View in EDS HTML Full Text

Teaching Large Classes in Geography: Some Practical Suggestions.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teaching Large Classes in Geography: Some Practical Suggestions.
Language: English
Authors: Jenkins, Alan
Source: Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 1993 17(2):149-165.
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 1993
Intended Audience: Teachers; Practitioners
Document Type: Guides - Classroom - Teacher
Reports - Descriptive
Journal Articles
Descriptors: Class Organization, Class Size, Crowding, Developing Nations, Educational Change, Educational Strategies, Foreign Countries, Geography Instruction, Higher Education, Instructional Effectiveness, Instructional Innovation, Teacher Behavior, Teaching Methods
Geographic Terms: Australia, North America, United Kingdom (Great Britain)
ISSN: 0309-8265
Abstract: Contends that geographers in North America, Australia, continental Europe, and developing nations generally teach larger classes than do British geographers. Asserts that British higher education is being transformed from an elite system to a mass educational system. Presents suggestions for teaching large classes. (CFR)
Entry Date: 1995
Accession Number: EJ492024
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN9707203025;JGH01JUN.93;1997Oct28.18:51;v2.3</anid> <title id="AN9707203025-1">TEACHING LARGE CLASSES IN GEOGRAPHY: SOME PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS </title> <p>The focus . . . is on classes in which the possibility of individual relationships between professor and student is precluded, in which not every student who wants to speak in class can be called on, and in which grading essay exams can take up every evening and weekend of the course. (Weimer, 1987, p. 2). </p> <p>ABSTRACT Geographers from a variety of institutions in the UK set out brief practical accounts of successful attempts to hold onto quality while teaching larger classes and more students. An introduction sets these accounts in the context of change in the British higher education system and suggests their relevance to other geographers in mass education systems who are long accustomed to teaching large classes. The accounts are then presented using a common format and set of subheadings. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-2"> Introduction (Alan Jenkins) </hd> <p>Geographers in north America, Australia, continental Europe and, particularly, in the Third World are accustomed to teaching classes that most British geographers would consider `large'. British academics have been accustomed to seminar classes of around five to 15 students, laboratory classes of about 10 to 20 and lectures of approximately 5 to 50. These class sizes reflected British cultural assumptions that only an intellectual elite could benefit from an academic higher education and that quality depended upon close contact between student and teacher. </p> <p>British higher education is now being radically transformed from an elite system to a mass higher education system and one in which both the ratio of students to staff and the class sizes have risen rapidly and look certain to rise even further. </p> <p>Many academics fear that this will result in a drastic decline in quality. Elsewhere, Graham Gibbs and I have argued that it is possible to hold onto something that students and staff can recognise as quality if British academics are willing to consider radical changes in the way in which students are taught and are assessed (Gibbs & Jenkins, 1992). Additionally, it has to be recognised that teaching and assessment methods which emphasise lengthy and frequent contact between teachers and individual students or small groups have to go if quality is to be retained. </p> <p>As we move along the route to mass higher education, it should also be recognised that this will probably result in a very different conception of `quality' from that which has been traditional in British higher education. But to explore that issue further would take us beyond the much more practical focus of these accounts. </p> <p>Academics need to know about practical suggestions for teaching large classes and/or more students. A variety of such guides is now available, aimed at academics in any discipline (e.g. Weimer, 1987; Cryer & Elton, 1992; Gibbs, 1992). These need to be complemented by more discipline-focused suggestions, for many of us are more likely to adopt an idea if we see that it has been developed by someone with our own disciplinary concerns. For example, psychologists and sociologists in north America have brought together publications of discipline-based innovations regarding large classes (Benjamin et al., 1985; McGee, 1991). </p> <p>The innovations reported here are all accounts by British geographers who have successfully adapted others' ideas and developed their own. We hope that you can adopt one or more of them. In adopting these strategies, you should note that in some cases they have been tried for some years and carefully evaluated. In others the innovation is very recent and little formal evaluation has taken place. So, in adapting them to your teaching, you should ensure that you carefully evaluate them--do they really limit staff workload and yet hold on to quality? But that is good practice even with methods that have been extensively tried and evaluated elsewhere. The strategies are all immediately relevant to geographers faced with the problems of teaching very different class sizes and at larger staff-student ratios than they may have been accustomed. However, they are also relevant to those geographers in higher education systems (e.g. the USA) where there is increased political pressure to improve the quality of undergraduate education. What is distinctive about some of the innovations reported here is that they seek to hold onto British conceptions of quality, for example, that meaning has to be negotiated through group discussion, but with much larger groups of students than once prevailed. However, it is likely that this discussion takes place