Teaching observation 1&2

Stef came to watch me teach a level 1 class on wind power and I observed Sarah’s on-line course on pre-hospital care for people with long term conditions.

My students have already had an introduction to wind power in on of their first semester classes in preparation for a field activity where they collected data on public attitudes to wind power in North Wales. But this introduction focussed very much on public perception in relation to on-shore wind. We had not yet covered how wind turbine work and other challenges associated with harnessing wind power on and off shore.

So the purpose of the class was to provide them with an overview of how wind is generated, how much energy is in the wind and how that energy is then harnessed. The plan was to then go on to get the students to think about and research what the challenges in wind power development might be. The initial plan for the class was a more traditional lecture, but with a series of mathematical equations which the students had to solve to calculate things like wind power based on speed, wind at height and tip speed ratio. At the end of the session I planned to get the students to identify potential barriers to development based on the information given in the rest of the session, then share their ideas with the rest of the class.
Unfortunately my students are rubbish at turning up in time for 9am lectures, and we had a course evaluation to do. So I didn’t actually start teaching until 9:30. As a result I had to re-evaluate what I could actually deliver in the remaining time and still allow the students to have a break.

Timing

Timing was one of Stef’s observations. This is something I’ve always struggled with, but it probably stems from the planning of the whole module in the first place. One 2hr class is not enough to provide a full overview of wind power (or actually most of the renewable technologies, they could all be modules in their own right!). So how can I change this?

1. Change the content: given that the Tory Government in its infinite wisdom and the “greenest government ever” plans to gut onshore wind subsidies, next year I can probably afford to spend less time on the issues and constraints of onshore wind. But this allows for more focus on offshore wind (which is apparently acceptable to the electorate). In fairness this may be a good thing, given the amount of off shore wind resource potential that the UK has. But then I’m not teaching just UK students. Onshore wind has great potential else where in the world and it is therefore important that students understand the benefits and constraints of both.
2. Flip the classroom so that students do more pre-class work and the class focussed on discussion rather than me presenting information. This should also help develop the students research and digital skills, which was one of Stef’s other concerns. Being more traditional in style of delivery this class was very much pen, paper and calculator based. So at no point during the class did the strings use a smartphone, tablet or PC.
3. Put less in and given them some very specific reading to do. Based on my analysis of the MOODLE reports my students don’t read a lot of what I post on the VLE or only read the first thing in the list. I probably need to explore why this is in more detail, but based on discussions I’ve had with my second years it may be because I provide too much information. Based on my discussion with Sarah where I “observed” her on-line  course providing small, but critical chunks of information works well for those who haven’t studied for a period of time. I think that this principle probably hold true for first year students too. They are trying to make a transition back into academia as a mature student or away from a very prescriptive and dieted form of learning in high school. In both cases being bombarded with information is probably not as helpful as I think it is. It probably just confuses them and makes it hard for them to work out what is important. More reading could then be provided at a later date.

Increasing digital skill in class. 

For this particular session I could develop a spreadsheet of data and ask students to model windpseed and power. I could (if I can find an app or get my paws on some equipment) also get them to collect their own windpseed data then do some modelling to calculate city centre wind potential…..

Another option may be to “gamify” the calculation part of class using Socrative space race. This way the students could work together to get the answer, it would force them all to work the answer through, as I’m not convinced all of them did the calculations. However I think one needs to be careful with this as while I like competition and research shows that it seems to add a lot to engagement, students also need to know that care needs to be taken, attention to detail is vital and that calculations should not be rushed.

Again, thinking back to Sarah’s online course I could also build some more interaction into MOODLE (while bearing in mind the point above about too much info!) such as a post class quiz, discussion/forum posts about the different technologies and how they are portrayed in the media. However as Stef pointed out sometimes there is no substitute for drawing on a big sheet of paper  to help explain something. I was trying to explain atmospheric turbulence, created by buildings and forestry etc and its impact on wind power. The students weren’t following my verbal description and I didn’t have it on a PowerPoint slide, so I reverted to drawing on a flip chart. Which seemed to work well. But I could also have got the students to look up a diagram of video themselves then shared that.
Academic content & research informed teaching

The academic content (or lack thereof) in my lectures was one of the issues raised by my HoD in my last teaching assessment. So it has been an area that I’ve been trying to focus on. Stef felt that the content was good for this particular class, but it is something that I have to do more on. Renewable power is not an area that I am “research active” in, but there is plenty of data in this field. I just need to filter out what is too engineering focussed and may be too higher level of my students. Their focus is not on how to build renew able technology, but to understand how and where it can be developed, the key information needed to do so (and which experts to help you do so)and what the challenges in this will be.
Mental note to self….always make sure that you subscript or superscript your formulae! This will stop you from making embarrassing mistakes with equations in class that you can’t then work out what on earth you did to get your answer or what the students did to all get a different answer! Although this particular equation is best done in excel, not on a smartphone calculator….see point above.

