Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:23:54.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Active Learning Strategies to Promote Deep Learning in the Undergraduate Paleontology Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Margaret M. Yacobucci
Margaret M. Yacobucci*
Affiliation:
190 Overman Hall, Department of Geology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403 USA
Get access

Abstract

In the most effective learning environments, undergraduates go beyond memorization to become more deeply engaged with the material. Active learning approaches, in which students participate in activities that result in improved learning, promote this sort of deep experience. Educational theories such as constructivism and recent research in cognitive and learning sciences demonstrate the importance of allowing students opportunities to confront misconceptions, reason out solutions, work collaboratively, and construct their own understandings of key concepts. Numerous studies have documented improved learning in classes using active learning approaches when compared to traditional class formats. Various obstacles to implementing active learning strategies exist, such as student and faculty resistance to such practices and the academic reward structure, which penalizes faculty who invest time in innovative teaching. These obstacles, however, are not insurmountable—effective communication of the benefits of active learning for improving student learning outcomes and the recruitment and retention of STEM majors can help. Paleontology instructors have a wide variety of active learning techniques to choose from, including some that make use of our field's uniquely visual and temporal characteristics (e.g., concept sketches, timelines), current research areas (e.g., textual analysis, case studies, guided inquiry), and classic controversies (e.g., role-playing, debates, and panel discussions). New technologies, such as classroom response devices and Web 2.0 tools, can facilitate many of these activities both in and out of the classroom. Incorporating active learning approaches into paleontology courses can help instructors clarify their course goals and learning outcomes while empowering students to succeed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Paleontological Society Special Publications , Volume 12: Teaching Paleontology in the 21st Century , 2012 , pp. 135 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., and Tytler, R. 2011. Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333:1096–1097.Google Scholar
Anderson, L. W., and Krathwohl, D. R. (eds.) 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Abridged Edition. Long-man, New York, 302 p.Google Scholar
Anderson, W. A., Banerjee, U., Drennan, C. L., Elgin, S. C. R., Epstein, I. R., Handelsman, J., Hatfull, G. F., Losick, R., O'Dowd, D. K., Olivera, B. M., Strobel, S. A., Walker, G. C., and Warner, I. M. 2011. Changing the culture of science education at research universities. Science, 331:152–153.Google Scholar
Arthurs, L., and Templeton, A. 2009. Coupled collaborative in-class activities and individual follow-up homework promote interactive engagement and improve student learning outcomes in a college-level Environmental Geology course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57:356–371.Google Scholar
Atkin, J. M., and Karplus, R. 1962. Discovery or invention? Science Teacher, 29(5):45.Google Scholar
Bain, K. 2004. What the Best College Teachers Do. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, M.A., 207 p.Google Scholar
Barkly, E., Cross, K. P., and Major, C. H. 2005. Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 303 p.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S. (ed.) 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David McKay Company, Inc., New York, 207 p.Google Scholar
Bonwell, C. C., and Eison, J. A. 1991. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. George Washington University School of Education and Human Development, Washington, D.C., 128 p.Google Scholar
Boud, D., and Feletti, G. I. (eds.) 1997. The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning, 2nd Ed. Kogan Page Ltd., London, 344 p.Google Scholar
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (eds.). 2000. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. National Research Council, Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Washington, D.C., 374 p.Google Scholar
Braxton, J. M., Luckey, W., and Helland, P. 2002. Institutionalizing a broader view of scholarship through Boyer's four domains (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 29, No. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley Periodicals, San Francisco, 162 p.Google Scholar
Burrowes, P. A. 2003. A student-centered approach to teaching general biology that really works: Lord's constructivist model put to a test. The American Biology Teacher, 65:491–502.Google Scholar