between students in a structure partly shaped by the teacher. The traditional emphasis on discussion between teacher and individual or small groups of students is carefully restricted to those areas where it is most important, such as dissertation supervision. </p> <p>JGHE wishes to publish either more one page accounts as reported here, or full articles, on teaching large geography classes. If you are interested in submitting such an account, write with a brief description of your method or course, preferably set out in a similar way to those described here, and send it to: </p> <p>Alan Jenkins, Centre for Geography in Higher Education, Educational Methods Unit, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Headington, Oxford OX3 OBP, UK. </p> <p>NOTE </p> <p>The case studies reported here were based on posters devised for a workshop session on Teaching Large Classes/Teaching at Higher SSRs organised by the Higher Education Study Group of the Institute of British Geographers at the IBG Annual Conference in Swansea, 1992. </p> <p>REFERENCES </p> <p>BENJAMIN, L.T., DANIEL, R.S. & BREWER, C.L. (1985) Handbook for Teaching Introductory Psychology (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). </p> <p>CRYER, P. & ELTON, E. (1992) Promoting Active Learning in Large Classes (Sheffield University, Staff Development Unit). </p> <p>GIBBS, G. (1992) Lecturing to More Students; Assessing More Students; Problems and Course Strategies; Discussion with More Students; Independent Learning with More Students (Oxford, Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Polytechnic & Colleges Funding Council, Oxford, Brookes University). </p> <p>GIBBS, G. & JENKINS, A. (1992) Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education: maintaining quality with reduced resources (London, Kogan Page). </p> <p>McGEE, R. (1991) Teaching the Mass Class, 2nd Edn (Washington, American Sociological Association). </p> <p>WEIMER, M.G. (1987) Teaching Large Classes Well (San Francisco, Jossey Bass). </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-3"> INNOVATION IN SUMMARY </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-4"> Use of Learning Packages/Course Booklets to Support and Replace Some Pace-to-Pace Teaching </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-5"> INNOVATOR </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-6"> Alan Jenkins, Centre for Geography in Higher Education, Oxford/Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK. </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-7"> What is the Problem? </hd> <p>(a) Numbers of students who need clear direction as to what is required regarding assignments. </p> <p>(b) Numbers of students put undue strain on the library. </p> <p>(c) Increased student numbers put pressure on staff to increase time for face-to-face teaching. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-8"> What Existed Before? </hd> <p>Conventional pattern of lectures, seminars and practicals: students expected to read library sources to support these. What was expected/required with regard to assignments was conveyed by brief handouts and explanations in class and in informal discussions. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-9"> Main Features </hd> <p>Variety of course booklets/learning packages developed. These include: </p> <p>(a) Course guides outlining main themes of course and class sessions, full instructions on all assignments, key reading, past examination papers, etc. </p> <p>(b) Specially written texts--often including previously published material for which copyright permission has been obtained. </p> <p>(c) Fieldwork trails/laboratory guides which enable students to operate relatively independently of the teacher. </p> <p>Such written materials often replace some face-to-face teaching (particularly that which was previously conveyed via lectures); they are designed to help the students work somewhat independency of the teacher and prepare diem for class sessions where the emphasis is on discussion of what they have read and/or done. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-10"> Gains and Losses </hd> <p>--Students now have a clearer idea of what is required of them. They work more independently, produce good work and do not continually ask staff, "what is required?" </p> <p>--Staff contact time significantly reduced. </p> <p>--If well written (and production standards do not have to be high), learning packages are at least as effective (we think more!) at conveying information as lectures and students learn that they have to be well prepared for the limited discussion periods. </p> <p>--Main problems are: </p> <p>(a) Staff may write to impress each other, not to help students. </p> <p>(b) Booklets need (much) time to prepare (including secretarial time). In the long run, staff time may be saved. (We can bid to a college fund to help produce these materials.) </p> <p>(c) Booklets need periodic updating. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-11"> Relevant Reference </hd> <p>Resource based learning, in: J.R. GOLD, A. JENKINS, R. LEE, J. MONK, J. RILEY, I.D.H. SHEPHERD & D.J. UNWIN (1991) Teaching Geography in Higher Education, pp. 84-96 (Oxford, Basil Blackwell). </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-12"> INNOVATION IN SUMMARY </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-13"> Development of a Resource-based First Year Group Practical Class </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-14"> INNOVATOR </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-15"> Mick Healey, Division of Geography, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-16"> What Is the Problem? </hd> <p>--Designing a first year practical course for 120-250 + students (one session of 2 hours per week for 20 weeks) which incorporates geographical and personal transferable skills. </p> <p>--Expected increase in SSRs favoured development of a course which reduced staff inputs. