Students’ Perceptions of Terrascope, A Project-Based
Freshman Learning Community
The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share
how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
Citation
Lipson, Alberta, Ari Epstein, Rafael Bras, and Kip Hodges. 2007.
Students’ Perceptions of Terrascope, A Project-Based Freshman
Learning Community. Journal of Science Education and
Technology 16, no. 4: 349-364. doi:10.1007/s10956-007-9046-6.
As Published
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-007-9046-6
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Version
Author's final manuscript
Accessed
Tue Oct 07 16:02:31 EDT 2014
Citable Link
http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/49458
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy
and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the
publisher's site for terms of use.
Detailed Terms
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF TERRASCOPE,
A PROJECT-BASED FRESHMAN LEARNING COMMUNITY
Alberta Lipson1, Ari W. Epstein2*, Rafael Bras3 and Kip Hodges4
Suggested running head:
Students’ Perceptions of Terrascope, a Project-Based Freshman Learning Community
Corresponding Author:
Ari W. Epstein
Terrascope
MIT Room 16-177
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-3666
awe@mit.edu
1
Teaching and Learning Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Terrascope Program, Office of Experiential Learning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
*
To whom correspondence should be addressed: Ari W. Epstein, Terrascope, MIT Room 16-177,
Cambridge, MA 02139; awe@alum.mit.edu
3
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
4
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts (Present Affiliation: School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State
University, Tempe, Arizona)
2
1
ABSTRACT
We present a descriptive case study of Terrascope, an innovative, year-long,
project-based learning community at MIT. Each year, Terrascope students study a
particular environmental or Earth-system problem from a multidisciplinary perspective.
Terrascope includes both academic and non-academic components; this paper focuses on
the academic components. The objectives of the academic subjects, and of the program as
a whole, involve helping students develop their team-building, communication, problemsolving, and self-regulatory learning skills. This study focuses on cohorts of students
from the first and second years of the program (2002-2003 and 2003-2004);it is based on
end-of-semester surveys and focus groups, and on additional focus groups conducted
when these students were upperclassmen. Students felt Terrascope helped them make
significant improvements in their ability to work in teams and to take on complex,
multidisciplinary problems. They felt that the program’s two-semester structure gave
them an opportunity to develop and nurture these skills, and that the program prepared
them well for their later work at MIT. They also felt that being engaged, as freshmen, in a
distinct learning community, significantly eased their transition into MIT. We describe
lessons learned in the development of Terrascope and offer suggestions for other
institutions planning to develop similar programs.
Keywords: project-based learning, experiential learning, teamwork, assessment, selfdirected learning, interdisciplinary learning, freshman, environmental education
Introduction
In 1998 the Task Force on Student Life and Learning at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) issued a final report that highlighted as problems the lack
of enthusiasm and excitement among freshmen and the lack of inquiry or project-based
learning opportunities in the freshman curriculum. Following the release of this report, a
number of recommendations on ways to invigorate the freshman year were made. One
proposal concerned the introduction of a project-based learning experience as a unique
addition to the standard freshman teaching format of large lecture classes, smaller
recitations, problem-set homework, and exams.
2
This paper presents a descriptive case study of a project-based learning
community called Terrascope (web.mit.edu/terrascope) that was introduced into the
freshman curriculum in 2002. It discusses the evolution of the program and examines the
immediate, end-of-semester perceptions of freshmen who participated in the program
during the first year it was offered. It also presents retrospective reflections from those
students and from the next class of Terrascopers (i.e. those who participated in the
program’s second year), as gathered during focus-group sessions conducted when they
were upperclassmen. In addition, the paper summarizes changes that have taken place
over time, discusses some lessons learned in the process, and offers concrete suggestions
for others who may wish to create similar programs.
Origins of Terrascope
Terrascope originated as one element of the educational arm of MIT’s Earth
System Initiative, which facilitates and supports interdisciplinary research and
educational efforts that focus on Earth system science and engineering. The founders of
ESI chose to build on the educational philosophy of a subject called Solving Complex
Problems, which was created in response to the report of the Task Force on Student Life
and Learning. This subject was first offered in 2000-2001 with a broad thematic focus,
not one centered on Earth systems. Terrascope incorporated the subject as one component
of a year-long experience that includes both academic and non-academic elements. With
its formation in 2002-03, Terrascope became the newest of four alternative learning
communities available to MIT freshmen.
3
Description of the Program
The Terrascope program as a whole is described in detail elsewhere (Epstein et al.
2006a, Epstein et al. 2006b); here we shall provide a brief overview. Terrascope is at its
heart a community within which students engage in team-based, project-oriented, selfdirected learning focused on environmental and Earth system-related topics. Every year
the program is centered on a particular complex, real-world problem that involves
scientific, technical, social, economic and political aspects. In the fall subject (MIT
Subject 12.000, Solving Complex Problems), the class as a whole develops solutions to
the year’s core problem; at the end of the semester the students present and defend their
solution before an international panel of experts convened for the purpose. In the spring
subject (MIT Subject 1.016, Communicating Complex Environmental Issues: Designing
and Building Interactive Museum Exhibits), Terrascopers design, engineer and build
interactive museum exhibits through which the general public can learn about issues the
students have explored all year; the exhibits are opened to the public, and many of them
have later been adopted for use by established aquariums and science museums. In
addition, some students in the spring take an optional subject (MIT subject SP.360,
Terrascope Radio) in which they develop and produce a radio program on the year’s core
topic; the program is broadcast on the MIT campus radio station and is then made
available for use by public radio stations nationwide.
In addition to its academic components, Terrascope includes a number of
elements specifically focused on building and maintaining a community of learners. For
example, all Terrascope students are provided with a freshman advisor affiliated with the
program, as well as one or several undergraduate ―associate advisors‖ (upperclassmen
4
who participated in the program as freshmen). Terrascopers have exclusive access to a
space on campus that includes a classroom, kitchen, lounge and computer cluster, which
is open (and often in use) twenty-four hours a day. The program also sponsors weekly
lunches and occasional outings. During spring break, Terrascopers participate in an
optional field trip to a region closely connected with the year’s core problem. In addition,
there are a number of ways in which upperclass alumni of Terrascope can stay actively
engaged in the community throughout their time at MIT.
In this paper we focus primarily on the academic components of Terrascope,
particularly the two required classes. We also discuss the spring field trip, which is
integral to both the academic and non-academic aspects of the program. The pedagogies
of the two classes are complementary. The fall subject is more theoretical and less
structured, whereas the spring one is more structured, emphasizes a hands-on approach to
learning, and introduces students to the process of engineering design and development.
Faculty members function as facilitators to encourage self-regulatory learning on the part
of students and teams. Both subjects rely on upperclass students, called undergraduate
teaching fellows (UTFs), to work with each team. They facilitate the students’ work,
providing encouragement and guidance. In both classes, librarians who are specialists in
the content areas are assigned to assist the teams. The fall class also includes mentors,
generally alumni who are experts in the topic under study. The class environment
encourages close, collegial relationships among faculty, students, undergraduate teaching
fellows, and alumni.
