Gaining A Geological Perspective Through Active
Learning in the Large Lecture Classroom
Jessica Kapp, Randy Richardson, Allister Rees, Jon
Patchett, Ross Waldrip
University of Arizona Department of Geosciences
Traditional Geological Perspective









Tier 1 Gen Ed class for non-science majors
~1200 students per year (~600 per semester)
~74% freshman
Four lectures per semester taught by 3 faculty
Lectures are ~150 students each
Optional study groups
Traditionally 8 GTAs and ~10 undergraduate
preceptors run study groups
Traditional lecture-style presentation with
activities peppered throughout (varies based on
faculty member)
Instructional technology varies – animations,
movies, demonstrations
Goals of Geology Redesign
1. Develop consistency between lectures so that all use
an active learning approach
2. Reduce instructor face time and increase time spent
peer learning (with other students or preceptors)
3. Reduce faculty time devoted to preparation and
implementation of the course
4. Reduce cost per student without compromising
learner outcomes and/or student perception of the
class
5. Maintain or increase level of rigor of the course while
increasing student enthusiasm/interest
No doubt we cut costs
Cost for teaching NATS 101
160000
Cost per semester ($)
140000
120000
100000
Traditional
Redesigned
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
Faculty, TAs, Staff, Preceptors
No doubt we cut costs
Hours Devoted to NATS 101
Hours per semester
2500
2000
1500
Traditional
Redesigned
1000
500
0
Faculty, TA, Staff, Preceptors
No doubt we cut costs
Cost per student per semester for teaching NATS 101
Cost ($) per student per semester
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Traditional
Redesigned
Key features of redesigned course




Pre-class on-line reading quizzes
In-class activities that promote
student interaction and higherlevel learning (some graded,
some not)
Mandatory break out sessions
once a week led by fewer GTAs
and more preceptors
Text – The Good Earth
(McConnell et al.)
Key features of redesigned course



All lectures prepared
ahead by J. Kapp, all
instructors use same
lectures
All lectures include built
in activities that are easy
to grade
No clickers – several
studies are showing they
are not as effective at
enhancing learning as
they are at making it easy
to grade stuff
Geosciences Concept Inventory 1.0
(Libarkin et al.)



78 items, administered in three groups
Only the 36 items most related to course
were analyzed
Quantitative measure of student learning
Examples of GCI questions:

If you could travel back in time to when the
Earth first formed as a planet, what would the
Earth look like?





A. The Earth would be mostly covered with water
B. The Earth would be mostly molten
C. The Earth would be mostly covered with ice
D. The Earth would be mostly rocky
If you could travel millions of years into the
future, how big would the planet Earth be?




A. Smaller than today
B. Larger than today
C. Same size as today
D. We have no way of knowing
Pilot semester learning outcomes
Geosciences Concept Inventory
 GCI Traditional course:



pre-test % correct = 28.67 (SD=11.45, n=96)
post-test % correct = 45.26 (SD=11.76,
n=84)
GCI redesigned course:



pre-test % correct = 38.62 (SD=8.42, n=144)
post-test % correct = 48.73 (SD=7.49,
n=132)
full implementation post-test % correct =
47.11 (SD = 9.01, n + 117)
-Gains
from pre-test to post-test are statistically significant, but the
difference in post-test GCI scores between the two groups is not.
-Interpretation: Students’ knowledge levels, insofar as the GCI can
measure, were equivalent in both courses.
Other impacts of redesign

Analysis of common essay-style exam
questions


Students’ written responses were analyzed
in terms of three categories: (1) accuracy
and completeness of the response; (2)
number of words; (3) numerical points
assigned by graders
In all categories, the student-supplied
responses from the two courses were
indistinguishable
Common on-line quiz results



Quiz on Earthquakes
Traditional course: Average = 75% (SD = 17)
Redesigned course: Average = 85% (No SD)
This seems significant BUT…
- We changed the wording of a few questions
- The lecture material changed a bit
- These changes were made in response to
students’ poor performance on certain questions
Class Success



Student success rates (C or higher in the course) were
90% in the traditional course, 87.2% in the pilot
semester, and 89.6% in the full redesign. The
differences are statistically insignificant.
Withdraw/drop rates were 3% in the traditional course,
0.5% in the pilot semester, and 5.6% in the full
redesign.
This last value is skewed, as in our full implementation
semester our classes were overenrolled without our
consent or knowledge before the semester began,
causing what appeared to be an excessive drop rate.
Other impacts of redesign




Attitudes Toward Science – no statistical
differences
Ratings on course evaluations unchanged
Lecture attendance virtually unchanged
Students positive about usefulness of



In class exercises
Break out sessions
Interview and focus group transcripts
reveal that students find the reformed
course to be relevant to their lives and
educationally satisfying, both of which
are only infrequently observed among
traditional introductory science survey
courses
Issues and Findings

Aside from J. Kapp, instructors vary.