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-17"> What Existed Before? </hd> <p>--Different cartographic, surveying and statistical techniques each week. </p> <p>--Geography and research methods took second place to techniques. </p> <p>--Students worked alone on identical exercises. </p> <p>--Intensive use of staff resources for demonstration and marking. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-18"> Main Features </hd> <p>--Emphasis on students beginning to learn a research process, making informed choices, working effectively in groups (of five to six students) and becoming more responsible for their own learning. </p> <p>--Four, 5-week, open-ended projects concerned with different aspects of geography and emphasising different sets of techniques, methods of presentation and modes of assessment. </p> <p>--Techniques largely self-taught on a `need-to-know' basis by referring to a resource handbook and a course text. </p> <p>--Role of tutors changed to that of facilitators rather than instructors. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-19"> Gains and Losses </hd> <p>--Students enjoy course: over 90% stated that course objectives had been achieved. </p> <p>--Some compulsory statistical mini-exercises needed to be introduced. </p> <p>--Staff supervision and marking loads significantly reduced. </p> <p>--Switching of staff resources into preparation of teaching materials for use by other staff, including teaching assistants, is an important strategy for coping with large class sizes, especially in introductory courses. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-20"> Relevant reference </hd> <p>HEALEY, M.J. (1992) `Curriculum development and `enterprise': group work, resource-based learning and the incorporation of transferable skills into a first year practical course', Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 16, pp. 7-19. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-21"> INNOVATION IN SUMMARY </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-22"> Introduction of Study Packages Especially to First Year Students in Order to Replace Part of the Lecture Programme </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-23"> INNOVATOR </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-24"> David Rolls, School of Geography, Kingston University, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, KT1 2EE, UK </hd> <hd id="AN9707203025-25"> What Is the Problem? </hd> <p>With increasing class sizes (some groups being as large as 180) and with a growing diversity of student backgrounds, reliance solely upon the traditional lecture was unsatisfactory. In addition, staff are under pressure to expand other professional activities such as consultancy. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-26"> What Existed Before? </hd> <p>Theoretical material was delivered by lecture to groups of up to 180 students of varying experience. The tutorial support was minimal. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-27"> Main Features </hd> <p>Up to 25% of a lecture programme is replaced by Study Packages. Each package consists of an Instructional element (aims and objectives, instructional material, progress questions) and a Readings element (articles and chapters, with comments) </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-28"> Gains and Losses </hd> <p>--For staff: Lecture contact is cut by up to 25%. Blocks of time are released for other professional activities. Staff development is enhanced through experience gained in writing flexible learning materials. </p> <p>--For students: They learn at their own pace. They have greater responsibility for their own learning. Their reliance on heavily used library resources is reduced. They receive more explanation and supporting material than they would receive in lectures. </p> <p>--Package preparation is time consuming but benefits accrue after the first year. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-29"> Relevant Reference </hd> <p>GOLD, J.R., JENKINS, A., LEE, R., MONK, J., RILEY, J., SHEPHERD, I.D.H. & UNWIN, D.J. (1991). Teaching geography in higher education: a manual of good practice, pp. 84-96 (Oxford, Basil Blackwell). </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-30">INNOVATION IN SUMMARY</hd> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-31"> Use of Computer-Managed Learning in Quantitative Methods Course </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-32"> INNOVATOR </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-33"> Geoffrey Robinson, Department of Geography, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK. </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-34"> What Is the Problem? </hd1> <p>Initial Problem. In quantitative methods, students commonly attain various levels of incompetency and, to widespread dissatisfaction, are assessed accordingly. The need was to enable the development of student competency. </p> <p>Classes Doubled in 3 Years [40 Arrow right 80]. Numbers now exceed the capability of staff to provide personal feedback at the desired speed and detail. Numbers exceed the capacity of the laboratory (space, computer terminals) so that classes cannot be held in single, self-contained sessions. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-35"> What Existed Before </hd1> <p>--Common exercises set in class, following/accompanying explanatory lecture. Exercises partly completed in class but mostly in students' own time and handed in a week later. Two hours advisory clinics when computer lab staffed. Inadequate to deal with increased numbers. </p> <p>--After completion of exercise a factual quiz attempted, based on numerical answers to the exercise and common to the whole class, answered at and marked by computer. Answers/results released by computer a week later and exercises returned with brief written comments concentrating on interpretation. </p> <p>--Hiatuses between instruction, exercise completion and personal feedback. No remedial action; understanding and end-of-year exam results poor. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-36"> Main Features </hd1> <p>--Control, Administration and Testing of the Learning Process by communication, reporting, curriculum diagnostics, student profiling, student progression, feedback and remediation, issuing and marking of tests, curriculum development. </p> <p>--A study guide (aims, objectives, resources for each module) is accessed through the computer (screen and hard copy). </p> <p>--Builds on class exercises. In full application, activities are specified by computer when the module is selected. Learning still performed through the activity, not the screen, but activity could be computer based. </p> <p>Once activity completed student returns to computer for personal test (hard copy). Alternatives include screen-delivered or pre-printed unique tests and identical class tests to be answered in supervised conditions. </p> <p>--When ready to take the test the student is prompted by the unique set of questions and upon completion is immediately given results and diagnostics relating to each learning objective. Re-tests and reviews are allowed following remedial work, their number and the pass mark being fully controllable. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-37"> Gains and Losses </hd1> <p>--Self-paced, resource-based learning; student-focused process. Improved student performance; review/remediation procedures allow honing of techniques and, with appropriate test items, better understanding of concepts. Staff-student interaction has more tightly defined objectives. Good practices which cope with high SSRs. </p> <p>--Some students dislike student-machine interaction, Increased technical support needed to minimise unsettling system/software failures. Set-up costs in staff time are high. Most benefits accrue to institution from handling larger classes. Payback to staff by running-time savings may take several years. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-38"> Relevant Reference </hd1> <p>ROBINSON, G. (1991) Computer-managed learning (CML), CTICG Newsletter, 3, pp. 2-6. </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-39">INNOVATION IN SUMMARY</hd> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-40"> Large-scale Student Project Operating with Small, Self-controlled Groups </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-41"> INNOVATOR </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-42"> Brian Paul Hindle, Department of Geography, University of Salford, Salford, M5 4WT, UK. </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-43"> What Is the Problem? </hd1> <p>Intake rising from 30 to 70; how to introduce teaching and learning in small groups despite increased numbers. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-44"> What Existed Before? </hd1> <p>Entire First and Second Year taught by formal lectures. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-45"> Main Features </hd1> <p>--Two staff act as Project Leaders; choose a large topic area (e.g. open space in Manchester, Manchester/Salford inner city). </p> <p>--Students are divided into Task Groups of six to eight. </p> <p>--Task groups choose/define their own problem within the topic, using staff as consultants. </p> <p>--Task groups choose own leader, allocate jobs, run meetings, plan, budget, collect/analyse data, present verbal and written report. Most of this is done in students' own time, without supervision, using staff as consultants. </p> <p>--All geographical `techniques' teaching is done through the Project; the Project replaces the former traditional techniques course. Students have opportunity to `demand' relevant topics. Professional skills (organisation, planning, group work, communication) also taught. </p> <p>--Three general Project Meetings per term to monitor progress. </p> <p>--One Task in Year 1; two more in Year 2. </p> <p>--Project has one-third of contact hours and marks in First and second years. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-46"> Gains and Losses </hd1> <p>Gains: Allows small group work; gives students control over content;makes geography seem relevant and practical to students; teaches professional working skills; challenges students (and staff!). </p> <p>Losses: Considerable set-up time for first run. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-47"> Relevant References </hd1> <p>HARRISON, C. & HINDLE, B.P. (1991) Integrating enterprise into the geography curriculum: the Salford experience since 1987, in: C. CLARK (Ed.) Geography and Enterprise in Higher Education, pp. 33-38 (Lancaster, University of Lancaster and Institute of British Geographers Higher Education Study Group). </p> <p>HINDLE, B.P. (1993) The Project: putting student-controlled, small-group work and transferable skills at the core of a geography course, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 17, pp. 11-20. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-48"> INNOVATION IN SUMMARY </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-49"> Introducing Small Group Tutorials </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-50"> INNOVATOR </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-51"> Brian Paul Hindle, Department of Geography, University of Salfort, Salfort, M5 4WT, UK. </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-52"> What Is the Problem? </hd1> <p>How to introduce small group first year tutorials, whilst intake increases from 30 to 70. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-53"> What Existed Before? </hd1> <p>Weekly tutorials in first and second years, in groups of about six students, with topics chosen by tutors. Assessed work three times a term. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-54"> Main Features </hd1> <p>--First year tutorials held fortnightly, in groups of two. Work specifically given for each tutorial, related to first year lecture courses, set by the course lecturers. Cribs are provided for tutors. </p> <p>--Second year tutorials held twice a term in groups of six to eight, to discuss specific topics (e.g. dissertation proposals, exam/seminar techniques). </p> <p>--Staff contact hours are almost the same as before. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-55"> Gains and Losses </hd1> <p>Gains: Very small group first year tutorials doing work perceived as relevant to the course. Students cannot `hide' or fail to prepare work. Student reaction is good; they get personal attention. Lecturer reaction is also generally good; better and deeper discussions are possible. </p> <p>Losses: Lecturers have to repeat tutorials (usually four times); but they get very good by the end of each topic! Loss of most second year tutorials (but this lack of contact is compensated for by other changes, principally by close liaison with staff in Project work). </p> <hd id="AN9707203025-56">INNOVATION IN SUMMARY</hd> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-57"> Every Member of Staff Has One Term Per Year with No `Formal Teaching' </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-58"> INNOVATOR </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-59"> Alan Jenkins, Centre for Geography in Higher Education, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK. </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-60"> What Is the Problem? </hd1> <p>(a) Staff teaching large compulsory courses have a greater teaching load than other staff. </p> <p>(b) Staff have less time to do research/consultancy but are under greater institutional pressure to do so. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-61"> What Existed Before? </hd1> <p>(a) (Large) compulsory courses only taught by select few in department, reflecting mixture of masochism, interest, commitment, year joined the unit, etc. </p> <p>(b) Some staff found their teaching spread across all three terms, others had `fixed' it to give them at least one `light' term. </p> <p>(c) Only seven academic staff in the department. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-62"> Main Features </hd1> <p>Innovation made at major curriculum revision. Central design principles included: </p> <p>(a) All staff should have one term with no teaching (except for seeing personal students and dissertation supervision). </p> <p>(b) All staff should be equally responsible for teaching first year courses. </p> <p>(c) All staff should be equally responsible for advanced core (compulsory) courses. </p> <p>(d) Beyond (b) and (c), though all staff should be responsible for equal numbers of specialist courses, no attempt was made to ensure equal numbers of students on these courses. </p> <p>(e) Individual staff were free to decide which specialist courses to teach. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-63"> Gains and Losses </hd1> <p>--Staff certainly appreciate having one term in which they can get on with research. </p> <p>--Perhaps some staff abuse this by not being available to personal and dissertation students as much as the students and other staff would wish. </p> <p>--By luck and design it proved easy to create an educationally viable structure of compulsory and optional courses, while preserving the principle of one term out of three with no formal teaching. </p> <p>--We operate a three term academic year. With a two semester year this idea might have to be modified (e.g. all staff have one semester with no teaching every second year). </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-64"> INNOVATION IN SUMMARY </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-65"> Self-paced Distance Learning Packages for Large Group Fieldwork </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-66"> INNOVATOR </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-67"> Peter Keene, Geography Unit, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 OBP, UK. </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-68"> Problem: too many students, too few staff </hd1> <p>Teachers are facilitators, encouraging students towards Autonomous Learning (where sufficiently motivated students have acquired the skills to control and direct their own education). Some students achieve autonomous learning status early, others require greater tutor assistance (staff time). Traditional tertiary teaching methods have favoured tutor-orientated programmes where a favourable SSR (student:staff ratio) is critical. The success of this system is threatened by increasingly large classes, an immediate effect of which is to decrease the individual contact time between staff and student in the field. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-69"> Response: distance learning packages for self-paced fieldwork </hd1> <p>If your field classes consist of open-air lectures, then larger groups probably present few difficulties other than hoarseness! However, if you embrace the tradition of problem-solving activities with small groups guided by the tutor, then larger groups pose new problems of tutor availability. One strategy for the move effective use of declining staff availability is to provide better structured Distance Learning Packages (material which encourages work undertaken without the direct supervision of the tutor). </p> <p>Shrewdly written, these packages can provide reassurance and support for hesitant students without recourse to the tutor. Tutor time can thus be conserved either for those who are outstripping the scope of the package, or for those who need additional assistance to accomplish the task. Such packages might include reference material, written information, instructions, guidance on specific exercises, manuals, guides or trails. Three approaches are summarised below. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-70"> Main Features </hd1> <p>Manuals: Non site-specific reference packages providing information on a "need to know" basis, to enable students to interpret a specific site. An `interactive' manual encourages student participation in problem solving </p> <p>Trails: A brooklet, usually assuming some thematic progression, linking a series of sites selected for study, assuming no tutor presence. Attributes to be considered in making trails suitable as a student exercise include: </p> <p>--Institutions clearly explaining route and the nature of the exercise (not necessarily prescriptive directions). </p> <p>--Stimulation through questions, tasks and comment to encourage active participation and self-directed investigation. </p> <p>--Reference material built into the trail or in manual form and availability of appropriate instrumentation. All to provide an exercise sufficient clearly explained and structured to give support and reassurance to weaker students whilst not constraining originality and deeper investigations by stronger students. </p> <p>Students produced material: A startlingly successful alternative is to turn the tables completely so that it is the students themselves who are preparing the guides, trails or manuals for a specified target audience. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-71"> Gains and losses </hd1> <p>Plus Points: </p> <p>--Although they do not save tutor time, they do redistribute it, giving more time in the field to deal with problems. </p> <p>--Is is tutor-stimulating, focusing attention on central needs of students as they advance towards self-paced. autonomous learning. </p> <p>--Student preparation of packages (trails, guides, manuals) is a valid and stimulating exercise in its own right and is a suitable fieldwork task for students, emphasising problems of selection, explanation and communication. </p> <p>--Early introduction to self-paced, distance learning packages underscores the route to autonomous learning. They reflect positive advantages in throwing learning responsibility onto students whilst at the same time providing a structured safety net. </p> <p>--A published trail or manual is capable of reaching a vast extra-mural audience. </p> <p>Minus Points: </p> <p>--Distance learning packages are only appropriate for part of the student's educational experience. </p> <p>--They are not a good substitute for stimulation interaction with a perceptive tutor. </p> <p>--Without care they can encourage a low standard deviation, supporting the weak but confining the high-flier. </p> <p>--Consideration needs to be given to the safety of students when not under immediate supervision. </p> <p>--It is not a way of saving staff time. Preparing packages is time consuming. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-72"> Relevant References </hd1> <p>Manuals KEENE, P. (1982) The Examination of Exposures of Pleistocene Sediments in the Field: a self-paced exercise, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 6, pp. 109-121. </p> <p>Trails KEENE, P. (1989) Trails on Trial, Environmental Interpretation, 44, pp. 15-16. </p> <p>Students PETERSON, J.F. (1984) Preparing Environmental Interpretation Literature, a strategy for undergraduate teaching. Journal of Geography, April, pp. 73-78. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-73"> INNOVATION IN SUMMARY </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-74"> Student-ked Problem-orientated Local Fieldwork Group Projects </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-75"> INNOVATOR </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-76"> Paul Rodaway and Peter Slowe, Geography Section, West Sussex Institute, Bognor Regis, P021 1HR, UK. </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-77"> What Is the Problem? </hd1> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) Class sizes have more than doubled in 2 years whilst available staff resources have remained unchanged, </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) The co teaching of BEd and BA students and increasing numbers of mature and overseas students have generated a complex mix of learner needs. </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) More students and higher costs (including accommodation and transport), but the fieldwork budget has remained frozen. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-78"> What Existed Before? </hd1> <p>A 4-day residential fieldcourse operated with teacher-directed, formal exercises at various sites in Somerset and Devon. With previous group sizes this required a minimum of two members of staff. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-79"> Main Features </hd1> <p>The Coast and Dawns Project was introduced in 1988-89 as part of the second year geography course Environment and Planning. This project was developed around a number of principles: </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref4">1</reflink>) local area study, with am emphasis on specific local issues/problems </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>) integration of fieldwork projects into one course; and leading to a double-weighted assignment; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref6">3</reflink>) student choice of study areas and topics/problems to be investigated (in consultation with tutors); </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>) working in small groups (2-4 students) each organising their own field visits and allocation of research tasks; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>) fieldwork to take place over 8-10 weeks with advisory tutorials and an informal presentation to the whole class at the end of term. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-80"> Gains and Losses </hd1> <p>Gains: </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>) students now have greater responsibility for their learning; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>) the approach widens student skill development to include time-management and team-building, in addition to general research and analysis skills; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>) an extended period m which fieldwork can take place and the use of small groups has enabled timetable clashes to be avoided and allowed fieldwork to be more adaptable to the problems of data collection and processing; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>) local fieldwork gives students greater opportunity to make repeated visits to field sites and adequately consult local experts; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref13">5</reflink>) importantly, this