Bybee, R. W., Buchwald, C. E., Crissman, S., Heil, D. R., Kuerbis, P. J., Matsumoto, C., and McInerney, J. D. 1989. Science and Technology Education for the Elementary Years: Frameworks for Curriculum and Instruction. Washington, D.C.: The National Center for Improving Instruction, Washington, D. C., 121 p.Google Scholar
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson Powell, J., Westbrook, A., and Landes, N. 2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and Effectiveness. A Report Prepared for the Office of Science Education, National Institutes of Health. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), Colorado Springs, C. O., 80 p.Google Scholar
Chasteen, S., Matrix, S., King, B. C., and Phelan, J. 2010. The Active Class. A multi-author blog at http://theactiveclass.com.Google Scholar
Chasteen, S. V., Perkins, K. K., Beale, P. D., Pollock, S. J., and Wieman, C. E. 2011. A thoughtful approach to instruction: Course transformation for the rest of us. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4):24–30.Google Scholar
Clary, R. M., and Wandersee, J. H. 2010. Scientific caricatures in the earth science classroom: An alternative assessment for meaningful science learning. Science and Education, 19:21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. 2001. Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69:970–977.Google Scholar
Deslauriers, L, Schelew, E., and Wieman, C. 2011. Improved learning in a large-enrollment physics class. Science, 332:862–864.Google Scholar
Donovan, M. S., and Bransford, J. D. (eds.). 2005. How Students Learn: History, Mathematics, and Science in the Classroom. Committee on How People Learn: A Targeted Report for Teachers. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 632 p.Google Scholar
Edens, K. M. 2000. Preparing problem solvers for the 21st century through problem-based learning. College Teaching, 48:55–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenkraft, A. 2003. Expanding the 5E model. The Science Teacher, 70(6):56–59.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., and Teschrömer, C. 1993. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100:363–406.Google Scholar
Fairweather, J. 2005. Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76:401–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairweather, J. 2009. Linking Evidence and Promising Practices in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Undergraduate Education: A Status Report for The National Academies National Research Council Board of Science Education. Center for Higher and Adult Education, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Farrell, J. J., Moog, R. S., and Spencer, J. N. 1999. A Guided Inquiry Chemistry Course. Journal of Chemical Education, 76:570–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felder, R. M. 2011. Hang in there! Dealing with student resistance to learner-centered teaching. Chemical Engineering Education, 45:131–132.Google Scholar
Felder, R. M., and Brent, R. 2009. Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4).Google Scholar
Fink, L. D. 2003. Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 295 p.Google Scholar
Freeman, S., Haak, D., and Wenderoth, M. P. 2011. Increased course structure improves performance in introductory biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10:175–186.Google Scholar
Fulwiler, T. 1987. Teaching with Writing. Heineman, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 158 p.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. J., and Aschner, M. J. 1963. A preliminary report on analyses of classroom interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9:183–194.Google Scholar
Grunert O'Brien, J., Mills, B. J., and Cohen, M. W. 2008. The Course Syllabus: A Learning-Centered Approach. 2nd edition. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 132 p.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. 1956. The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53:267–293.Google Scholar
Gutwill-Wise, J. P. 2001. The impact of active and context-based learning in introductory chemistry courses: An early evaluation of the modular approach. Journal of Chemical Education, 78: 684–690.Google Scholar
Haak, D. C., Hillerislambers, J., Pitre, E., and Freeman, S. 2011. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science, 332:1213–1216.Google Scholar
Hake, R. R. 1998. Interactive engagement vs. traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66:64–74.Google Scholar
Handelsman, J., Ebert-May, D., Beichner, R., Bruns, P., Chang, A., Dehaan, R., Gentile, J., Lauffer, S., Stewart, J., Tilghman, S. M., and Wood, W. B. 2004. Scientific teaching. Science, 304:521–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henderson, C., and Dancy, M. H. 2007. Barriers to the use of research-based instructional strategies: The influence of both individual and situational characteristics. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 3(020102):1–14.Google Scholar
Herreid, C. F. 1994. Case studies in science: A novel method of science education. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23:221–229.Google Scholar