During the first week of the Fall semester, students brainstorm about the year’s
core problem and the project is subdivided into topic areas that can be assigned to
5
individual teams. Students are encouraged to explore a variety of resources (e.g. books,
journals, websites, GIS databases) to find information, and an extensive syllabus of
readings is available on the class website. Students are expected to keep a personal
journal and contribute to a message board on the class website, and each team is expected
to maintain a web-based team journal. The class meets three times a week. Additionally,
teams often meet outside of class. Teams are responsible for collaborating with one
another to produce a coordinated solution to the problem. This is often the most
challenging aspect of the class. The culmination of the class’s efforts is the presentation
and defense of the mission plan to an expert panel; the presentation is webcast live and
archived for later viewing.
INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE
In the spring class, as students conceptualize, design, and build their exhibits, they
deepen their understanding of the problem they studied in the fall, sometimes choosing to
approach it from a totally different perspective. Students brainstorm a number of exhibit
ideas and are divided into teams, with each team in charge of developing a specific
exhibit. Students do not have to work on an exhibit related to the topic they researched
during the fall term, nor do they generally remain with the same teammates. Although
both fall and spring classes give students a fair degree of autonomy, the spring class
provides more structure in the form of performance milestones. Approximately every
two weeks teams are required to complete some type of task, such as a preliminary design
proposal, development of a working prototype, and a final design proposal. In addition to
6
the team-based performance milestones, individual students each keep a Developer’s
Journal, in which they chronicle their experience in the class; the journal also gives them
a regular opportunity to reflect on their work and progress, and on their own experience
as learners. Students email their journal entries to the instructors, who read them and
give extensive feedback; journals thus provide a powerful method of direct
communication between students and faculty, an important element in a class that
includes so much team-based work. The journals also enable instructors to track students’
progress throughout the semester, and to anticipate any issues that might arise within
teams. The completed exhibits are installed in a public space at MIT for viewing by
museum professionals, invited high school students, and the general public.
INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE
The spring-break field trip gives students the opportunity to see at first hand the
problems they have been grappling with, to conduct additional research and collect
artifacts for their exhibits, and to speak to scientists, officials, and ordinary citizens who
deal with these problems on a day-to-day basis. Their immersion into the geographic
area is designed to give them an understanding of the issues in a way that classroom
experiences cannot and to help them to see ways in which their thinking up to that point
(including their proposed solution from the Fall class) may have missed complexities that
can be appreciated only through direct experience.
Literature Review
7
Project-based learning is one of the newer learner-centered pedagogical
approaches. It is gaining in popularity and widespread use because it endeavors to equip
students with life-long learning skills (how to learn, how to problem-solve, how to apply
what they have learned to new situations) as well as the life skills of teamwork and
communication (Buck Institute for Education, 1999; Frank et al., 2003: Stinson and
Miller, 1996). It is an outgrowth of the experiential, constructivist tradition that
encourages students to be active rather than passive learners and to construct their own
knowledge and understanding (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005; Smith et al., 2005). This
approach was first introduced into medical education in the late 60’s, and so much of the
earlier research about project-based learning has come from medical schools (Barrows,
1996). During the 80’s, this approach spread to other professional schools, and since the
90’s its reach has extended to all types of school populations and disciplinary areas
(Savin-Baden and Major, 2004). However, more has been written about its use in primary
and secondary education than in higher education (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005), and
there is a lack of research about its effects on undergraduate science and engineering
courses (Barak and Dori, 2004; Dym et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2005).
The terms ―project-based learning‖ and ―problem-based learning‖ have been used
interchangeably in the literature. We shall use ―project-based learning‖ here. Projectbased learning refers to an array of approaches that includes many variations but is based
on a core of common characteristics (Barrows, 1996; Gijselaers, 1996; Major and Palmer,
2001; Saven-Baden, 2000; Shelton and Smith, 1998; Thomas, 2000). It takes on different
forms depending on the specific curricular situation (Saven-Baden, 2000; Thomas, 2000).
As the previously-cited authors have described, project-based learning is contextual
8
learning. Students are presented with an authentic, challenging, real-world problem that
has no single or simple solution. Solving this problem is the central focus of the class.
Students work together in small, cooperative groups to investigate the problem and
formulate a solution that is then presented in a culminating experience. Boundaries
between disciplines are crossed, as the problem often requires a multi-disciplinary
solution. This curricular approach places new demands on instructors and students, since
both groups play roles that differ sharply from their traditional ones. Instructors facilitate
rather than lecture, and students are encouraged and given the tools to be self-directed
learners. (See Table I.)
INSERT TABLE I HERE
Within undergraduate science and engineering classes in particular, there are
many variations in the ways project-based learning is implemented, owing to differences
among academic domains, learner populations, educational contexts, pedagogical
decisions, availability of appropriate instructional resources, and the problems/projects
themselves (Allen et al., 1996; Savin-Baden, 2000; Taconis et al., 2001). These variations
have an impact on learning outcomes (Thomas, 2000). In addition, studies of projectbased learning differ in terms of research methods, data collection instruments, and
outcome measures.
A number of studies of science and engineering undergraduates who participate in
project-based learning classes have focused on improvements in life skills and life-long
learning skills (e.g. problem-solving, teamwork, communication, self-directed learning).
9
This is not a simple task, because the skills that project-based pedagogies seek to impart
are difficult to measure with traditional measures of assessment such as grades and
examinations (Dori, 2003; Major and Palmer, 2001; Reeves, 2000). Some studies present
descriptive, anecdotal data as outcome measures (Ramsier, 2001; Duffield and Grabiner,
1997; Striegel and Rover, 2002). Others use alternative assessment measures (selfreports, observations, portfolios, learning journals, focus groups and interviews) as the
major source of evidence for improvement (Bauer, 2003; Frank et al., 2003; Ram, 1999;
Shelton and Smith, 1998; Wright and Boggs, 2002). These studies have generally not
included an examination of longitudinal data that would reveal the longer-term impact of
this pedagogy on students. In our ongoing study of the Terrascope program we are
gathering and examining such data; in this study we present some of our preliminary
results in that area, as well as more established results based on data gathered while
students were engaged in the program and just after they had completed it.
Methodology
The Terrascope assessment focused on the following research questions:
(1) How did students experience project-based teamwork?
(2) How did they perceive the instructional environment?
(3) What were some of the major benefits of the program?
(4) What were the major challenges students faced?
(5) How satisfied with the experience were students, and would they recommend it to
incoming freshmen?
(6) How well did the first- and second-semester classes complement one another?
10
Data Collection
To answer these questions, we used two forms of inquiry—surveys and focus
groups. We examined students who participated in the program in AY 2002-2003 at two
points in time – as freshmen and as juniors. We also examined, when they were
sophomores, students who had participated in Terrascope in AY 2003-2004.