approach enables one tutor to monitor a wider range of fieldwork projects with a greater number of students, and uses no more than the original staff time allocated for the Environment and Planning course; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>) the tutor now spends more time directly with small groups of students assisting them in their specific problems in a tutorial role. This has greatly assisted less able students and chose lacking previous experience of fieldwork projects. </p> <p>Losses: </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>) an overall coherence may be lost with a wide range of different group projects, though the end of term informal presentations help to bring out common themes; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>) sometimes intra-group conflicts can arise and there is a need to pay particular attention to developing team skills and ensuring fairness of assessment; </p> <p>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref17">3</reflink>) it is sometimes difficult to relate a specific local issue to relevant, up-to-date comparative and theoretical literature. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-81"> Relevant Reference </hd1> <p>JENKINS, A. (1992) Over the hills and far away: retaining field study experience despite larger classes, m: G. GIBBS & A. JENKINS, Teaching Large Classes in Higher Education, pp. 117-129 (London, Kogam Page). </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-82"> INNOVATION IN SUMMARY </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-83"> Small Group Work with Large Classes </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-84"> INNOVATOR </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-85"> Caroline Miffs and Lindsey McEwen, Geography and Geology, Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education, Cheltenham, GL50 3PP, UK. </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-86"> What Is the Problem? </hd1> <p>How to encourage active learning through small group work in large classes, given these challenges </p> <p>--Growing SSRs: introductory classes of 150, higher level classes up to 80. </p> <p>--Increased push for active learning and development of `transferable skills'. </p> <p>--Pressure on library resources. </p> <p>Problems facing Geography in a Modular system: loss of academic tutorials; need to `sell' geography; need to work within two- or three-hour slots. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-87"> What Existed Before? </hd1> <p>We are operating within a modular system that is 18 months old. Previous teaching of undergraduate course routes centred upon traditional lectures, seminars and practicals supported by academic tutorials. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-88"> Main Features </hd1> <p>Group work as a continuum: At one end, short-duration activities dependent on teachers; at other end, longer-duration independent activities. </p> <p>Micro-scale </p> <p>--Staff-directed activities introduced in handout or verbally by lecturer. </p> <p>--Short bursts of group activity (e.g. 10 minutes) interspersed with general discussion or lecturer commentary. </p> <p>--`Buzz groups' to share individual understanding of concepts introduced in lectures. </p> <p>--Worksheet introducing new concepts, with periodic input from lecturer. </p> <p>Meso-scale </p> <p>--40 or 50 minutes of group activity. </p> <p>--Followed by a plenary session. </p> <p>--Often focused on an academic article or other written, visual or aural stimuli. </p> <p>--Discussion of reading followed by the production of a written report, oral presentation or a poster that cam be presented to the whole class in the plenary session. </p> <p>--A role-play exercise with student input in role selection. </p> <p>--Practical problem-solving where group devises a solution. </p> <p>Macro-scale </p> <p>--Sustained group work, involving fieldwork or other research-based activities and in operation over a period of I or more weeks. </p> <p>--Groups responsible for planning and preparation of a self-paced activity. </p> <p>--Final reporting/debriefing session may involve group assessment. </p> <p>--Fieldwork preparation and execution (students watch video of fieldwork area, devise fieldwork proposal, execute fieldwork followed by peer assessment of group work). </p> <p>--Learning syndicates where student groups share responsibility for their own learning programme. </p> <p>--Role-playing seminars where students prepare the roles prior to seminar. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-89"> Gains and Losses </hd1> <p>Gains </p> <p>--Positive evaluations from students. </p> <p>--Variety of active skills developed. </p> <p>--Improved student self-confidence and good staff-student relations. </p> <p>--Time saved in intensive classroom contact. </p> <p>--Breaks up awkward time slots. </p> <p>Losses </p> <p>--High cost of reprographics and consumables. </p> <p>--Time spent in preparing information packs, handouts, etc.; problem of `presentation inflation' as expected standards of presentation increase (i.e. students can spend too much time preparing for presentations). </p> <p>--Logistics of rooming, requiring for each timeslot one large lecture room plus small rooms suitable for small group work. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-90"> INNOVATION IN SUMMARY </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-91"> Use of Tape Recorder to Comment on Student Dissertation Drafts </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-92"> INNOVATOR </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-93"> Alan Jenkins, Centre for Geography in Higher Education, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK. </hd1> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-94"> What Is the Problem? </hd1> <p>How to give constructive feedback on dissertation drafts, given the increasing number of students each teacher must supervise. The dissertation is a central test of quality of the student and their degree classification. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-95"> What Existed Before </hd1> <p>Students handed in draft chapters on which I wrote comments. I then saw each student to discuss my comments. (Generally the student did not see the comments before the tutorial discussion with me.) As I was often in my office students could readily drop in and see me for further discussions. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-96"> Main Features </hd1> <p>Students hand in to me (or secretary) draft chapter(s) and a blank cassette tape. As I read the draft I make tape recorded comments--only writing on the texts numbers to help students locate my specific comments. Student picks up tape from secretary and makes appointment for tutorial. (I am now only readily available at certain specified office hours.) Student required to listen fully to my comments before seeing me. If they have not, I refuse to see them--they get the `message'. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-97"> Gains and Losses </hd1> <p>Gains considerable; losses nil. I give full comments and much more quickly than by writing--and with far more expression. Also my writing can be illegible. When students see me they are well prepared for the session and my time is used to maximum effect. Students are very positive regarding this method. They comment that they receive far better, fuller and more personal feedback than written comments. Some say it helps them to organise their time and a few have then tape-recorded the tutorials so they do not waste time writing piles of suggestions. In my experience all students have easy access to a tape recorder. We also have them available in the departmental office for short loan. </p> <hd1 id="AN9707203025-98"> Relevant Reference </hd1> <p>CRYER, P. & KAIKUMBA, N. (1987) Audio-cassette tape as a means of giving feedback on written work, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 12, pp. 148-153. </p> <aug> <p>By ALAN JENKINS, Oxford Brookes University (Editor) , PETER DANIEL, Bedford College of Higher Education , MICK HEALEY, Coventry University , BRIAN PAUL HINDLE, Salford University , PETER KEENE, Oxford Brookes University , CAROLINE MILLS & LINDSEY McEWEN, Cheltenham & Gloucester College of Higher Education , GEOFFREY ROBINSON, Leicester University , PAUL RODAWAY & PETER SLOWE, West Sussex Institute and DAVID ROLLS, Kingston University </p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib3" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib4" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib5" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib6" firstref="ref14"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ492024
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Electronic Resource
PubTypeId: electronicResource
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teaching Large Classes in Geography: Some Practical Suggestions.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jenkins%2C+Alan%22">Jenkins, Alan</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Geography+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Journal of Geography in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 1993 17(2):149-165.
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1993
– Name: Audience
  Label: Intended Audience
  Group: Audnce
  Data: Teachers; Practitioners
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Guides - Classroom - Teacher<br />Reports - Descriptive<br />Journal Articles
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Organization%22">Class Organization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Class+Size%22">Class Size</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Crowding%22">Crowding</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developing+Nations%22">Developing Nations</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Change%22">Educational Change</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Strategies%22">Educational Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Geography+Instruction%22">Geography Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Innovation%22">Instructional Innovation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Behavior%22">Teacher Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22North+America%22">North America</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom+%28Great+Britain%29%22">United Kingdom (Great Britain)</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0309-8265
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Contends that geographers in North America, Australia, continental Europe, and developing nations generally teach larger classes than do British geographers. Asserts that British higher education is being transformed from an elite system to a mass educational system. Presents suggestions for teaching large classes. (CFR)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1995
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ492024
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ492024
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 149
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Class Organization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Class Size
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Crowding
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developing Nations
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Change
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Geography Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Innovation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: North America
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teaching Large Classes in Geography: Some Practical Suggestions.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jenkins, Alan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 1993
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0309-8265
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 17
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Geography in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1