Changing the way we teach
Ian Clark
University of South Carolina
University of South Australia
Acknowledgements
Dr Yvonne Zeegers from the School of
Education, UniSA made a significant
contribution to the planning and
development of this project.
 Professor Patrick James and Dr
Christopher Clark (Uni Adelaide) helped
with the field teaching

Introduction

Purpose and background to the study

Teaching methodology

Evaluation of teaching & learning
Purpose of the Study
Promote meaningful learning
 Make students responsible for their own
learning
 Demonstrate that constructivist methods
are appropriate in tertiary classroom

Confine content
 Control products

Purpose

Action research
Pilot methodologies
 Investigate various methods of collecting data



We know what we are doing works, but how do we show it
Limitations of the research
No control group
 Uncontrolled variables

Background

Nature of the course
Taught for 5 years prior to this
 Optional, full semester course
 Final year course for Env Mgt students
 4th year course for double degree students
Eng/Env Mgt
 About 30 students/year

Most had completed same introductory earth science
course
Few had another introductory earth science course
couple had no previous experience
Background

Course content
Introduction to the Earth System
 Biogeochemical evolution of the Earth
 Mass extinction
 Bolide impacts
 Greenhouse/icehouse – Snowball Earth
 Cambrian-Precambrian boundary

Background
 Nature
of the Problem
 Traditional didactic teaching methods
 Lectures, laboratories, show-&-tell fieldwork,
assignments & exams

Student Evaluations


Students not engaged
Assessment
Rote knowledge
 Lack of understanding
 Poor performance on higher order thinking skills


Problem-solving, analysis, synthesis, evaluation
Teaching methodology

Constructivist approach



All learners construct their own ideas about the world
Learners actively construct knowledge and meaning from
their interpretation of what is happening around them,
based on their own experiences and understandings
Learning is an interpretive process that entails
challenging and enriching one’s own thinking
Constructivist Teaching


No single teaching approach is always most suitable
Constructivist approach demands a teaching style that
differs greatly from traditional “chalk & talk”
Teaching Approach

De-emphasised traditional content-driven
approach
Recognised enormous possible scope of content
 Acknowledged it was too great for time
allocated


Encouraged students to think about their
own learning
Assess their needs
 Explore an area of interest

Teaching Approach

Teaching strategies focussed on:



Eliciting students’ prior knowledge;
Providing a range of exploratory activities
designed to engage and challenge students’
thinking;
Providing opportunities for students to raise
questions and then investigate an area of
interest
Eliciting students’ prior knowledge
what the students already knew about the
‘Earth System’
 activity served two purposes

to challenge the students’ thinking in ways that
made them consider what they already knew,
and then what more they wanted to know about
the Earth System
 to collect information that would assist us to
plan the content of future workshops


Post Box technique
Post-box questions





What do you think the term “Earth System”
means?
What are three (3) things that are currently
having an impact on the Earth System?
What are two (2) things that have occurred in
the Earth’s past that have had an impact on
the Earth System?
What are two things that could be done to
protect the Earth System?
What are two (2) things about the Earth
System that you would like to know more about?
Exploratory Activities

Two sets
The first activity made links to concepts that
the students had been introduced to in previous
courses (in classroom)
 The second was to demonstrate evidence that
has been used to develop a model for the
evolution of the Earth System (in field)

Teaching Approach

Encouraged interpretive discussions

Change in roles
Lecturer became a facilitator
 Student changed from a “ passive absorber of
knowledge” to an active participant taking
responsibility for learning

Teaching methodology
Clasts angular
Clasts unsorted
Range of compositions
Conclusion: probably glacial
Explain how this rock might have formed?
New information
Rock formed near sea-level, near equator
Explain how this rock might have formed?
Teaching methodology
Teaching methodology
Teaching Approach

Teaching strategies focussed on:



Eliciting students’ prior knowledge;
Providing a range of exploratory activities
designed to engage and challenge students’
thinking;
Providing opportunities for students to raise
questions and then investigate an area of
interest
Field notebooks

