A veteran UW-SP geology professor reflects on his participation in FACETS, sharing his thoughts on the process, the outcome, and some future challenges. This paper focuses on the application of principles covered in the FACETS program to the modification of an introductory science course designed for non-science majors. However, the reflections are relevant to anyone who teaches science.
My Pre-FACETS Mindset
Lacking any alternatives, I simply adopted the methods of those who had taught me “best”. At first this approach seemed to work well enough, probably because my youthful enthusiasm overcame any deficiencies in my methodology.
Like most of my contemporaries, and the generations of academicians before me, I left graduate school with great zeal for my discipline but with no formal training in the realm of pedagogy. Lacking any alternatives, I simply adopted the methods of those who had taught me “best”. At first this approach seemed to work well enough, probably because my youthful enthusiasm overcame any deficiencies in my methodology. It was also very reassuring to receive a University Teaching Excellence Award following my 5th year at UWSP. But as the “generational gap” between my students and me widened, I noticed a corresponding decline in my ability to reach them. And, by the mid-1990s, during the peak of the “grunge” movement, I felt almost completely at a loss to relate with some of my students. This affected both my attitude and my classroom “performance”.
Amid my growing sense of inadequacy as a teacher, I had two experiences that proved pivotal in altering my approach to teaching. The first of these occurred in the summer of 1998, when I attended “Case Studies in Science”, an NSF-sponsored workshop held at the University of Buffalo. Here, I was introduced to a number of revolutionary (at least to me) ideas, including: 1) A good lecture does not necessarily equal good teaching, and 2)course content is often less important than the teaching strategies employed.
I was also exposed to various teaching methods that incorporated both student collaboration and interactive approaches to learning. I left that workshop with a large notebook of new ideas, and an assignment to create at least one case study to use in my teaching.This training provided a deep well to draw from when I later modified an entire course as part of a FACETS-funded project.
My second “revelation” took place soon thereafter, while I was serving on a University subcommittee charged with the task of redefining the Natural Science General Degree Requirement (NS GDR). As I worked with faculty from the other scientific disciplines, it became clear that my courses did not fully address the true goal of an NS GDR, which we distilled into three main objectives: (1)to expose students to the scientific methods; (2)to provide students with opportunities to draw conclusions, infer relationships, solve problems, make predictions, and learn principles of taxonomy; and (3) to give students an appreciation for how natural science is relevant to life and society. Although I was already addressing portions of these objectives in my courses, I did so implicitly through the way in which I covered the content, but I was not deliberate in my efforts to develop critical thinking skills.
Recognizing my deficiencies as an instructor of science and my limited understanding of good pedagogy, I was convinced that I needed to change my approach to teaching and learning. I decided to start with Geology 100, an introductory course designed for non-science majors. Because I teach this class every semester, it brings me in contact with about 250 students each year, many of whom are quite different from me in terms of their preferred learning styles and modalities. Through a series of small, incremental changes, I modified Geology 100 from a “watered-down” geology course to one in which I used geology to teach principles of science. Although I was satisfied with the results of these efforts, it became apparent from student evaluations that not everyone shared my view. I sensed that further modifications were needed, but that this time the changes must address teaching and learning strategies. It was at this point that the opportunity emerged for me to be involved with the FACETS program, and I was clearly ready to take this next step.
Insights from FACETS
FACETS helped galvanize my thinking on the direction I need to take with my teaching, and it helped me to identify some pathways for change. My efforts continued to focus on Geology 100, and the insights I share in this paper reflect that focus.
I was reminded of two things that were especially relevant to my situation: (1) time is required for deep learning to take place, and (2) students in my Geology 100 classes are likely to represent a wide range in preferred learning styles and modalities.
Because I had only a rudimentary understanding of the material presented in Seminar 2 (Impact of Cognitive Science on Teaching and Learning), I benefited greatly from having an organized presentation of these concepts (with a bibliography) to refer to later. I was reminded of two things that were especially relevant to my situation: (1) time is required for deep learning to take place, and (2) students in my Geology 100 classes are likely to represent a wide range in preferred learning styles and modalities. These two issues are at the heart of the challenges I face as I consider how to apply what I’ve learned to making future improvements.
Seminar 3 (When “Backwards” is Just Right!) provided additional support for what I had started to realize at the Case Studies in Science workshop, namely that course content can, in some cases, take a back seat to larger priorities. The driving force behind most introductory classes (especially those that serve as prerequisites for other courses in a major) is the content that “must be covered”; but for a course such as Geology 100, the content is almost inconsequential. Therefore, it was helpful to think about what I wanted to accomplish from a “backwards curricular design” mentality.
Backward Thinking to Make Changes
The FACETS seminars motivated me to apply for a FACETS summer stipend grant that allowed me to revamp Geology 100 for the fall of 2004, and to design a methodology by which to survey that class on the effectiveness of my teaching strategies. In undertaking this project, I was deliberate about “thinking backwards”, and that allowed me to jettison some course content in favor of teaching strategies that would better achieve my overall course objectives. I also attempted to include activities that appealed to a wider range of learning modes and styles.
The most significant change I made was to rely more heavily on the use of collaborative learning through small groups.
The most significant change I made was to rely more heavily on the use of collaborative learning through small groups. These groups, comprised of four students each, worked on assignments outside of class and took weekly quizzes together during the scheduled lecture times. The quizzes were open-note, open-book to de-emphasize memorization and provide opportunities to develop critical thinking skills, and the assignments were designed to lead students intentionally into deeper levels of learning. Using group work during lecture periods also helped to divide the 50-minute period into blocks of time that are more compatible with Millennials’ attention spans.