On-line teaching

I really liked Sarah’s on-line course and it is something I’d like to try, possibly as an intro to the degree. But I’m going to save those thoughts for another “exciting” blog!

Collaborative writing

The Project
As a team we decided to develop a guide to using personal response systems (PRS) , which facilitate engagement and assessment in the class room. Few of us had used PRS before but felt that it could be useful for us personally and for colleagues to learn how to use them and understand the benefits. We decided to focus on one clicker based system, already available at the university and one “bring your own device” online system. We aimed to provide a summary of why PRS should be used in classrooms, an overview of each system and an evidence based analysis of PRS. The guide was developed in Google Docs, by mutual consensus. After discussion about the use of Twitter, Learnium, Facebook and a podcast/video we settled on sharing a Google Doc link to our guide via Moodle forum. Both decisions were made on the basis of time and pre-existing comfort with the platforms for development and sharing.
Six Google Docs were set up and each group member had responsibility for researching and creating one element of the guide. These were then merged into one final document, for sharing, by one member then edited by the others. This meant that individuals could work independently without their work being changed, but everyone in the group could track progress as all documents were open to all group members. This was complicated by sharing controls initially set up in Google Docs.
Feedback on our guide was quite positive overall, i.e. it provided a good level of detail and would have been accessible to those who may be “technophobic”. There were some very valid points about style (an intro that was too academic and therefore a bit off-putting) and providing links other BYOD examples for a wider range of choice and that more screenshots from Socrative could have been provide to aid understanding. In terms of sharing this with colleagues I would be inclined to provide them links this, but with an offer of peer support to aid implementation.
Although we did not keep to our initial agreed timescales, the majority delivered their assigned responsibilities and we were still able to publish the guide in enough time to allow for feedback and reflection. There were few challenges in terms of maturity, ownership, trust and working style.
Skill Development
I was responsible for setting up the Google Docs, and we had a number of issues with sharing and editing as people either could not access the documents or could not edit them. This error may have come from trying to share the document via group members’ email addresses. Using the shareable link, set to “edit” seemed to work better, with this project and with subsequent use of Google Docs. Although my responsibility was research on justification for using PRS I also taught myself how to use Socrative, which may not have been done otherwise. I had used Moodle real-time quiz before, which students seemed to like, but I felt that it lacked flexibility. While I didn’t explore all of Socrative’s potential, working in a group focussed on this programme meant that I subsequently learnt how other elements, such as Space Race worked, showing the benefit of working together on a common goal and sharing practice.
Impact on current and future practice
I used Socrative with a range of students across several modules where it was well received by them, as shown via positive comments in module evaluations. As a result I have shared this with other members of staff in the department in staff meetings. I will continue to build Socrative into my teaching, but bearing in mind some of the literature on the potential “wear-out” effect PRS (e.g. Wang, 2015) I will only do so where appropriate.
I have used Google Docs with my students at Level 2 and Masters over the last semester to review past exam responses and to build a review of organisational reporting. I found it a simple way to stimulate discussion and analysis for individuals and within groups. Students embraced both exercises and it leaves them something to refer to at a later date. Furthermore it allows them to see what kind of detail others are inputting, which seems to stimulate analytical skill. Sharing the link, rather than via email, allows students to input their ideas on an anonymous basis, this seems to encourage contribution from those who are less willing to contribute verbally in class.
I will continue to use Google Docs as a way of discussing assessment and to collate ideas and analysis. This is based not only on personal experience but on research stimulated by the project. There is a body of evidence that shows collaborative writing stimulates creativity, critical analysis, and deeper learning (Hodges, 2002; Capsi & Blau, 2011) but that the act of collaboration requires communication, negotiation and team work which are vital in the workplace. Our role may primarily be academic education, but supporting employability is also important.
Despite these benefits, and my own positive experience in this instance, I find that students often struggle with group work. A number of authors (e.g. Farkas, 1991; Posner & Baecker 1992) have identified a range of issues with group collaboration that adds an additional layer of complexity. An emotional attachment to a document, perception of ownership, a lack of a common view of the final output and trust among participants may need to be overcome. Clear guidance on the end product, the value and benefits of collaboration should help scaffold students through the process without stymying creativity or participation. We had a choice of collaborative tools, which worked well for us, but too much choice can leave students confused and directionless. This could be overcome by dictating the tool or providing choice from a limited range of tools with detailed guidance on the pros/cons of each (e.g. Schöch 2014).
This was a useful exercise that exposed me to a range of new tools and led to research into the values of these tools. I will continue to use PRS and Google Docs in teaching, learning and assessment, but with greater consideration for the support students at all levels may need, particularly in collaboration.