Freshmen
We administered surveys to freshmen who participated during AY 2002-2003, as
part of an ongoing effort that includes the administration of surveys to every class of
Terrascopers. (Further results from this ongoing assessment effort are reported in Epstein
et al., 2006a). One survey was administered at the end of the first semester, and another
was administered at the end of the second semester. Some students in the fall class were
not enrolled in the Terrascope program (unlike other elements of Terrascope, this class is
open to any MIT freshman), so survey results about the first semester program include
data from Terrascope and non-Terrascope students. Among the 54 students who took
the fall class, 44 responded, yielding an 81 percent response rate. Among the 37 students
in the spring class, 24 responded, giving a 64 percent response rate. Although the
surveys covered some similar areas, they were designed for two distinct classes, so there
were few overlapping questions. Two focus groups were conducted with the first group
of Terrascope students during spring 2003; a total of 10 students attended.
Alumni (Terrascope sophomores and juniors).
During spring 2005, three focus groups and two individual interviews were held
with Terrascope 2002-2003 juniors and 2003-2004 sophomores. Thirteen students
participated—4 juniors and 9 sophomores. Given that such a small number of students
11
participated in these focus groups, the results cannot be generalized; it is probably the
case that the more committed and/or vocal students participated.
Freshman and alumni data are reported in separate sections. First, we report on
the freshman data.
Results
First-Semester Experience
Prior High-School Experiences
Since students’ perceptions are often influenced by prior experiences, the fallsemester survey asked students about their prior experience working in teams and solving
complex problems. Slightly over 60 percent of the students entered the class having had
some prior high-school teamwork experience: some had participated in speech and debate
teams and short-term high-school projects, and others had participated in athletics. Not
surprisingly, far fewer (25 percent) had the experience of solving open-ended complex
problems, and those who had this type of experience had generally worked on individual
rather than group projects. A little over one-fifth had participated in classes that
emphasized self-directed learning. Few (18 percent) had worked on team projects that
required a long-term coordinated effort
The Project-based Teamwork Experience
Teams made their own decisions about team structure and the ways members
would work together. Half of the teams had rotating leaders; 16 percent had one leader
during the entire semester; and approximately one-third never had a leader. Students
occupied a variety of structured or semi-structured team roles during the semester: the
12
secretary who took meeting notes; the liaison who communicated with mentors and other
teams; and the website specialist. Sixteen percent said their team had a prepared agenda;
27 percent said their agenda was set during the meeting itself; and 50 percent said it
varied – sometimes there was a prepared agenda, while at other times there was no
agenda. Students were asked to rate the effectiveness of their team’s structure. Thirtynine percent thought their team’s structure was ―very effective‖ or ―effective;‖ 52 percent
said it was ―somewhat effective‖ and 9 percent said it was ―only slightly effective.‖ Each
team had its own unique personality and challenges; some were more focused, while
others floundered. Some had to deal with conflicts among members because everyone
wanted to be a leader and each member had different ideas about how to proceed. Others
had to determine how to handle team members who were slacking off and avoiding their
responsibilities.
Separate questions on the same survey asked students to rate their teamwork
experiences at two points in time, during the first and last months of class. As Table II
shows, there was statistically significant improvement for ―clear understanding of team
goals,‖ ―efficiency of meetings,‖ ―ability of teams to reach consensus on decisions,‖
―inter-team coordination,‖ and ―student preparation for meetings.‖ Student ratings of
their overall team performance showed some improvement, but this was not statistically
significant. Equal sharing of workload and motivation decreased slightly over time.
INSERT TABLE II HERE
13
Fifty percent of students were ―satisfied‖ or ―very satisfied‖ with their teamwork
experience; 27 percent were ―ambivalent;‖ and 23 percent were either ―dissatisfied‖ or
―very dissatisfied.‖ In their open-ended remarks, those who were satisfied commented
that they learned a lot about how to work in a group as well as how to deal with a variety
of different personalities, and their team worked well together. Those who were
―ambivalent‖ or ―dissatisfied‖ mentioned such things as the unequal workload
distribution, the difficulties involved in working together as a team, and the challenges
they faced in trying to coordinate with other teams.
However, teamwork problems apparently did not diminish the students’
appreciation of the experience’s educational value. In spite of the fact that only half the
students were satisfied with their teamwork experience, 85 percent agreed that working in
a group had a beneficial effect on their learning; 89 percent acknowledged that individual
team members brought valuable qualities, skills, or abilities to their team; and 75 percent
enjoyed working with members of their team.
The Instructional Environment
The academic support structure consisted of undergraduate teaching fellows
(UTFs), alumni/ae mentors, two teaching assistants, the instructor, and library liaisons.
We were interested in examining whether it was important for a team to have a UTF with
special expertise in the team’s topic, so students were asked whether their UTF had some
familiarity with their team’s topic and, if so, whether this was useful. Most (93 percent)
said their UTF had some familiarity with their team’s topic. Among this group, only 16
percent said it was either ―useful‖ or ―very useful;‖ 18 percent said it was ―somewhat
useful;‖ and 66 percent said it was ―only slightly useful‖.
14
Students were also asked to rate the usefulness of various types of assistance their
teams received from UTFs. The two types of assistance students found most useful were:
―gave constructive feedback‖ and ―encouraged the team to set deadlines.‖ (See Figure
3.)
INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE
Mentors were also part of the support structure, and the role they played varied by
team. Early in the semester, one or more mentors were assigned to each team, and a
student/mentor get-together was held to facilitate face-to-face meetings; however, some
mentors were not local, and thus a number of students were unable to meet their mentors
personally. Although mentor contact was not mandatory, students were encouraged to
initiate contact and use mentors as sounding boards. Eighty-six percent of responding
students had some contact with their mentors during the semester. Among those who had
contact, 75 percent had email contact; 50 percent had one or more face-to-face meetings;
16 percent had contact via an electronic discussion program; and 2 percent had telephone
contact. Among the types of assistance students received from mentors, those most
frequently mentioned included, ―asked questions that stimulated the team to investigate
other areas,‖ mentioned by 85 percent; ―answered questions,‖ mentioned by 83 percent;
and ―referred team to source materials on the web or in the library,‖ mentioned by 80
percent.
Students were asked about amount of direction, guidance, or coaching they
received from the various instructional resources available to the class. As Table III
15
shows, students were most satisfied with the amount of direction they received from their
UTFs. On the other hand, approximately one-half to two-thirds would have liked more
guidance from each of the other sources.
INSERT TABLE III HERE
As noted earlier, few students had previous experience with self-regulated
learning or with solving complex problems in a group structure, so it is not surprising that
many wished they could have had more structure, especially in light of the fact that they
were new to MIT and to the demands of the college environment.
The Benefits of Taking the Fall-Semester class
Unlike the fall-semester Terrascope class, most of the required freshman-year
classes had a traditional format of a large lecture, a smaller recitation section, and weekly
problem-set homework. Oftentimes, freshmen complained that they were not engaged
and stimulated by these subjects. When asked about their level of engagement in the
Terrascope class, 89 percent said they were engaged and stimulated by the overall topic,
and 86 percent said they were engaged and stimulated by the topics on which they did
research.
In regard to their skill improvement as a result of having taken this subject, the
largest gains were reported for ability to break complex problems into smaller units and
ability to work collaboratively with a diverse group of students. The smallest gains were
reported for research skills. (See Figure 4.)
