacts • Greenhouse/icehouse – Snowball Earth • Cambrian-Precambrian boundary

8. 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

9. 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

10. Constructivist Teaching • No single teaching approach is always most suitable • Constructivist approach demands a teaching style that differs greatly from traditional “chalk & talk”

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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?

15. 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)

16. 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

17. Teaching methodology

18. Clasts angular Explain how this rock might have formed? Clasts unsorted Range of compositions Conclusion: probably glacial

19. Explain how this rock might have formed? New information Rock formed near sea-level, near equator

20. Teaching methodology

21. Teaching methodology

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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?’

25. Evaluation of Teaching & Learning • Comparison of marks • Student evaluation of teaching questionnaires • Focus group interviews • Informal observations

26. Results • Comparison of marks

27. 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

28. Q 1 Aims & objectives clear from outset Q2 Staff member made course interesting Q3 Staff member motivated me to do my best work.

29. Q 4 provided adequate opportunities for me to pursue my own learning Q5 Staff member helped me develop my understanding Q6 Staff member displayed genuine interest in my learning

30. Q 7 gave me helpful feedback Q8 Staff member used up-to-date T&L approaches Q9 made University grad qualities clear Q10 overall satisfaction

31. Results

32. Results

33. Results

34. 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)

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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.

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. Adelaide Fold Belt Brachina Gorge • Intracratonic trough • Continuous deposition from ~900-500 mya • 24 km of shallow water clastics & carbonates • Deformation produced broad open folds & faults • Exposed ever since Adelaide Outcrop Probable extent

44. Corridor through time Wilkawillina Fm Pound Qtz Parachilina Fm Nuccaleena Dolomite ABC Range quartzite Bunyeroo Fm Elatina Fm Fm Enorama Fm Trezona Fm Brachina Fm Etina Fm Wonoka Fm Precambrian/Cambrian boundary Brachina Gorge 15 kilometres

48. Features of Corridor Through Time Stromatolites

49. Features of Corridor Through Time Volcanic fragment Ejecta layer

50. Features of Corridor Through Time Ediacara fossil layer