Instructors approach material differently.



On-line course management system used in
traditional class had to be abandoned due to
glitches, lack of tools. Hard to compare results.
Grading still time consuming but students prefer the
face time, and in-class assignments get them to
class.
Exams – still prefer some form of short answer
(grading).
Issues and Findings

PRECEPTORS!





Great resource, students like them
Problem 1: High turn over rate. Very few stay for
several semesters
Problem 2: Lack of expertise in Geoscience
Problem 3: Lack of confidence leading a break out
session
Rare (but real) problem: Some issues with
boundaries, authority, etc.
We attempted to address #3 with a training workshop for our
preceptors. They enjoyed this very much and said they learned a lot
about teaching techniques. However, it doesn’t change the fact that
they are nervous about answering questions they don’t know the
answer to (lack of expertise).
And most interesting?




Interviews with students, TAs, preceptors, and faculty.
More than 100 people were involved and 14 hours of
transcripts were produced, in addition to the evaluators’
field notes.
All transcripts were inductively analyzed and reanalyzed
until repeated themes emerged from the data across all
transcripts.
Four recurring themes were prominent across the
extensive qualitative data collected (listed by perceived
importance to the success and value of the supporting
learning in the class) 
1. Structured discussion among
students was meaningful
-Students and instructors alike described the course as filled with repeated
opportunities to absorb, process, and apply lecture information in guided and
supportive settings.
-Weekly discussion group sections provided time-on-task to “absorb” the ideas.
-Discussion group activities focused on real life applications.
-Most students understood discussion sessions were not intended to provide new
information, but rather to emphasized the important aspects of lecture.
-Several students agreed with the comment that, “I’m only doing well in this
course because of the discussions.”
-GTAs often felt that the cognitive level required of students in the discussion
sections, and perhaps the course overall, was too low.
-Undergraduate peer mentor instructors felt that the graduate teaching assistants,
who were new experts in the field, didn’t have a reasonable opinion of what nonscience majoring students needed to understand.
2. The interactive nature of the course
engaged students and instructors





Students understood that the interactive, participatory nature of the course
was substantively and crucially different than their other courses they were
taking.
Students understood how the think-pair-share questions required students
to actively process information rather than engaging in passive, and
occasionally meaningless, “random note-taking” so often required in other
classes.
“If you don’t pay attention you won’t do well, but you should because those
are easy points to help your grade.”
Students also felt that the collaborative nature of the class, both in lectures
and during the required discussion sessions, helped them build a learning
community and that this sense of community led to increased interaction
between students in lecture.
“You can’t do this kind of thing with 100 people who don’t know each
other.”
3. The non-adversarial nature of
the course climate was critical



Applauded the course instructors on the emphasis and repeated importance
of clear expectations.
“There are no secrets in this class. They tell us over and over. If you don’t
know what it takes to be successful, you aren’t paying attention.”
Students overwhelmingly wanted to comment enthusiastically on their
perceived instructors’ attitudes toward the students. The felt that
instructors cared about their learning, as evidenced in a number of ways
 instructors created a low-risk environment

professors demonstrated respect by learning everyone’s names

professors emailed students and greeted them by name on campus
4. The purposeful instructional activities
directly support metacognition



Great value in seeing a variety of teaching
modalities used in the class.
Students recognized that professors had a
reduced focus on vocabulary.
Having shorter lecture periods punctuated
with purposeful interactivity served to
“reset” attention spans.
Full Implementation





We continue to use consistent, pre-made lectures
with built in activities
Continuing effort to enhance lectures with more
multimedia material (you tube clips, animations,
video)
Exam questions focus more on higher level
learning (writing better multiple choice
questions)
We continue to use an abundance of preceptors
(29 this semester!)
We want to use more GTAs, as the preceptor/TA
issue is paramount
Contact me
Jessica Kapp Department of Geosciences
University of Arizona
jkapp@email.arizona.edu
(520) 626-5701