16
INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE
We were interested to learn how students compared this class to their other fallterm subjects. Eighty percent or more rated the Terrascope subject higher than their other
subjects in such aspects as: encouraging them to be creative, giving them an opportunity
for independence and autonomy, improving their ability to work productively in a group,
and encouraging them to feel as if they had accomplished something because they could
see a final product. In addition, between 60 and 70 percent thought they had
accomplished something by developing a final product; their confidence in their ability to
handle a complex and ambiguous task had improved; they were exposed to MIT
resources they would not have been exposed to otherwise in the fall term of their
freshman year; and they were actively involved in what they were learning. (See Table
IV.)
INSERT TABLE IV HERE
Students who responded positively in their open-ended comments mentioned that
their confidence in their ability to successfully confront any problem had increased; they
were exposed to students majoring in different areas; they had the experience of being
able to apply classroom learning to ―real world‖ problems; they learned teamwork skills
that will play an important role in their future endeavors; and they learned how to direct
their own learning. Those responding negatively mentioned the lack of class structure;
17
the heavy workload; the lack of motivation among some of the students; and problems
dealing with students who wanted to take charge of the entire process.
Endorsement
One of the last questions in the survey asked, ―Knowing what you know now
about 12.000, would you recommend this subject to incoming first year students?‖ Sixtyfour percent said they ―definitely would‖ or ―probably would;‖ 25 percent said ―maybe;‖
and 12 percent said ―definitely not‖ or ―probably not.‖ The following quote represents a
good summary of the reasons why students would recommend 12.000 to incoming
freshmen:
I think that (12.000) was an amazing experience. Despite the stress that
was involved at the end of the semester, I felt an incredible sense of
accomplishment by the end. However, the main reason why I would
recommend this to future freshmen is because it gives you a chance to do
something that few other freshmen get to do. I believe that the experiences
I took from the class can play a vital role for all my future teamwork
endeavors. Also, the class gave me a refreshing break from mainstream
learning techniques. The class really provides a good supplement to the
day-to-day class/lecture/problem-set mode.
The thoughts of students who would not recommend the class can be summed up by this
quote:
I felt the class could be better organized. A lot of things could be improved
by this. A lot of time is wasted in the first two weeks just figuring out what
to do, and then an important amount of work is done during the last two
weeks before the presentation. I think that what the teams need to reach
their goal should be traced out more clearly.
Second-Semester Experience and Field Trip
Project-Based Teamwork Experience
As in the first-semester survey, separate questions in the second-semester survey
asked students to rate their team’s performance during two time periods: the first and last
18
month of the semester. As Table V shows, the largest improvements in performance
related to the procedures of working together as a team (running efficient meetings and
being able to reach consensus on decisions). Students thought their overall team’s
performance and individual team characteristics significantly improved from the first to
the last month in every area except ―equal sharing of workload.‖ In that case, there was a
perceived decrease in equal workload participation among team members.
INSERT TABLE V HERE
When asked ―Which were the biggest problems you encountered in working
together as a team?‖ the three most frequently mentioned problems were:
communication, unequal sharing of workload, and conflicting schedules.
The Instructional Environment
The spring semester focused on the development of an interactive museum exhibit
that would be opened to the public at the end of the semester. The survey asked students
about their satisfaction with various aspects of their exhibit-development activities, such
as developing and testing an exhibit prototype (which occurred mid-semester), building
the final exhibits (which occupied the last half of the semester) and opening the exhibits
to the general public. Table VI shows some representative results. In general, students’
satisfaction with the class increased markedly towards the end of the semester, as they
began to see their earlier work bearing fruit.
INSERT TABLE VI HERE
19
Students felt that the class, as a whole, significantly increased their skills: they
learned how to convey information to people who do not have a strong technical or
scientific background; they acquired a new perspective about the complexity of creating
museum exhibits; and they gained an appreciation for the challenges involved in
participating in a large-scale design/construction effort—creating an appropriate design,
acquiring the right materials, working within a budget, and devising and adhering to a
strict timeline.
Although class time was largely spent working on projects in individual teams,
students also participated in some conventional academic activities, and we asked them to
indicate their satisfaction with these activities. As can be seen in Figure 5, roughly 80
percent or more were satisfied with the Developer’s Journals, instructors’ proposal
feedback, and the guidance received from undergraduate teaching fellows, instructors,
and teaching assistants. There was less satisfaction with the instructors’ journal feedback
and with the lectures.
INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE
Benefits of Taking the Spring Class
It should be noted that by the end of the spring semester many students strongly
identify the term ―Terrascope‖ with the spring-semester subject, and such identification
20
may color their survey responses. Therefore, it is not always possible to differentiate
between students’ opinions of the subject itself and their opinions of Terrascope as a
whole. In constructing the surveys, we worked to minimize this confusion, for example
by asking students to separately assess gains from the class itself and from Terrascope as
a whole.
The survey presented students with a series of statements about the learning
objectives of the class and asked students to indicate whether, from their personal point of
view, these objectives had been met. The learning objectives fell into three main areas:
process and content learning, skill improvement, and personal development. As Table VII
shows, over 80 percent reported gains in understanding design and engineering processes,
learning from the hands-on experience, being part of an intensive design experience,
teamwork skills, and feeling that their increased environmental knowledge will likely
influence them in the future. Slightly over 70 percent reported improvement in problemsolving skills and in learning to develop their own creativity. Less than 50 percent cited
improved oral communication skills, and written communication skills were the least
frequently mentioned.
INSERT TABLE VII HERE
Students were also asked whether the class had any influence on the way they
think about themselves, their major, their academic choices, or their future career. Sixtysix percent said ―yes.‖ Some students mentioned that the class confirmed their interest in
21
majoring in a related discipline and pursuing a career focused on environmental issues.
Others said it increased their awareness of the environmental impact of political
decisions. Still others noted that the program had made them think more carefully about
the role they play in groups, and it gave them more confidence in their leadership
abilities.
The Field Trip
A major highlight of the Terrascope experience is the field trip. Although not
specifically linked to the spring-semester class, it takes place in the middle of the
semester and thus has a major impact on the students’ experience in the spring class. In
2003, students went to the Brazilian Amazon (the year’s core problem involved devising
methods for monitoring and reversing degradation of the Amazon rainforest).
Satisfaction with the field trip experience was extremely high: 83 percent were ―very
satisfied,‖ and 17 percent were ―generally satisfied.‖ Ninety-six percent were able to
apply some of the insights/information they gained on the trip to their exhibit. As one
student commented, ―The trip really helped my group to find out what research stations
in the Amazon are really like. Staying at the research camp and interviewing scientists
made this possible.‖ Another said, ―We interviewed local citizens about music, school,
and life in general. This information coupled with photos from the trip was instrumental
in our exhibit.‖ In addition to the educational impact of the trip, there was a large social
impact. Students emphasized the important role the trip made in strengthening
connections within the community (students, UTFs, faculty and staff).
Learning Community
22
We were interested in the extent to which a learning community developed over
the course of the year. We defined a community as a group of people whom one knew
and liked, and with whom one felt one shared a common bond. Approximately onequarter of students said Terrascope felt like a community during the first semester,
whereas everyone said it felt like a community during the second semester. Although
being together for a second semester with students who share common interests helped to
develop a community feeling, students cited the field trip as the major contributing factor.