Herron, M. D. 1971. The nature of scientific enquiry. Educational Psychologist, 79:171–212.Google Scholar
Hrabowski Iii, F. A. 2011. Boosting minorities in science. Science, 331:125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrabowski Iii, F. A., and Maton, K. I. 2009. Change institutional culture, and you change who goes into science. Academe, 95(3):11–15.Google Scholar
Jacoby, B. 1996. Service-learning in today's higher education, p. 3–25. In B. Jacoby and Associates (eds.), Service-Learning in Higher Education: Concepts and Practices. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 380 p. Google Scholar
Johnson, J. K., and Reynolds, S. J. 2005. Concept sketches – Using student- and instructor-generated, annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53:85–95.Google Scholar
Khourey-Bowers, C. 2011. Active learning strategies: The top 10. The Science Teacher, 78(4):38–42.Google Scholar
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 256 p.Google Scholar
Kolodner, J. L., Crismon, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., and Puntambekar, S. 1998. Learning by design from theory to practice. Proceedings, Third International Conference on the Learning Sciences, pp. 16–22.Google Scholar
Kort, B., and Reilly, R. 2002. A pedagogical model for teaching scientific domain knowledge. 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Boston, p.T3A-13–T3A-17.Google Scholar
Krauss, D. A., Salame, I. I., and Goodwyn, L. N. 2010. Using photographs as case studies to promote active learning in biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40:72–76.Google Scholar
Kuh, G. D. 2008. High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities, Washington, D.C., 44 p.Google Scholar
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., E. J. Whitt, and Associates. 2005. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 370 p.Google Scholar
Johnstone, A. H., and Percival, F. 1976. Attention breaks in lectures. Education in Chemistry, 13(2):49–50.Google Scholar
Lawson, A., Abraham, M., and Renner, J. 1989. A Theory of Instruction: Using the Learning Cycle to Teach Science Concepts and Thinking Skills. NARST Monograph One. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Kansas State University, Manhattan, K. S. 136 p.Google Scholar
Lee, W. T., and Jabot, M. E. 2011. Incorporating active learning techniques into a genetics class. Journal of College Science Teaching, 40(4):94–100.Google Scholar
Leech, M. L., Howell, D. G., and Egger, A. E. 2004. A guided inquiry approach to learning the geology of the U.S. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52: 368–373.Google Scholar
Lewis, S. E., and Lewis, J. E. 2005. Departing from lectures: An evaluation of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82:135–139.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E. 2006. Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74:118–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyman, F. 1987. Think-Pair-Share: An expanding teaching technique. MAA-CIE Cooperative News, 1:1–2.Google Scholar
Macdonald, R. H., and Korinek, L. 1995. Cooperative-learning activities in large entry-level geology courses. Journal of Geological Education, 43:341–345.Google Scholar
Markley, C. T., Miller, H., Kneeshaw, T., and Herbert, B. E. 2009. The relationship between instructors' conceptions of geoscience learning and classroom practice at a research university. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57:265–274.Google Scholar
Marton, F., and Säljö, R. 1976. On qualitative differences in learning I: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46:4–11.Google Scholar
Mazur, E. 1996. Are science lectures a relic of the past? Physics World, 9:13–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazur, E. 1997. Peer Instruction: A User's Manual. Series in Educational Innovation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N. J., 253 p.Google Scholar
Mazur, E. 2009. Farewell, lecture? Science, 323:50–51.Google Scholar
McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., and Owens, K. D. 2003. Assessment and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51:205–216.Google Scholar
McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D., Knott, J. R., Van Horn, S., Borowski, W., Dick, J., Foos, A., Malone, M., McGrew, H., Greer, L., and Heaney, P. J. 2006. Using conceptests to assess and improve student conceptual understanding in introductory geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54:61–68.Google Scholar
McConnell, D. A., and Van Der Hoeven Kraft, K. J. 2011. Affective domain and student learning in the geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 59:106–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, M. 2010. More than writing-to-learn. The Science Teacher, 77(1):32–36.Google Scholar
McKeachie, W. J., and Svinicki, M. 2006. McKeachie's Teaching Tips: Strategies, Research, and Theory for College and University Teachers. Twelfth Ed. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 407 p.Google Scholar
