Jie Xiao, Department of Earth Sciences
I have worked as a demonstrator in the undergraduate course “Computational Earth Sciences” during the past academic year. The course provided training in three disciplines: geology, maths and coding, which is an unusual combination of skills. Previously, many Earth Sciences students who participated in the course showed good understanding in real-world geology and the mathematical explanations of various processes. However, some of the students had difficulties in developing computer programs to simulate the Earth system. In order to motivate the students in all these areas, I introduced a novel way of teaching, known as pair-programming, into one of the practical sessions in the course.
In the session, students were required to work in pairs and to work on an assignment, which consists of two exercises on computational geology. They were suggested to discuss the question thoroughly and to write out the solution method before starting implement it in their computer code. In the stage of programming, the peers were asked to work interactively. One of the members designed and built the computer program and explained why he/she did it in that way, while the other checked through details of the program and fixed any problem that occurred. The peers exchanged their roles when they had completed the first exercise and turned into the second one. By the end of the session, each pair of students were required to hand in a report which describe their methods, programs and results.
Learning outcome of the session was delightful, showing that most students have been able develop computer programs to solve basic problems in computation geology. According to feedback from students, the pair-programming activity has been an attractive approach. Students also found it interesting and challenging in understanding the code written by others, which is a useful ability for those who wish to work in mathematical geoscience in the future. The pair-programming approach has been widely applied in computer industry and education, but not frequently used in cross-disciplinary training. However, the implementation in my class has proved to be effective in helping Earth sciences students smoothly step in computer programming.
References
Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2001). Experiments with industry's “pair-programming” model in the computer science classroom. Computer Science Education, 11(1), 7-20.
Bevan, J., Werner, L., & McDowell, C. (2002). Guidelines for the use of pair programming in a freshman programming class. In Software Engineering Education and Training, 2002. (CSEE&T 2002). Proceedings. 15th Conference on (pp. 100-107). IEEE.
McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H. E., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90-95.
Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2011). Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(4), 509-525.
Tom Olver
Towards the end of the term, in Palaeontology practical sessions in the Earth Sciences department, first year undergraduate students were set revision tasks. However, to a) engage interest more easily, and b) to widen their learning, the practical format changed. One example of this that the students found particularly useful, was a revision based task that also widened their outlook on science communication.
Once a term had been completed and all the types of fossil groups needed had been studied, this group task was set. It involved a box of specimens being given to a group and asking them to create a ‘display’ or ‘presentation (e.g. a poster) describing, with visual aid, the potential environment that the species lived and may have interacted in. As well as this, the students had to pick a target audience (e.g. Museum visitors, scientists from a different field etc.). At the end of the session, students were encouraged to show these presentations (mostly posters or models) and the class anonymously voted on which one suited its target audience most appropriately.
This task was not only good revision of the specific fossil groups but assemblages in general, but also a very good task for learning how you have to tailor your work to specific audiences and groups to put your message across in the most effective pattern. The way you would present at an academic conference vs in a children’s science book are vastly different and this introduced the students to this. It also encouraged team work and group discussion which wasn’t normally a huge part of palaeontology practical sessions.
The approach that is adopted in Earth Sciences is an ancient one but a method which has proven successful for decades.
The use of lectures in hand with practical demonstrations and demonstration material has been selected by science and social science subjects alike. But to what extent does practical demonstration help students to better understand the lecture content? And can this be adopted by all subjects?
In a survey of students studying nervous system anatomy and physiology, 66% of students concluded that an integrated approach was useful and necessary (Kageyama et. al 2016). Similarly students studying histology, another biological discipline, noticed a considerable increase in pass rate (from 74% to 88%) through the use of integrated teaching (Lu et. al 2016). Students agreed that the integrated course maximised learning time, inspired learning interest and promoted the understanding of knowledge points (Lu et. al 2016).
However the applications of this methodology haven’t only been adopted by universities, they are also applicable to real-world situations (e.g. in the workplace). Micheal T. Charles (2000) has remarked, with regards to police training, that ‘generally teaching practicals (are) followed by short lectures… that would not only reinforce the lecture but provide practical experience’. Heyler (2015) also argues that reflection is a critical component of improvement within the workplace. It is therefore through integrated teaching that students may not only learn a course component however subsequently reflect on it through practical demonstration.
Integrated teaching is therefore not only a versatile and effective way of learning complex concepts however it is applicable on a much wider scale, particularly for self-learning post-university.
CHARLES, M. T. 2000. Police Training— Breaking all the rules; Implementing the Adult Education Model into Police Training.
HEYLER, R. 2015. Learning through reflection: the critical role of reflection in work-based learning (WBL), Journal of Work-Applied Management Vol. 7 No. 1, 2015 pp. 15-27
KAGEYAMA, I., YOSHIMURA, K., SATOH, Y., NANAYAKKARA, C. D., PALLEGAMA, R. W. & IWASAKI, S.- I. 2016. Proposal for research and education: joint lectures and practicals on central nervous system anatomy and physiology. The Journal of Physiological Sciences. v66 (4), 283-292
LU, X., CHENG, X., LI, K., LEE, K. K. H. & YANG, X. 2016. Integration of Histology Lectures and Practical Teaching in China. International Journal of Higher Education. v.5 (4)
AB134648
This is an extremely interesting post. After demonstrating with Earth Sciences and doing my undergraduate degree in Geology – I have experience the pros of practical sessions integrated with the lecture first hand.
Something that I noticed massively this year, if the sessions were given appropriately, was that not only did it help to tackle any issues in understanding first hand, but it also gave the students positivity when the next practical came about, and so on, until a graded assessment came about, improving their self-efficacy (self-belief that they can tackle these problems).
Tom Olver