The value students placed on the community aspect of their experience was also
highlighted when, in response to the question of whether the Spring class should be open
to any students who would like to enroll (rather than just Terrascope students) 92 percent
said ―no.‖ They thought Terrascope, in general, created a cohesive community and
opening that class to others might remove this important aspect of the experience.
Endorsement
Overall, students were very positive about Terrascope. When asked ―Knowing
what you know now about Terrascope, would you recommend it to incoming first year
students who share your interests?‖ 67 percent said ―definitely would,‖ 29 percent said
―probably would,‖ 4 percent said ―maybe.‖ The following are some representative
quotations:



Terrascope has been one of the best things this year.I feel we have come a long
way. A great way to start MIT. I would recommend anyone motivated for more
original work and (interested) in the environment to join.
It‟s fun. It‟s a nice break from regular institute classes, and you‟ll learn a lot and
get to work with awesome professors.
It‟s very literally a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, especially for a freshman.
The students who were ambivalent about the program mentioned one particular theme –
the workload and time commitment. For example, one student said, “It was an amazing
23
experience, but it took a lot of time away from my other classes that I have more
intellectual interest in.”
Whether Fall and Spring Classes Complement Each Other
The majority of the students thought the teamwork, problem-solving, and projectmanagement skills that they had learned in the Fall class could be applied to the Spring
class and were enhanced by taking that class. Most also said the knowledge acquired in
the fall could be applied in the spring. Fewer thought the specific subject knowledge
acquired in the fall was enhanced by taking the spring class, probably because individual
students’ second semester research topics differed from their first semester exhibit topics.
And fewer than half indicated that the research skills they had acquired first semester
were enhanced by taking the spring class, a result of the fact that the spring class focused
less on research than the fall class did. A majority of students also said that the
coordination between the two subjects was ―all right as it is‖ (vs. ―should be more closely
coordinated‖) and that a combination of a less structured first semester class and a more
structured second semester class was useful. (See Table VIII.)
INSERT TABLE VIII HERE
In the freshman focus groups conducted in spring 2003, students commented on
the impact of a less structured first-semester experience and a more structured second-
24
semester experience. They explained that the trial-and-error experience of first semester
and the mistakes they had made gave them an appreciation for the importance of good
communication within and between teams and for the value of deadlines. About
deadlines, one student explained it this way:
Coming into 1.016, we realized why we needed deadlines, and we
felt good about the deadlines, as opposed to coming into the class
and having instructors say, „This is due now,‟ and you feel „Why is
this due now?‟
And, another, commenting on the looser structure of first semester said,
So, in retrospect, I don‟t think we liked the free form (first semester
class), but it was a valuable learning experience for second
semester.
Alumni Reflections: Focus Groups with Terrascope ’03-’04 sophomores and ’02-’03
juniors
We conducted focus groups to document the views of upperclass students about
their freshman year Terrascope experience. We wanted students to reflect on the
influence this program may have had on their growth a year or more after the experience
ended.
Benefits
Students highlighted a number of benefits of participation. They thought
Terrascope provided a good transition to MIT. Through Terrascope, they got to know
other freshmen, faculty, and upperclass students, and during the course of conducting
their research and working on their exhibits, they became acquainted with other MIT
faculty and MIT alumni. Terrascope, they said, helped reduce some of the stress they felt
as freshmen. As one student explained, ―Freshman year is terrifying to most people.
Terrascope makes it so much better because you’re doing something different and
25
instructors are there to help you.‖ Not only did Terrascope offer a unique freshman
academic experience that differed from the traditional lecture/recitation/problem-set
format, but it also provided a more exciting academic experience, which encouraged
students to be creative:
You come to MIT with all these great ideas about what you‟re going to do
and you get totally bogged down with the problem-set routine.... And
(Terrascope) definitely improved how I felt about my academic freshman
year because it was challenging in an intellectual sense ... you have to
think creatively as opposed to dealing with numbers and problems.
Students emphasized that a learning community developed during the Terrascope
experience. The structure of the classes required them to work in small teams and
enabled them to get to know other freshmen as well as the upperclassmen who were
UTFs. As one student explained, ―The fact that you had all these people doing the same
thing you were doing and you had to get along with them created this awesome
community where there were friends and people to support you.‖ The field trip was
mentioned by all as one of the most worthwhile educational experiences because they
were able to see the actual effect of the processes they were studying on the local people
and on the environment. They said the sense of community came into its own as a real
entity during the trip. In addition, students said Terrascope provided a more intimate
academic experience than their other classes, where many felt as if they were just a
number.
A number of skills were developed during this experience. Those most frequently
mentioned were teamwork, communication and research skills. Some students noted a
carryover to their sophomore- and junior-year classes, since they were more comfortable
working in groups and more apt to take group leadership roles both in school and in
26
outside activities. One student summed it up by saying, ―It gave me a lot more
confidence about how to approach a team project and gauge other people’s skills. And it
made me a lot more willing to take on a larger role in class and get involved with
activities on campus.‖ Students said they currently felt more comfortable about their
research skills, and this has helped them when they have taken other classes requiring
research. As one student described, ―(Without this type of introduction) I would have
been lost going to libraries and using the web pages. I’ve used these skills so much in my
other classes, and the way they taught us was helpful.‖ Students mentioned other skills
such as webpage design, oral presentation, construction, and problem-solving skills.
However, they found it difficult to articulate what they had learned about problemsolving, saying such things as ―you’re so focused on what you’re doing that you don’t
think about how you’re doing it.‖
Students felt the Terrascope experience was empowering. One student reflected,
―You feel like you can handle a lot more.‖ Students particularly valued the fact that they
were responsible for their own learning, something that never happened before for many
of them, since they had always been told what to study and how to study: ―The onus was
on us to organize it any way we wanted … and it was great to be a part of that.‖ Many
said Terrascope influenced their subsequent academic careers. The Terrascope lunches
where faculty presented their ―cutting-edge‖ research gave them an opportunity to learn
about current research being carried on by faculty and enabled them to follow up on the
research that interested them. Some said these led to opportunities to participate in
undergraduate research and provided topics for their undergraduate theses. Others said
the lunches as well as the entire Terrascope experience influenced their choice of major
27
and career interests. For example, a student who planned to major in mechanical
engineering said he had decided to focus his career on the development of products for
developing countries as a result of the field trip.
Challenges
Students commented that learning how to work effectively together as a team was
a challenging experience. By the end of each semester, most felt their teams had learned
to work successfully together, but some felt their teams still had a long way to go before
their performance could be judged successful. In addition, time management was also a
key issue. Since Terrascope classes currently do not satisfy any of the General Institute
Requirements (core classes required of all undergraduates), students often had to weigh
their priorities and decide whether to focus their efforts on a problem set, an upcoming
exam, or an assigned task for one of their Terrascope classes. In addition, although
exhibits were a focal point of second semester and provided students with a sense of
accomplishment, some respondents were less enthusiastic about the exhibit focus. These
students had joined Terrascope because of their interest in solving environmental
problems. Even though they were able to see the connection between the ability to
communicate about environmental issues and the ability to solve environmental
problems, it was not as satisfying to these students as the first semester focus.