Traditional use



Added use



Record observations
Record what instructor says
Record questions
Provided the students with a mechanism for
reflecting on their learning
Provided us with a means of gaining some insight
into the development of their thoughts and
understandings about the Earth System
Raising Questions
Questions were a pivotal part of the
teaching and learning approach
 Big and little questions


Little question


‘What causes the layers to become tilted?’
Big question

What caused Snowball Earth to return to normal
Earth?’
Evaluation of Teaching &
Learning


Comparison of marks
Student evaluation of teaching
questionnaires

Focus group interviews

Informal observations
Results

Comparison of marks
Traditional teaching
Constructivist teaching
High +ve correlation
with other courses
High +ve correlation
with other courses
No significance
difference between
course means
significant difference
between this course
mean and 2 of the
other 3
Results

Student evaluation of teaching
questionnaires

Summative part – 10 questions –7 point Likert
scale

Mean = 5.59 SD = 0.25

All questions skewed towards Strongly Agree
16
14
12
10
Q1*
Q2
Q3
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q 1 Aims & objectives clear from outset
Q2 Staff member made course interesting
Q3 Staff member motivated me to do my best work.
16
14
12
10
*Q4*
Q5
Q6*
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
14
12
10
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10
8
6
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
7
13
5
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
Results
Frequency
Q11- The course was taught in a way that facilitated
my learning.
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Old
New
1
2
3
4
Score
5
6
7
Results
Q19- My understanding of the subject has been
increased as a result of the way this course has been
taught.
Frequency
15
10
Old
New
5
0
1
2
3
4
Score
5
6
7
Results
Q20-My learning has been enhanced by the way
this course was taught.
Frequency
15
10
Old
New
5
0
1
2
3
4
Score
5
6
7
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)

Focus Group

Results
Question 1 – Do you think the emphasis on recording (in
your notebooks) your questions for later discussion &
clarification helped your learning?

All students agreed. Several thought more time should have been
spent addressing the questions. It was considered especially helpful
when completing the research project. There was strong agreement
that the process aided learning.
Results

Focus Group

Question 2 – Did the process of framing your
own research question make a difference to the
way you approached the assignment

The response was mixed (No = 4 Yes = 3) Those who
did not like the process wanted more direction such
as a set of questions to choose from. Others liked
the freedom to pursue a topic of interest. There was
also some concern about conflicting ideas in the
literature
Results

Focus Group

Question 3 – Did you perceive the workload for
this course to be any different to that of other
courses that you have or are doing?
• The consensus was no difference, but some students
spent more time researching their question than they
would normally have done for a set question
Results

Focus Group

Question 4 – Do you think this approach to
teaching helped your learning
• All agreed that it was better than ‘lecture, classroom’
approach; it encouraged thinking; students gained better
understanding. It was suggested that it suited some
students more than others
Results

Focus Group

Question 5 – In what ways do you think this
approach to teaching affected your learning?
• No consistent theme in answers to this question.
Results

Student cohorts


No significant difference in marks between
student groups (EM, Eng, etc.)
Content

Students’ assignment questions very similar to
those used during the more traditional
approach
Conclusions




Generally +ve evaluations suggest students like
method
Evidence suggests that this approach does not
disadvantage students
Possible to confine content
Improvements



Allow more time for students to develop their questions
Explain the methodology better to students
Introduce the method earlier in program
Conclusions
Improving Student learning

As Ramsden (1988) asserts,


“improving learning is about the relations between the
learner and the course matter and an essential aspect of
teaching and learning is to understand the students’
perspectives, their perceptions of learning and their
previous experiences”.
However we also need to be aware that students’
perspectives of what supports their learning is not
necessarily the same for each student, nor the same as
that of the instructor
Adelaide Fold
Belt





Intracratonic trough
Continuous deposition from
~900-500 mya
24 km of shallow water
clastics & carbonates
Deformation produced
broad open folds & faults
Exposed ever since
Brachina Gorge
Adelaide
Outcrop
Probable extent
Corridor through time
Precambrian/Cambrian boundary
Brachina Gorge
15 kilometres
Features of Corridor Through
Time
Stromatolites
Features of Corridor Through
Time
Volcanic
fragment
Ejecta layer
Features of
Corridor
Through Time
Ediacara fossil layer
Archaeocyatha
Early Cambrian fossils