References
Capsi A., Blau, I. (2011) Collaboration and psychological ownership Sco Psychol Educ 14 283-298
Farkas, D. (1991) Collaborative Writing, Software Design and the Universe of Collaborative Activity. Accessed on 30/05/15 at http://faculty.washington.edu/farkas/dfpubs/Farkas-Collaborative%20Writing,%20Software%20Development,%20and%20the%20Universe%20of%20Collaborative%20Activity.pdf
Hodges, G.C. (2002) Learning through collaborative writing. Reading 36 (1) 1-4
Posner, I.R., Baecker, R.M. (1992) How People Write Together. Proceedings 25th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences IV, 127-138. Accessed on 30/5/15 at http://www.dgp.toronto.edu/people/RMB/papers/p6.pdf
Schöch, C. (2014) The right tool for the job: Five collaborative writing tools for academics. LSE Impact Blog. Accessed on 05/06/15 at http://www.blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsience
Wang, A (2015) the wear out effect of a game based student response system. Computers and Education 82, 217-227

Development Planning

I used to like a good plan. My Ironman training was based on a well regimented, colour-coded, highly prescriptive plan to enable me to swim 2.4 miles, bike 112 miles and run (sort of!) 26.2 miles. It worked. I had a copy of my spreadsheet on the wall above my desk, I had all my training sessions in my on-line diary and I carried a paper copy around. Planning this and documenting it was easy and it went a bit like this:

• Run this far at this speed for this long X times a week
• swim in open water Y times a week
• bike a long way then run once a week
• swim many many lengths in a swimming pool Z times a week
• run a long way at least once a week .

It also helped that there were hundreds of training programmes available on-line, forums that you could discuss pros/cons of said training plans and the “Fear” factor also helped i.e. if you don’t plan it out, write it down and then do it you might die part way through, or at least be picked up by the sweeper bus and get a DNF. I did finish (sunburnt, blistered and in pain – there may have been something I neglected to include on my plan!) and I did stick to the swim/bike/run bit of my plan (things like taking care of my skin and feet got forgotten about).

I’m still a bit OCD when it comes to training for marathons etc, but I seem to be less so when it comes to my professional development training. I’m not quite sure why as there is plenty of support available from my HEI and my colleagues. In addition there is still the fear factor – but this time it is the fear of not progressing or at worst not keeping my job. I love my role and I want to be excellent at it, which will help (I assume!) increase the likelihood that I can keep and move up within this or another HEI. So planning is, or should be, vital.  There are a few things that I’d really like to learn to do so that I can improve student’s engagement and experience at a class or modular level. In addition there some things that I’d like to achieve at a more strategic or course level – but again should deliver better student experience and learning.

I’ve come up with a few things (in no particular order) and would welcome comments on it…..

Area for development	Activities to undertake to achieve development	Indicators of success	Timescale
Be able to provide constructive feedback that allows students to feed forward	Attend L&D workshop on feedback. Review feedback provided by other members of GED staff.	Longitudinal – students not seen to be making same mistakes in subsequent assignments.	Attend “Feedback (or feed forward): How to engage the student?” workshop when dates announced. For a selection L1 & L2 BESU204 students review Semester 1 feedback by January 2015 and Semester 2 feedback by April 2015.
Development of two new modules for BESU204: develop MID and assessment approach to expand skills in course/module creation, assessment and student engagement/experience and employability.	Review feedback from Professional Accrediting body. Market Research on courses provided by other HEI’s	Modules adopted for 2015/16	February BoS
Identify at least two Apps that can be used class to enhance student engagement in energy/climate change	Internet research & discussion with BES LEU	Positive response to Apps in qualitative comments on 212GED and 111GED MEQ’s	Identify by Jan 2015 Deploy by Feb 2015 Review March/April 2015
To be able to use iMovie/Movie Maker in order to be able to fully understand problems potential faced by A201GED students in the development of their climate change campaign.	Discussion with LEU	Able to present own video to students	January 2015 (before A201GED coursework is handed out
Learn how to use RSS Feeds from news and twitter # on Moodle Pages	Internet research & guidance from BES LEU	RSS & key Twitter # provided on 212GED, A201GED and 111GED Moodle pages	19th Jan 2015
Learn how to create podcasts for audio feedback of more than 3 mins	Internet research & guidance from BES LEU	All coursework feedback for semester 2 BESU204 modules provided in audio format.	April 2015
Research & develop opportunities/ways of integrating twitter into 212GED classes to increase engagement, discussion and student research.	Research approaches already used (inc benefits)	Majority of students using twitter # per lecture. Increased discussion and positive response via module MEQ	R&D Jan 2015 Deploy Feb-Apr 2015 Review April/May 2015
Submit research proposal on stakeholder engagement in the development of renewable power to either Leverhulme/British Academy	Work with CBiS to develop proposal	Proposal submitted to BA small grants.	Small grants award closes May 2015
Learn how to set up online carbon accounting calculation test for M112GED	Discussion with BES LEU	Test used for M112GED in Semester 2	Feb 2015
Develop digital literacy strategy for GED to enhance both staff and student skills in line with NERC critical skills	Research based on other institutions, CU T&L strategy, JISC & through engagement with BES LEU, BES Director for T&L and GED staff	Strategy adopted by HoD with short term, critical activities identified and in place for AY 2015/16	May 2015
Improve the decision making exercises in 212GED to make them more interactive and engaging. i.e. bring more detail to the case studies including photos integrated into mapping and use of planning documents	Reduce number of case studies/options and increase content. Link students to planning databases.	Positive response to exercises in module MEQ Students demonstrate deeper thinking on judgements/decisions	May 2015