Mervis, J. 2010. Reducing attrition of STEM majors. Science, 330:306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michael, J. 2006. Where's the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30:159–167.Google Scholar
Middendorf, J., and Kalish, A. 1996. The “change-up” in lectures. National Teaching and Learning Forum 5(2): 1–5.Google Scholar
Mora, G. 2010. Peer instruction and lecture tutorials equally improve student learning in introductory geology classes. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58:286–296.Google Scholar
Narum, J. 2008. Transforming undergraduate programs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Looking back and looking ahead. Liberal Education, 94(2):12–19.Google Scholar
Nathan, M. J., and Alibali, M. W. 2010. Learning sciences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1:329–345.Google ScholarPubMed
National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. 2010. Case Collection. Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://sciencecases.lib.buffalo.edu/cs/collection.Google Scholar
National Survey of Student Engagement. 2005. Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research: Bloomington, IN, 60 p.Google Scholar
Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., and Schwartz, M. J. 2008. The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49:469–494.Google Scholar
Novak, J. D. 1990. Concept maps and Vee diagrams: Two metacognitive tools for science and mathematics education. Instructional Science, 19: 29–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. 2005. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 848 p.Google Scholar
Paulson, D. R., and Faust, J. L. 1998. Active learning in the college classroom. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 9:3–24.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. 1967. Logique et Connaissance Scientifique, Encyclopédie de la Pléiade. Éditions Gallimard, Paris, 1345 p.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. 1973. To Understand Is To Invent. Gross-man, New York, 148 p.Google Scholar
Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. 1969. The Psychology of the Child. Translated from the French by H. Weaver. Basic Books, Inc., New York, 173 p.Google Scholar
Prince, M. 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93:223–232.Google Scholar
Ramsden, P. 2003. Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Second Edition. Routledge Falmer, London, 272 p.Google Scholar
SERC. 2009. Teaching Paleontology in the 21st Century. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/paleo/index.html.Google Scholar
Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N. M. 1997. Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO., 429 p.Google Scholar
Svinicki, M. 1995. Using cognitive theories to improve teaching. The Teaching Professor, 9(4):3–4.Google Scholar
Temple, S. 1994. Thought made visible – the value of sketching. Co-Design Journal, 1:16–25.Google Scholar
Terezini, P. T., Cabrera, A. F., Colbeck, C. L., Parente, J. M., and Bjorklund, S. A. 2001. Collaborative learning vs. lecture/ discussion: Students' reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90:123–130.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, B. J. 1995. Specific strategies for successfully using the “jigsaw” technique for working in groups in non lecture-based courses. Journal of Geological Education, 43: 322–326.Google Scholar
Van Der Hoeven Kraft, K., Srogi, L., Husman, J., Semken, S., and Fuhrman, M. 2011. Engaging students to learn through the affective domain: A new framework for teaching in the geosciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 59:71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varricchio, D. J., Sereno, P. C., Zhao, X., Tan, L. Wilson, J. A., and Lyon, G. H. 2008. Mud-trapped herd captures evidence of distinctive dinosaur sociality. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 53:567–578.Google Scholar
Wankat, P. C. 2002. The Effective, Efficient Professor: Teaching Scholarship, and Service. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 292 p.Google Scholar
Webb, T., and Burgin, S. 2009. Engaged service learning—Implications for higher education. Journal of Learning Design, 3:41–56.Google Scholar
Weimer, M. 2002. Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 258 p.Google Scholar
Wieman, C. 2007. Why not try a scientific approach to science education? Change, 39(5):9–15.Google Scholar
Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. 2005. Understanding by Design. Expanded 2nd Edition. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, V.A., 382 p.Google Scholar
Yuretich, R. F. 2004. The effects of course redesign on an upper-level geochemistry course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 52:277–283.Google Scholar
Zull, J. E. 2004. The art of changing the brain. Educational Leadership, 62:68–72.Google Scholar