The Panel Responses

1. David McConnell, University of Akron
   I been involved in some workshops about inquiry based teaching and, like others on the listserv, I have been trying to use this approach. Unfortunately, like many teaching methods, there is some limited data to suggest that such methods improve student learning but it is not overwhelming and it is often derived from studies of other disciplines. As scientists we impress upon our students how important it is to make observations to support hypotheses (i.e. that inquiry based methods improve learning) but relatively little has been published to "prove" the merits of these new teaching methods in geology.

   Instructors using these methods often rely more on their "gut feeling" about what works and what doesn't in making decisions about introducing new techniques. Such methods may be treated with suspicion by those who use more traditional lecture delivery techniques. Others may be inclined to adopt new methods if it can be shown to increase learning. Unfortunately, there are so many variations in who is teaching, what they are teaching, and how they are teaching that it is difficult to get any sense of whether student learning improves due to the introduction of new methods as almost everyone asks different questions and different types of questions (e.g. multiple choice vs. short answer).

   Consequently, until there is some common assessment method for similar classes it will be difficult to determine if student learning improves in different teaching environments. Physics has a national mechanics test that has been used by some authors to monitor learning improvements in introductory courses. Could the same principle be applied to geology? Would it be useful to create a series of introductory geology exam questions that would provide a consistent measure of student achievement in a variety of courses?

   David McConnell
   
   

2. Warren Huff, University of Cincinnati
   The notion of a "national exam" carries a lot of baggage with it and I would think that before we start down that road we would want to agree on just what the purpose of such an exam is to be. As with all such tests, for example, it would need to be benchmarked against something so that one could recognize "improvement." Given what surely must be a wide range of offerings of what might be called introductory geology in U.S. college and universities, and which fulfill needs ranging from obligatory science for non-majors to intensive courses for majors, I wonder if the profession might not be better served by having a series of guidelines or criteria by which one could develop intro course evaluation. Certainly those students in lecture-lab courses will learn more, and perhaps different, material than those in lecture-only courses. So the one-test-fits-all mode wouldn't really work. One the other hand, if a set of assessment tools existed which any instructor (or Dean) could modify to suit a particular course in a particular academic setting then we might, in fact, begin to learn whether learning in intro course is actually improving. I suspect the ingredients for such tools already exist and simply need to be assembled and made available in a format that can be readily accessed by all.

   Warren Huff

3. Roger Suthren, Oxford Brookes
   I have reservations about nationally imposed exams, curricula, standards etc. There are a number of highly innovative introductory geology or earth science courses which might not conform to a rigid national system. I think we can achieve more by sharing good practice, and sharing good existing resources, through organisations such as NAGT in the USA, the UK Geosciences Education Consortium (UKGEC); through our learned societies such as GSA and the Geological Society; and through more informal means such as this discussion group. Clearly the Internet has an important role to play here.

   North America is streets ahead of the UK in providing a forum for discussing teaching and learning at national/regional meetings. I have the feeling that these are still not regarded as 'respectable' subjects to be discussed at many UK conferences and meetings. Honourable exceptions are the excellent work done by UKGEC, and a few other groups such as the UK Earth Sciences Courseware Consortium.

   The difficulty, as always, is that we end up 'preaching to the converted'. How do we get our more reluctant colleagues to join us in sharing new ideas about teaching?

   I look forward to some non-virtual discussions of these topics at GSA in Denver!

   Roger Suthern

4. John C. Butler, University of Houston
   I have had numerous discussions about how to assess the role of techology, the instructor, the phase of the moon, etc. on learning and the learning environment.

   The No Significant Difference Phenomenon web site provides references to 355 published research papers that examined distance education and concluded that the delivery system (correspondence, tapes, the Internet, etc. made "no significant difference". For example, "the results in this paper have shown that when virtual lectures are used in place of traditional delivery methods there is no significant difference in attainment level as measured by end of year examination marks (Smeaton, A. & Keogh, G., 1999).

   Perhaps the problem is in the design of experiments using human subjects rather than powdered rock or speckled trout, or perhaps the problem is in figuring out how to assess learning, or perhaps there is indeed, no significant difference.

   I too look forward to "real", face-to-face discussions in Denver.

   John Butler