Discussion
The Terrascope program consists of so many elements that it is not possible to
discuss all the key results, so in this section we will select a few of the most salient ones.
Prior Learning Experiences and Transition to MIT
28
Freshmen joining Terrascope had little experience with project-based teamwork,
solving complex problems, and self-regulatory learning. Most came from traditionally
structured high-school environments where students had little autonomy and carried out
specific assignments with definite goals. If they worked together in groups with an
academic focus, these were generally short-lived, informal working groups, and, if they
had experience with complex problems, they usually worked on them individually.
Although adjusting to the MIT environment and the innovative setting of the Terrascope
community presented huge challenges, students said their participation provided an
excellent transition to MIT because they were able to interact with other freshmen,
upperclass students, and instructors in a small-group educational setting, unlike the large
settings of their other classes. They felt this helped reduce the stress that freshmen
normally experience when they enter the MIT environment.
Project-based Teamwork
During first semester, students noted improvement in a number of teamworkrelated areas: they ran more efficient meetings, were better prepared for meetings, and
were able to coordinate with other teams. Nevertheless, overall team performance did
not show statistically significant improvement. During second semester, however,
students noted statistically significant improvement in overall team performance from the
first to the last month of class. Although teamwork was not specifically ―taught‖ to
freshmen during first semester, the trial and error experiences of first semester probably
contributed to improvement in students’ teamwork skills.
The Instructional Environment
29
During the first semester, the majority of students thought they did not receive
enough direction, guidance, or coaching from their instructor, the teaching assistants, and
mentors and other experts. That is to be expected, since the class is designed to challenge
students to take responsibility for their own learning in a way they have not experienced
before. Indeed, in spite of the fact that students evidenced a longing for more structure
during the first semester, by the end of the year most said a combination of a lessstructured first semester experience and a more-structured second semester experience
had been helpful. Their comments revealed that the fairly flexible first-semester structure
helped them learn to rely on themselves to provide structure rather than rely on the
instructional staff. A number of students said they learned to appreciate the importance of
deadlines and structure because of the relatively loose structure of first semester. During
second semester, there was markedly more satisfaction with guidance from instructors
and teaching assistants, probably due, in part, to the tighter structure, but also partly due
to students’ increased experience and confidence with the project-based teamwork
environment. There was also satisfaction with the Developer’s Journals that each student
submitted on a weekly basis. Not only did this give students an opportunity to reflect on
their experiences, it also enabled instructors to monitor students’ learning experiences
and team dynamics, and to communicate directly with students, in ways that would
otherwise not have been possible in a class where so much of the work is done in group
meetings or work sessions outside of class time.
Benefits of Terrascope
The first-semester data showed that students were engaged with the topic and
appreciated the advantages the fall class provided compared to their other, more
30
traditional first-semester subjects. Both first- and second-semester data indicated that
students thought these subjects encouraged creativity, gave them autonomy, improved
their group skills, encouraged them to use their own initiative, and gave them selfconfidence in their abilities to tackle difficult subjects. The Terrascope experience also
helped some students to clarify their thoughts about their majors and future careers.
Terrascope provided students with a close-knit learning community. Students
developed strong relationships with other freshmen (generally this happens primarily
through living groups), upperclass students (again, this usually happens primarily in
living groups), and instructors (this generally does not happen in the freshman year). This
type of experience gave students a strong support system that they could call upon in
times of stress, both as freshmen and as upperclass students. It also provided a number of
important educational and experiential benefits, since it gave them an understanding of
how what they learned in the classroom could be put to use in the ―real world.‖ The
field trip is a unique experience that, of course, cannot be replicated in many other
project-based learning classes. Still, many elements of the experience – formal and
informal working groups, hands-on experiences, close collaboration with upperclass
students and instructors – can be replicated. And many of the community-building
benefits of the field trip could be provided, at least in part, by smaller-scale outings and
activities, particularly if they involved overnight stays off-campus and participation by all
or nearly all members of the program.
The fact that the experience carried over into a second semester and did not end
abruptly after one semester seems to have been important, since students had time to
improve their teamwork skills and build a more solid community. Indeed, students said a
31
number of skills they learned first semester were enhanced second semester and could be
applied to their second-semester work. Also, alumni focus groups revealed that their
Terrascope experiences (the combination of first- and second-semester research and
exhibit-development experiences; discussions with faculty, mentors, and upperclass
students) gave them time to explore their interests and often led to undergraduate
research opportunities and senior thesis topics.
Lessons Learned
Terrascope classes give students a great deal of autonomy and control over the
direction and structure of their work. That provides them with a strong sense of
empowerment and an equally strong sense of responsibility, not only to the classes but to
the program as a whole. Students feel a powerful need to help shape the program based
on their own experiences. In keeping with the overall philosophy of the program,
Terrascope faculty and staff encourage, value and make use of students’ input, both
formal and informal. A number of changes have been implemented in response to
students’ feedback, and a number of changes that were under consideration have been
abandoned, again due to students’ feedback.
For example, during the early years of the program, students expressed occasional
frustration over the amount of time it took instructors to read and respond to Developer’s
Journals. For instructors, reading and commenting on journals is one of the most timeintensive and challenging aspects of the class; carefully reading and commenting on one
week’s journals can easily require a full day or more of concentrated work. Nevertheless,
students’ comments made it clear that if journal feedback was not received very soon
after the journals were submitted, it was far less useful to them. As a result, we have
32
structured journal due dates, and our own schedules, so that we can provide feedback as
rapidly as possible. Assessment data from the past few years (not included in this study)
show that this has greatly increased students’ sense of the journals’ usefulness and
relevance.
Another change, and one that has come in direct response to students’ feedback
on surveys and in focus groups, has to do with the exhibits produced in the spring class.
Students in the early Terrascope years sometimes felt as if a semester’s work vanished
too quickly and with too little impact on people outside the program. As a result, the
program has found public exhibit space—an area with substantial foot traffic—and has
committed to keeping the exhibits open for a longer period. Terrascope staff have also
worked with museums and aquariums, both locally and nationwide, to find productive
uses for the students’ work after the official exhibits have closed. In the most recent
Terrascope year (2005-2006), the great majority of exhibit elements were accessioned by
museums, for use either as prototypes or in guided exhibit experiences. Students have
responded well to the increased exposure their exhibits receive, and it is clear that the
public nature of the final exhibit is a major driving force in their work.
One of the most interesting trends in Terrascope has to do with the role played by
UTFs. Over the four years of the program’s existence, the UTF’s role has evolved
considerably. Originally seen as facilitators and aides for individual teams, UTFs are now
engaged generally in the progress of the Terrascope classes; major class-wide issues (e.g.
the students’ level of engagement, overall team dynamics) are discussed at UTF
meetings, and many of the solutions implemented come directly from UTFs’ suggestions.
UTFs have also been given increased responsibility for logistical aspects of the spring
33
field trip, particularly in day-to-day organizational issues. The UTFs clearly see
themselves as having a stake in the program, and their participation is indeed a key to its
success.