In making these changes, I was able to make wider application of what I had learned at the 1998 case studies workshop by developing “cases” to illustrate each of the scientific principles that I wanted students to understand. Although I am not particularly skilled at weaving human-interest stories into a case, there were a few instances where I could do this rather easily (e.g., the case of the sinkhole that opened up along Maryland Route 31 and engulfed a minivan). The intent was to show the relevance of science to life and society, and also to interest students who would otherwise find geology “boring”.
Student Disinterest—A Primary Barrier
My main objective in conducting a FACETS research project was to identify any barriers to student learning that existed in the way I taught Geology 100. Because I had invested considerable time in reformatting the course to address what I thought were the salient pedagogic issues, I expected to gain insights on how I could further adjust activities and the course structure to more effectively reach the wide range in learning styles that are represented in the class. However, the primary barrier to learning identified by students was a disinterest in the subject matter (and science in general). Apparently, making the content subservient to the course objectives was not enough to overcome this problem, which remains one of my greatest challenges in teaching Geology 100.
I was also disappointed to find that a number of students expressed dissatisfaction with working in small groups, because I structured much of the course around the use of this strategy. From reading the book Millennials Rising, I had expected small groups to be more popular. Reasons cited by Geology 100 students for why they did not like working with their peers included the following: (1) some students who were failing to grasp the material apparently did not feel comfortable admitting this even to their peers; (2) some groups did not have any individuals who fully understood the material, and this created a situation of “the blind leading the blind”; and (3) some of the students resented having to help their peers, and would rather learn on their own. Although these situations are likely to exist in any class, it would appear that they are more prevalent in Geology 100 than in courses where small groups have enjoyed greater success. This could reflect the fact that students taking Geology 100 are inherently diverse in terms of their majors and academic standings, which makes group work less appealing.
The surveys also revealed that students who took Geology 100 spent, on average, less than four hours per week on the course, including the time spent in class. This means that the average student did little more than simply come to class, and attendance data show that roughly half of the students did not even do that on a regular basis. Clearly, this is not conducive to deep learning or the mastery of critical thinking skills. There are, no doubt, a number of reasons why students fail to invest time in their educations, some legitimate and some not. But regardless of the reasons, I view this as much of a barrier to learning as any that students might identify, and one that is likely to increase as more Millennials enter college. Future Challenges
Certainly, one of my greatest challenges in teaching Geology 100 is how to address the fact that some students are simply disinterested in science. But before I can devise an appropriate solution, I must understand the reason(s) for their disinterest. If the problem lies in the material itself, perhaps there are additional adjustments that could make this course more appealing to non-science majors. Or, perhaps some students would learn the principles of scientific thinking better in a completely different setting, e.g., an inter-disciplinary course designed to meet the objectives of an NS GDR. However, if their dislike for science stems from the fact that they are sometimes forced to learn using a style or modality that is not natural to them, the solution is less clear. Does not the goal of learning critical thinking skills in science necessarily require certain people to develop abilities in areas that do not suit their preferred learning styles and modalities?
Does not the goal of learning critical thinking skills in science necessarily require certain people to develop abilities in areas that do not suit their preferred learning styles and modalities?
Even as I contemplate further changes in Geology 100, I am starting to think of ways to improve my upper-level classes designed for majors. Although some of the challenges are the same, there is the distinct difference of having content matter more in advanced classes, especially those that prepare students for careers as professional geologists or professional hydrologists. This does not negate the principles presented through the FACETS seminars, it simply means that less content can be sacrificed when I engage in the process of “thinking backwards”.
Afterthoughts—Looking backwards
Having reached roughly the mid-point of my academic career, I can look back and see two major phases of development in my evolution as a teacher. At the beginning, youth and adrenalin served me well as I learned how to make the geology understandable to the uninitiated. I enjoyed popularity with my students, and the rewards of teaching were tangible. This phase reached its zenith about five or six years into my career, by which point I had become absorbed with other aspects of academic life (i.e., scholarship and tenure).
However, once I was tenured, I had the freedom to pursue a different path, one that led me to view teaching in a new light. Having the opportunities to attend workshops, read literature on good pedagogy, and to interact with interested colleagues were each vital to this second phase of my development. I am grateful for support systems that were available to assist me when I was ready to take the next step. I also recognize that both phases of my development were necessary. Although newly graduated Ph.D.s in science are often ill prepared for teaching from a pedagogic point of view, the early phase of mastering the content of their disciplines is crucial. Without that foundation, it is unlikely they will succeed in any efforts to further improve teaching and learning.
Of course, the journey has not come to an end. My research in Geology 100 shows that I need to explore new avenues for interesting non-science majors in science, and I have yet to implement what I learned from the FACETS seminars into each of my upper-level courses.
Of course, the journey has not come to an end. My research in Geology 100 shows that I need to explore new avenues for interesting non-science majors in science, and I have yet to implement what I learned from the FACETS seminars into each of my upper-level courses. However, I look forward to the challenges that lie ahead, knowing that I am part of larger movement concerned with the scholarship of teaching and learning. As I draw from the support of others, I hope that I can also be of help to my fellow sojourners and to those who follow behind.
Brief Bio: David received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Vermont, his master’s degree from the Pennsylvania State University, and his doctorate from Binghamton University (formerly SUNY-Binghamton). He began his career at UW-SP in the 1987 and holds a joint appointment in the Geography/Geology Department and the College of Natural Resources (in Water Resources). He teaches an introductory course in geology, and courses in hydrogeology and maintains an active interest in pedagogic issues that pertain to the teaching of science.
Contact David at: dozsvath@uwsp.edu