In December of 2010 I solicited, though this listserve, your
participation in a survey about how we teach the larger geosciences
courses. My goal was to get a handle on to what degree we as a subset
of the sciences have embraced thee use of technology in class. I am
sharing a couple of the results as I find them somewhat surprising. I
hope they stimulate discussion on 1) how to best engage students in
larger geosciences classes and 2) how to incentivize instructors with
limited free time and energy to explore alternative teaching methods.
The Survey
The survey was sent to two groups: first, a list of all geosciences
instructors in the State of Michigan at four-year colleges; and
second, a self-selected group of geosciences instructors who
participate in a geosciences education listserv. Table 1 (attached)
enumerates the selections made of the combined groups when asked, “In
the ‘lecture portion’ of your survey course, please indicate how
frequently you used the following teaching strategies in teaching.”
The results, summarized in Table 1 show that even in a population
containing those who have self-registered for a “geoscience education
listserv” traditional lecture remains the dominant method employed in
class. Table 1 also illustrates that more active learning techniques
(in-class exercises, question/answer sessions, etc.) are rarely, if
ever, employed by the respondents to this survey.
These results are consistent with the findings from other disciplines
over multiple years. Redesigning Higher Education (Gardiner, et al.,
1994) reported on a 1980 study (Pellino, et al., 1981) in which 73 to
83 percent of the college teachers surveyed identified the lecture
method as their usual instructional strategy. Hence, despite recent
and well designed efforts over the past decade to produce learning
objects and pedagogical strategies that reflect new understandings on
how people learn geosciences instruction continues to be dominated by
traditional lecture methods. This result of course does not mean
teaching is substandard, but it does illustrate how difficult it is
(and will be) to retool the field.
It is perhaps not surprising that instruction has not changed
dramatically over the past decades. When the same two geosciences
educator groups were asked, “Which of the following have influenced
your teaching techniques for survey courses?” most reported that they
still tend to rely on methods learned either from their mentors and/or
from their peers. Learning from mentors and peers is not, in itself,
an undesirable way to learn how to teach, especially if your peers are
experienced in effective pedagogical practices. But the pragmatic
approach of teaching as we were taught is less likely to produce
significant change in teaching methods.
Figure 1. Answers to survey question, “Which of the following have
influenced your teaching techniques for gateway courses?” Two groups
were surveyed: 1) Michigan: geosciences instructors from institutions
within the State of Michigan, and 2) geosciences instructors who
participate in a geosciences education listserv ([log in to unmask]
).
________________________________________________________
Professor Perry J. Samson
Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and Associate Chair
Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Space Sciences
1539 Space Research Building 734-763-6213 [office]
University of Michigan 734-936-0503 [fax]
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2143
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://samson.engin.umich.edu/
________________________________________________________