The instructional staff has also responded to students’ concerns about the
Terrascope workload, by increasing the amount of credit given to students for the spring
class. (It is interesting, however, that students identify workload as an issue, since nearly
all the work they do is self-assigned and self-motivated. Students generally work much
harder on their projects than is required, and they seem to be motivated more strongly by
the responsibility they are given than by grades alone.) The program has also introduced
an optional Terrascope class called Terrascope Radio, which gives students the
opportunity to use some of the subject knowledge they have gained to satisfy MIT’s
Communication Intensive requirement.
These changes and others, and the ways in which they were made, lead us to offer
the following notes to other institutions hoping to develop similar programs:

The public nature of the students’ final presentation, whether in the fall public
presentation or the spring exhibits, is key to engaging the students in the work,
and it also provides much deeper satisfaction with the final product than any
faculty member’s assessment could.

The instructional staff has found it best to err on the side of giving students too
much, rather than too little, responsibility for the nature and structure of the work
they do, and of the final product. Students generally rise to the challenge,
producing work that is better and more comprehensive than they had originally
thought possible.
34

It has been extremely useful to the program to engage upperclass students in the
community, and to involve them in teaching and advising.

End-of-semester and end-of-year surveys, and other methods of collecting
students’ feedback and suggestions, are key in developing and maintaining a
program that relies so much on students’ motivation and interest. It is extremely
important for such a program to be flexible and to be able to respond rapidly to
students’ needs and wants.
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge the contributions of Debra Aczel and Ruth Weinrib, who handle
the logistics of the Terrascope program and who continually work to find ways to make
the students happier, more comfortable and more fulfilled. We are also grateful for the
assistance of Stephen Rudolph of the MIT Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, who works closely with students during the spring semester, talking them
through their designs and then helping bring their projects into being. We also thank
Maria Shkolnik for administrative assistance. Terrascope has been generously supported
through the offices of the MIT Chancellor and Provost, and much of the program’s
development was made possible by MIT’s Alex and Brit D’Arbeloff Fund for
Excellence in Education. The Terrascope field trip is supported by the Henry Luce
Foundation.
References
35
Allen, D.E., Duch, B.J., & Groh, S.E. (1996). The power of problem-based learning in
teaching introductory science courses. In L. Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.),
Bringing problem-based learning to higher education theory and practice. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 68, 43-52. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Barak, M., & Dori, Y.J. (2004). Enhancing undergraduate students’ chemistry
understanding through project-based learning in an IT environment. Science Education,
89, 117-139.
Barrows, H. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview.
In L. Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher
education theory and practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 3-12. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Bauer, G. (2003). Summary report: Qualitative assessment activities for Pew grant on
problem-based learning (PBL). Available at: http://www.udel.edu/pbl/Final-Report-PewPBL.pdf/ (May 2006).
Buck Institute for Education Project-Based Handbook. (1999). Available at:
http://www.bie.org/pbl/pblhandbook/intro.php#benefits (April 2006).
Dori, Y. (2003). A framework for project-based assessment in science education. In M.
Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search
of qualities and standards, 89-118. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Duffield, J., & Grabinger, R.S. (1997). Problem-based learning at the University of
Colorado at Denver, ERIC, 409834, 31-34.
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Ozgur, E., Frey, D., & Leifer, L.J. (2005). Engineering
design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 103120.
Epstein, A.W., Lipson, A., Bras., R. & Hodges, K. (2006a). Terrascope: A project-based,
team-oriented freshman learning community with an environmental/Earth system focus.
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference,
June 2006, paper 2006-435. American Society for Engineering Education, Washington,
D.C. Available on line at: http://asee.org/acPapers/code/getPaper.cfm?paperID=10456
Epstein, A.W., Bras, R., Hodges, K., & Lipson, A., (2006b). Team-oriented, projectbased learning as a path to undergraduate research. In K.K. Karukstis and T. Elgren
(Eds.), Designing, Implementing, and Sustaining a Research-Supportive Undergraduate
Curriculum: A Compendium of Successful Curricular Practices from Faculty and
Institutions Engaged in Undergraduate Research, Council on Undergraduate Research,
Washington, D.C. (in press).
36
Frank, M., Lavy, I., & Elata, D. (2003). Implementing the project-based learning
approach in an academic engineering course. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 13, 273-288.
Gijselaers, W.H. (1996). Connecting problem-based Practices with educational theory. In
L. Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher
education theory and practice. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 68, 13-22.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Major, C. H. & Palmer, B. (2001). Assessing the effectiveness of problem-based learning
in higher education: Lessons from the literature. Spring, 4-9.
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students. V. 2, San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Ram, P. (1999). Problem-based learning in undergraduate education. Journal of Chemical
Education, August, 1122-1126.
Ramsier, R.D. (2001). A hybrid approach to active learning. Physics Education, 36 (2),
124-128.
Reeves, T. C. (2000). Alternative assessment approaches for online learning
environments in higher education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23 (1),
101-111.
Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in higher education: Untold stories.
Buckingham England: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Savin-Baden, M. & Major, C.H. (2004). Foundations of problem-based learning.
England: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open-University Press.
Shelton, J.B. & Smith, R.F. (1998). Problem-based learning in analytical science
undergraduate teaching. Research in Science and Technology Education, 16(1), 19-28.
Smith, K., Sheppard, S., Johnson, D. & Johnson, R.T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement:
Classroom-based strategies. 94 (1), 87-101.
Stinson, J.E. & Miller, R.G. (1996). Problem-based learning in business education:
Curriculum design and implementation issues. In L. Wilkerson & W.H. Gijselaers (Eds.),
Bringing problem-based learning to higher education theory and practice. New Directions
for Teaching and Learning, 68, 33-42. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Striefel, A. & Rover, D.T. (2002). Problem-based learning in an introductory computer
engineering course. 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. November 6-9,
Boston, MA, FIG-7 to FIG-12.
37
Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M.G.M. & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science
problem-solving: An overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 38 (4), 442-468.
Thomas, J.W. (2000). A review of research on problem-based learning. Available at:
http://www.bobpearlman.org/Bestpractices/PBL_Research.pdf or
www.edutopia.org/php/resources.php?id=Item_217264. (April, 2006).
Wright, R. and Boggs, J. (2002). Learning cell biology as a team: A project-based
approach to upper division biology. Cell Biology Education, 1, 145-153.
38
Figure Captions
1. A Terrascope team brainstorming ideas.
2. Terrascope students constructing an exhibit during the spring-semester class.
3. Percentage of respondents indicating that certain kinds of assistance from UTFs were
―Very Useful‖ or ―Useful.‖
4. Percentage of respondents indicating that their skills improved ―A Great Amount‖ or
―A Fair Amount‖ in certain areas.
5. Percentage of respondents indicating that they were ―Very Satisfied‖ or ―Generally
Satisfied‖ with certain teaching and learning activities.