 

 

Teaching Observation (flipped)

A couple of weeks ago I had the opportunity to observe one of our senior lecturers deliver a Level 2 session on climate change hazards and flooding. So much less stressful (for me!) to observe than to be observed!

The member of staff had broken the 2 hr session down into two parts. The first 50 mins or so was a group discussion and the second 50 mins a more traditional lecture with a class of around 15 students.

I really liked the first part of the session. Students had been given six papers on climate change and the member of staff led a Q&A, review and discussion of each paper. What surprised me was that the students had actually read the papers. Not all of them, but most had read at least one paper. Students were asked to provide a summary of the paper they had read, which then led on to a Q&A/discussion of the content. This was then linked back to previous lectures and supplemented with the lecturers own personal experience of climate change and extreme events with photographic evidence. I think this worked quite well as it allowed for repetition to help reinforce the point and should, in theory have helped students make linkages between key issues. In addition the additional visual from the lectures own photographs should have helped the more visual learner link what they had read in the papers to what has actually happened else where in the world. Some of the students certainly engaged with the process and we had a good discussion about climate modelling, climate change that we’d experiences and future projections/adaptation.

This is certainly something that I could do much more of, I think the reason I’ve perhaps not done so much of this in the past is that when I’ve asked students to read things in advance very few of them actually do it. So I need to find more ways of incentivising them, or maybe just trust them more rather than assuming that they wont do it…?

Thinking about the session I observed, although it was a small group the format meant that only one student was speaking at once while the others listened (in theory). This could have perhaps have been enhanced by splitting the students into smaller groups e.g. one per paper that were then led by the student who had read/reviewed the paper, with support and facilitation of the lecturer. Then maybe at the end of the session each group feeds back a summary of their paper and discussion. Another option might be to segregate them into those who had and those who had not read the paper. Those who had get a better discussion together and those who didn’t have to pick one paper to read and discuss between them. I know other members of staff do this and I have to admit I’m not that keen on it. Although I guess it forces students to read at least one paper this is something that they could do out of class (but clearly didn’t so why would they in future). But the key is to using the information productively in class so they see the benefit of the additional reading.

The second part of the session was a more traditional lecture. It was well structured and kept coming back to one central point that should have allowed students to see the linkage between different types of flooding and for repetition/reinforcement. The session covered the theory (i.e. why different floods occur and where) and provided more detailed case studies. It was quite a fast paced session with a lot of information crammed into the 50 mins. The lecturer, in addition to annotated figures, charts and photographs also used You Tube Videos which he occasionally paused to highlight key points.

I’ve noticed in my sessions and in this session that students by and large no longer take notes in lectures. So I’d like to have seen some kind of enforced note taking, whether in the form of think/write/share or a writing storm.  I think I’d also have gotten the students to do a bit of in class research and then shared their findings. Then linked what they’d found to the theory. Although in 50 mins this would probably have been quite hard to manage.

I saw some great knowledge, structure, enthusiasm and skills from the lecturer in this class and its very easy to sit in the audience and be critical. I can definitely take key learning away from this for my own practice. Not least that I need to include more repetition and links back to previous sessions – I’m sure I don’t do this enough as I all too often assume that they’ll remember. So this is probably my key learning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Teaching Observation – or not…

I don’t have a massive amount of teaching this semester. A couple of 1st year session in preparation for a field trip and a few Masters classes on project/research skills. I also have two classes with the 3rd year Oil, Gas & Energy students on corporate social responsibility (CSR).  Although CSR is a topic I’m comfortable with, at least in practice, I’ve never taught it before (and had no idea when it came to Models of CSR). So I wanted the first introductory session observed as part of my PG Cert in Academic Practice, on the basis that I’m pretty sure my teaching is not as good when I’m less confident. So if I could identify or have someone else identify, when this happens and what it looks like then I should be able to adapt in future.

I’d booked it in with a key member of staff, who unfortunately didn’t attend. But I did learn a few things anyway.

I spent far too long planning and preparing for it. A two hour session should = 6hrs prep…..hahaha. I think because I had “lots” of time I spent lots of time pontificating about what to include and how to include it. As a result I had way too much material to cram into a two hour session.