39
Figure 1 [FOR REFERENCE ONLY—JPEG FILE PROVIDED]
40
Figure 2 [FOR REFERENCE ONLY—JPEG FILE PROVIDED]
41
Figure 3
72%
Encouraged team to set deadlines
Gave constructive feedback
70%
Discussed team functioning
63%
Showed an interest in the research topic
63%
61%
Encouraged and supported team members
Asked questions that stimulated discussion
61%
Suggested appropriate resources
56%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
42
Figure 4
Ability to divide unstructured problem into
manageable components
73%
Ability to collaborate with students of diverse
backgrounds, cultures, and levels of expertise
63%
Ability to identify tasks needed to solve
unstructured problem
55%
Ability to communicate effectively
with teammates
54%
Ability to find scholarly reference sources
at library or via library website
45%
Ability to develop a systematic research plan
35%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
43
Figure 5
Guidance from instructors
96%
Guidance from undergraduate teaching fellows
91%
Guidance from teaching assistants
88%
Instructors’ proposal feedback
88%
Developer's journals
79%
Museum visits
71%
Instructors’ journal feedback
63%
58%
Lectures about museum exhibit design
54%
Lectures about scientific issues
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
44
Table I.
Major Differences Between Traditional and Project-Based Instruction
Traditional Instruction
Project-Based Instruction
Curriculum focus
Fixed or standard curriculum
Learning focus
Acquisition of knowledge
Project/driving question
Life skills (problem-solving,
teamwork, communication) as
well as knowledge
Curriculum materials
Textbook, assigned readings
Developed by students through
their own discovery process
Role of student
Passive observer; teacherdirected learner
Active problem-solver; selfdirected learner
Role of instructor
Expert; source of knowledge
Facilitator
Social context of classroom
Individual learners
Community of learners who
collaborate with one another
Scope of subject
Narrow, focused (usually)
Broad, interdisciplinary
45
Table II.
Mean Ratings of Team Characteristics: First Month vs. Last Month
First
Month
Last
Month
Standard
Deviation
t
ratio
Sig (2tailed)
Overall team performance
2.63
2.90
.95
1.91
n.s.
Clear understanding of team goals
1.80
3.00
.96
7.98
<.001
Student preparation for meetings
2.48
2.89
1.13
2.41
<.05
Efficiency of meetings
1.91
2.82
1.05
5.73
<.001
2.59
3.07
.85
3.73
<.01
Equal sharing of workload
2.52
2.30
80
1.54
n.s.
Motivation
3.05
2.89
1.12
0.94
n.s.
Supportiveness
3.09
1.90
3.02
2.43
1.02
0.98
0.44
n.s.
3.56
<.01
(4-point scale: 1=poor; 4= excellent)
Ability to reach consensus on decisions
Inter-team coordination
46
Table III.
Direction, Guidance, or Coaching Received from Various Sources
Too Much
Just Right
Too Little
Undergraduate Teaching Fellows
5%
57%
39%
Instructor
5%
42%
54%
Teaching Assistants
39%
46%
Mentors or other experts
15%
__
37%
63%
Other Teams
9%
27%
65%
Library Staff Liaison
__
32%
68%
47
Table IV.
Benefits of Fall Terrascope Class Relative to Other Fall Subjects
Scale: 1= much less than most subjects; 5 = much more than most subjects
―Much
More
than
Most‖ or
―More
than
Most‖
―About
the
Same‖
―Less
than
Most‖
or
―Much
Less
than
Most‖
Encouraged me to be creative
91%
2%
7%
4.02
0.87
Gave me an opportunity to have some independence and
autonomy
88%
7%
5%
4.23
0.87
Improved my ability to work productively in a group
Encouraged me to use my own initiative
81%
79%
9%
12%
9%
9%
3.98
4.05
1.01
1.07
70%
14%
16%
3.81
1.22
65%
14%
21%
3.56
1.16
Exposed me to MIT resources (faculty, alumni mentors,
heads of laboratories, etc.)
65%
35%
--
3.88
0.76
Actively involved me in what I was learning
61%
26%
14%
3.72
1.26
Made me feel as if I had accomplished something
because there was a final product
Increased my confidence in my ability to handle a
complex and ambiguous task
Mean SD
5-point
scale
48
Table V.
Mean Ratings of Team Characteristics: First Month vs. Last Month
(4-point scale: 1=poor; 4= excellent)
First
Month
Last
Month
Standard
Deviation
t
ratio
Sig (2tailed)
Overall team performance
2.62
3.35
.92
3.87
<.001
Supportiveness
3.00
3.50
1.02
2.40
<.05
Motivation
2.75
3.52
1.38
2.72
<.05
Equal sharing of workload
2.67
2.46
1.10
0.93
n.s.
Ability to reach consensus on decisions
2.50
3.46
1.20
3.92
<.001
Efficiency of meetings
2.42
3.63
.98
6.06
<.001
49
Table VI.
Satisfaction with Exhibit Development Activities
―Very Satisfied‖
or
―Generally
Satisfied‖
Prototype Development
Designing
46%
Building
46%
Displaying
54%
―Ambivalent‖
―Dissatisfied‖
or
―Very
Dissatisfied‖
25%
29%
29%
29%
25%
17%
3.29
3.38
3.50
1.16
1.06
1.18
8%
4%
4%
4%
---
4.21
4.63
3.96
.78
.58
.21
Mean
SD
5-point scale
Final Museum Exhibit Development
Designing
Building
Displaying
88%
96%
96%
50
Table VII.
Self-Reported Learning Gains
―Strongly
Agree‖
or
―Agree‖
―Neutral‖
―Disagree‖
or
―Strongly
Disagree‖
Process/Content Learning
Gained appreciation of the processes that go into
design and engineering
96%
4%
--
4.54
.59
Learned from the hands-on experience
92%
8%
--
4.38
.65
83%
13%
4%
4.38
1.01
63%
33%
4%
3.63
.82
44%
35%
22%
3.48
1.12
42%
33%
25%
3.25
1.07
Experience what it was like to be part of an
intensive design team
Experience of teaching others helped me learn
material more thoughtfully and deeply.
Gained greater appreciation of global
environmental problems and the science behind
them.
Gained knowledge about the scientific, economic,
and political issues
Mean
SD
5-point scale
Skill Improvement
Improved teamwork skills
88%
4%
8%
4.25
.90
Improved problem-solving skills
Learned how to encourage my creativity
Improved oral communication skills
Improved written communication skills
71%
71%
50%
13%
29%
21%
17%
38%
--33%
50%
4.04
4.04
3.17
2.5
.81
1
1.05
.89
Personal Development
Increased understanding of environmental issues
will likely influence me in the future (no matter
what major or career I choose).
83%
17%
--
4.21
.72
--
51
Table VIII.
Student Perceptions of Integration of Fall and Spring Subjects
Percent Saying Skills and Knowledge Learned in the Fall Were Enhanced by Taking
the Spring Class
Teamwork
84%
Problem-solving
72%
Research
47%
Project Management
86%
Knowledge
67%
Percent Saying Skills and Knowledge Learned in the Fall Class Could be Applied to
the Spring Class
Teamwork
91%
Problem-solving
81%
Research
73%
Project Management
89%
Knowledge
67%
Percent Saying Coordination Between the Two Classes Is "All Right As It Is"
82%
Percent Saying a Combination of a Less Structured 1st Semester Experience and a
More Structured 2nd Semester Experience is Useful
79%
52