Although I found lesson planning and time planning quite useful I still didn’t narrow it down enough. As a result I still over ran – a few droopy eyed students by the end. I tried to build in a number of mini exercises (think/write/share etc) and use of video, group discussion in an attempt to a) break up the amount of talking I did, b) to cater for different learner types and c) work with a 15min attention span. However, video isn’t really that much different to me talking. I did have to abandon a couple of the group discussion exercises I had planned, in part because of my time management (I get over excited and talk too much) and in part because the students hadn’t read and/or brought what they were supposed to. The latter did result in the last 30 mins being much more “chalk and talk” than I had intended. I’m not quite sure what to do in future about this. Many recommend that you just have to hold your ground, but this then means that they get a reduced session (which never goes down well in evaluations).

In order to get some feedback (as the MEQ wont really pick up my session in amy detail) I ended with a Stop/Start/Carry On exercise for feedback. I got eight responses out of a class of 11. While what they say wont make much difference to them, I pitched it as potentially having an impact on future classes.  I did get some nice feedback (although some not particularly useful “Stop: nothing, Carry on: Everything”. A few valid points on timing, the need for a break and allowing more people to speak, more focus on the oil & gas industry, more CSR history. Although there are issues with this. Inclusion of history of CSR takes time away from other things, trying to get everything in was already a challenge (I did put history in but had to take it out). I felt I used plenty of oil & gas content, quite frankly the industry gives me plenty to go at good and bad. But there are other examples from other sectors that are essential when introducing CSR.

Fundamentally I think this course needs more on CSR, social/environmental justice and ethics in relation to the extractive industries. We cannot continue to just teach them how to get oil out of the ground as quickly and cheaply as possible. The environmental and social issues around oil and gas production should become more and more important and they need a module in their own right, not two sessions of one module. I’m trying (but currently failing) to introduce a new module.

Using tablets for teaching & learning

Today I have taken loan of an iPad (am irrationally annoyed that tech automatically knows that it is lower case i and uppercase P). The faculty are testing how tablets can be integrated into teaching & learning both in the class room and the field. This should help engage students as well as enhancing their digital skills, not to mention mine! So my job over the foreseeable future is to identify some ways that this can be done, test it and evaluate it.

I fully admit to having the imagination of something with no imagination: as a child my toys were called ted/bear/pinky (the panther) etc… So, my first challenge is to do a bit of research. Already this evening I’ve found a few apps on energy/carbon/sustainability that need a bit of testing but look promising. But I’m looking for more and would love to hear from others using tablets to do useful, engaging stuff in the class room specifically on energy and environment. I plan to share my experiences via this blog…..

Thanks in advance for your comments!

Peer and Self Assessment of group work

What ever job we finally go into most of us will inevitably end up working as part of a team (or group). Most people seem to hate this (myself included) and I wonder if it stems from the trauma of group work and group assessment at school/university. I learnt very early on that it was much easier to do most of the work myself as others couldn’t be trusted to do their fair share and do it well. Being a bit of a geek/swot when it came to geography I always wanted to make sure that I was getting good grades and that my assignments were completed in good time (I did not and do not like leaving things to the last minute) and so I wasn’t really prepared to allow others to bring my performance down. As a result I would do more than my “fair” share of work and I’d do it early because I wasn’t prepared to work at other peoples speeds. Although I’ve now matured enough (ish) to realise that my standards are perhaps too high (at times) and that part of group/team work and leadership is about finding ways to get over my own neuroses and facilitate the process rather than just getting on with it.

But I recognise that this is something that students still struggle to work through and that it is likely to have an impact on not only their performance but also their experience. This seems to be a reasonable body of evidence that

1. Students don’t like group work
2. They don’t like group work because of the perception that marks are unfairly awarded vs actual performance
3. Peer assessment of group work can  help mitigate the points above

My department has developed a group work policy, to control the number and frequency of group assignments, provide some guidelines for staff on how/what etc. and to limit the proportion of a students mark that can come from group work. One of the tools we’re using is Web PA , a tool created by Loughborough University for the purpose of peer/self assessment, which is compatible with the Moodle/Blackboard Virtual Learning Environments. We are trialling this as part of a first year skills and field work module, 25% of the module mark is attributed to group work (some field data collection and a group presentation), as it was last year. We had a number of complaints last year about the level of contribution (or lack thereof) and therefore the fairness of assigning the same mark to all group members. So this year we decided that we’d keep the group work element to 25%, but 25% of that 25% would be based on peer assessment (confused yet???). Just to be clear this is students assessing one another’s performance and contribution to the data collection, research & the presentation. This is not the students assessing each others presentations.  So each group member will get the same mark for the presentation, which we’ve already graded, and this will be tempered by the score given to them by their peers.

We decided to only opt for peer assessment, not peer plus self assessment. We felt, although I have to admit we didn’t base this on anything over than anecdotal evidence, that if we included self assessment the students would be highly likely to over score themselves.  We also decided to include a 10% penalty for students that did not submit a peer assessment.

So…..the results are in and I don’t understand them! They haven’t made as much difference as I anticipated. In addition I’m actually not convinced that the sums have worked because I can seen distinct discrepancies in the scores. I need more advice from an experienced user. I can’t release the marks until I do.

Learnings (so far…..)

Do things in the right order (& find out what that is before starting)
Understand the algorithm properly
• Sort out groups in advance (because it takes AGES!)
• Explain it properly to students
• Explain it properly to staff who might be assessing presentations but nothing else…
• Don’t leave it too long after the exercise has been completed to issue the questionnaire
• understand the benefits of the inclusion vs exclusion of self assessment properly – will students actually over-rate themselves???

 

 

The value of field work.

Fieldwork has always been well integrated into subjects such as geography, geology, anthropology, biology etc both in terms of teaching and research. It is also really good fun (IMHO) – but then I love being outside playing with mud and water and looking at land forms!

There is a wide body of evidence that field work is an effective way of enhancing learning, social development, developing an awareness of health and safety and team work. See the RGS here, Julie Dillon’s paper here and Victoria Cook’s Paper here.

If you undertake one of the subjects above at any level its likely that you’ll have undertaken some fieldwork.The Oil, Gas & Energy (OGEM) field trip is mainly as a result of the programmes’ evolution within a Geography Department which has long had field work embedded as part of their teaching and learning strategy. Each year, six weeks into their first term Coventry University Geography students go on a three day field trip. To ensure equity when the OGEM course was developed those students went away with the geographers. The aim of the trip is primarily to support student bonding and group integration. But  the secondary objective is to support real world and practical learning about topics such flood risk, coastal erosion, glaciation and tourism. A proportion of this is staff led, but there are plenty of opportunities for students to collect their own data and make their own observations.

The field trip is supported by three introductory seminars before the students go away and a de-brief when the return. The aim of the seminars is to introduce the activities, to get the students planning their data collection and given them direction in terms of pre-trip research. We then ask them to present on both nights, one formative, one assessed on the activities they have undertaken each day. This not only gives them presentation practice, but helps them (forces them??) to gather and process information into a coherent picture. The debrief aims to help them translate what they’ve seen, collected and learnt in the field to future study and  for their field trip based assessed essay.

My students study oil, gas and energy management and hope to go into role on oil rigs, refineries, renewable energy development and oil trading. So how does this fit with field work? It is not easy (impossible!) to take groups of students around oil/gas production sites. The first time this trip was run the students visited Wylfa nuclear power station, Electric Mountain hydropower station and looked at glacial geomorphology in Cwm Idwal. Based on both staff and student feedback I changed the trip for 13/14. We dropped Cwm Idwal (disliked as it wasn’t directly related to oil & gas) in favour of a mini survey of public attitudes to wind power and we dropped Wylfa because it was basically a PowerPoint presentation at the power station – not a site tour. I replaced this with a tour of a waste water treatment works (WwTW).

The point of the visit to the WwTW was to look at renewable energy production from sewage and process efficiency as sewage treatment (and pumping) are highly energy intensive. However this was not a popular option, in part because a WwTW  is quite a smelly place(obviously!), but also the students seemed to struggle with the concept of process efficiency leading to energy efficiency and increased renewable energy output. It was perhaps a bit too complicated this early into their studies.

So for this year I made additional changes

Our schedule for the trip:

• Day 1 am: Ironbridge Geology/history tour
• Day 1 pm: Ironbridge power station tour
• Day 2 am: survey of public views on wind power
• Day 2 pm: Electric Mountain pumped storage hydro-power station
• Day 3 am: Hafod y Llan, National Trust Micro hydro-power Station

I felt that this years group, of which there were 18, was a bit more dynamic, more cohesive and more enthusiastic than last year’s group. This could be a factor of the smaller group size (I had 32 last year) or the influence of the On-line International Learning project this year’s first years are involved in – which has forced them to work much more closely than in previous years at the same point in time. It could also have been the activities that we did this time. I have no evidence to support this one way or another really. It just seemed to feel a bit better.

In order to try to find out if the students felt as positively I did a mini feedback survey. So far only 8 have completed it (a response rate of 44%), so probably not massively statistical significant. But at least gives me a bit of a fee for their views.

There is quite a spread of results across the results:

Electric mountain (one of the UK’s largest pumped storage hydro power stations that allows the National Grid to react to peak electricity demand within 10 seconds) was most popular, but at least one student selected each activity. Electric Mountain seems to be most popular/interesting either because they’d never seen anything like it before.

The walking tour of the Ironbridge Gorge (to get them to think about the history of the Industrial Revolution and our thirst/obsession with fossil fuels, plus the risks that the natural environment poses to communities/business) was least popular – mainly because it seemed to involve walking (also the reason given for not liking the micro-hydro station). Interestingly the feedback I’ve heard from the geographers also implies a dislike of having to walk any distance. I can understand one students vie on Electric Mountain as they weren’t allowed to take pictures and you can’t get us close and personal with the equipment – but that is always going to be a challenge with operational sites – so maybe i need to manage expectation better in setting up these activities. I can also understand the dislike of the wind survey (sort of) as it was related to how easy it was to find respondents. Damp saturday mornings in November in Wales may not be the best time to try to ask people their views!

So far 100% of respondents stated that they enjoyed the field trip (always a good start!). But they were then asked which activity they liked the most and the least and why. 100% of respondents also responded positively to the question on whether they felt the field trip supported their learning in energy management (50:50 split across agree/strongly agree).

Their response to group work was a bit more mixed: 25% strongly enjoyed it, 50% agreed that they enjoyed it, with the remaining 25% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. Their justification for this is typically around the level of contribution that certain members made. Hopefully this will be somewhat mitigated by the Peer Assessment element of the group work. But as we haven’t released this yet I suspect it hasn’t tempered anyone’s views yet.

So…..next year I have two choices I can take the students back to North Wales and do what we’ve done this year (although as the Ironbridge Power Station is due to close in autumn 2015 this activity may not be possible – so I’ll need an alternative) or I can find an alternative location. My initial thought is the Durham/Cleveland area where we may be able to look at coal mining/regeneration on-shore and off-shore wind, large scale industrial production and nuclear power (assuming that the Hartlepool Power Station still runs a similar tour to the one they did in 1997!).

Depending on what I finally mange to organise I may be able to reduce the amount of walking we have to do (as a geographer and a keen mountaineer/runner I’m less comfortable with this!), but we may run into issues around operational plant and getting close to things – not sure how to deal with this other than setting the expectation in advance. Assuming that Peer Assessment works well this time I think we could be stronger in our pitch of this to the students as this may affect their views on group work.

Their feedback has been positive and they seemed to get a lot out of it so I conclude that the types and balance of activity/assessment etc work quite well. But we could probably manage expectation and communication more pro actively to deal early on with any concerns or potential concerns. So, despite the fact that OGEM is not a “proper” field trip discipline there are still definite benefits of integrating it into the curriculum – but maybe we need to refer to it as a series of site visits!

Inaugural Lecture on Wind Power

Last week my partner and I went to an inaugural lecture at Loughborough University. These are supposed to be a celebration of academic success and a presentation of that new Prof to the community (both academic and non-academic). This particular session was given by Professor Simon Watson, entitled Reap the Wild Winds (you can watch it here – this also contains previous inaugural lectures on a wide range of topics). Prof. Watson’s area of specialities include areas such as wind energy, wind  power forecasting, wind resource assessment and control monitoring of wind turbines. All of which are really relevant to my first and second year modules on renewable power – well the sections on wind power anyway!

Last year was the first time that I ran the module on Nuclear & Renewable Energy (indeed the first time this module ran at all). The focus in on the advantage and disadvantages and the decision making process in choosing what to site where. Broadly I had a more standard lecture section and then a follow up decision making exercise.

Prof. Watson’s lecture gave me some great additional content that I had not considered before, as well as some excellent resources, images and research. For example I had previously asked the students, given the choice of five locations, where would be best to site a wind farm. They were asked to consider factors such as population, infrastructure, access, environment, space, resource availability and visual impact. What I had not asked them to consider was the potential impact of the turbines on one another (wind farm array wake). Its not just about choosing to put a wind farm in a location, but about how many you choose to site there and in what layout to maximise their potential. Another area that needs to be considered is the future of wind turbines themselves, how we monitor their efficiency and how we account for larger and larger wind turbines. Another area presented was the impact large arrays have on the local micro-climate, this can be both positive and negative. For example the array can reduce wind speed downstream – which may have a positive impact on agriculture by reducing crop damage due to wind. But they can also have a knock on impact of other arrays – so it will be really interesting to see what the impacts of multiple off shore wind farms in the North Sea are. If they are not strategically positioned, across country boarders there is a chance that their efficiency could be diminished.

So how does this affect my academic practice? Wind power is and needs to be a growth area in energy if we are going to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels and mitigate further climate change. More research in this area is vital and it is critical that students understand the latest research in this area. They will after all, be the decision makers of the future and we need to give them the up to date tools to make the right (or at least informed) decisions. I was reasonably happy with the content and format of last years wind power sessions. I feel reasonably confident that I had shared many of the key areas and the students enjoyed and understood the key challenges. But its is more complicated than that. The lecture exposed me to new areas and key authors in the field of wind power research and I need to build this research into my teaching in my introductory lectures and guide the students to think about these more complicated issues when they are asked to take decisions on locating different technologies in certain areas. It also gave me some links to some great new images to use in lectures :). I also need to see if I can find similar research on the other renewable technologies.

 

 

Online International Learning

As part of last weeks workshop on internationalising the curriculum (see previous blog) three colleagues gave us their valuable views and experiences on setting up and running Online International Learning (OIL) projects.

An OIL project is considered to be one of the first steps in giving students an international experience and developing their inter-cultural awareness, so valued by graduate recruiters. Building and enhancing competencies such as communication, resilience, global networking and embracing different perspectives are critical – but doing so is not always that easy. As a bit of background this is also quite interesting and looks at the benefits of inter-cultural dialogue in a globalizing world as well as the enhancement of digital skills: O’Brien, A.J., Alfano, C., Magnusson, E. (2007) Improving Cross-Cultural Communication through Collaborative Technologies. Persuasive Technology. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4744, 125-131. Their study showed that choosing the appropriate technology, tasks and modes of delivery allowed students to a) get the most out of a globally distributed team, b)develop their analytical skills and c) build inter-cultural competencies and sensitivity.

OIL is a great way to do this in a safe and relatively cost effective way. Groups can be made private (ah – privacy settings, a digital skill!), guidelines for interaction given and neither staff nor student needs to leave the country (no flying = lower carbon emissions! – this is one of the things I think is GREAT about OIL!). In many areas “internationalisation” has rarely been an issue as it was already ingrained (e.g. languages and geography). But in others it becomes more challenging, for example how do you take 30+ students to an oil refinery in Nigeria to see how the process works and what the local community and environmental impact is without drowning in permissions, expense and H&S paperwork? On-line discussion doesn’t get over this but allows other discussions which can be as valuable as seeing the “real thing”.

The following have been used by my HEI to pull together the benefits and learning outcomes of OIL projects:

Leask, B. (2004). Internationalisation Outcomes for All Students Using Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Journal of Studies in International Education, 8(4), 336-351
Stone, N. (2006). Internationalising the Student Learning Experience: Possible Indicators. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 409-413

It is an issue that is high on the agenda, and one that doesn’t just focus on the “easy” OIL projects, but looks at how this can be developed though out all levels of study and how OIL can be the stepping stone to field trips and placements. Some 40 or so OIL project have been/are running at my HEI with a good degree of success. Not just in numbers of students engaged which is in my view a useful metric, but not necessarily an indication of success, but also in terms of developing or continuing projects within cohorts and courses. There have been some key learnings (based on staff observation, official surveying of students and anecdotal evidence from students) seemed to be:

• Students need more guidance than you might think
• You need to consider whether your entry point right?
• Think about assessment – is a reflective diary enough and is it effective?
• Some thought needs to go into how its effectiveness is measured (it has to go beyond purely the number of students participating)

I was given the opportunity to develop a project with a Community College in New York. The class in question is run by a teacher with very similar interests to myself (environment, climate, running, mountains) so we’ve got on quite well and have similar aspirations for the collaboration. Therefore picking learning outcomes and topics for discussion was relatively simple, even though my class were studying a very different module to that of their US counterparts.

We’ve adopted the following approach:

• Online small group discussion – self determined but encouraged to speak via Skype at least once.
• Tutorial reflection/discussion
• Field trip (UK only)
• Lectures (more US than UK)

With the following learning outcomes:

1. Students will gain greater understanding of the partner country and the cultural norms of that country, gained through discussions with their peers
2. Students will gain greater awareness of resource management strategies used by different countries, through readings, videos, and discussions
3. Students will learn about and develop an appreciation of differing public opinions towards environmental issues, such as climate change, renewable energy, and public park management in their own country and the partner country through readings, videos, and discussions
4. Students will improve their presentation and communication skills, through communicating with each other and by making presentations to share with the class
5. Students will develop the capacity to apply international standards and practices within the fields of energy, environment and climate change through discussion and debate.

We haven’t yet thought about how we can measure success. Obviously we can report on the numbers of students engaged and we can also report on the number of students passing the associated assignments. But we need to consider students satisfaction (the MEQ won’t be enough in my case) and their learning/development (in terms of digital skills and inter-cultural competencies). For the we probably need to tackle both real and perceived.  This may mean some kind of pre and post collaboration survey. But given that they start this week we need to sort that out ASAP!

In listening to my colleagues last week I’ve realised that the students are likely to need a lot more support that I was initially going to provide. I was (almost, but not quite) just going to give them the articles and assignment and ask them to contact one another to discuss it. In reality I’ve always know that I needed to provide some guidance. So in the last couple of days I’ve developed some guide questions and provided example responses as well as providing more guidance on meeting etiquette and note taking to support them in the project and therefore end of semester assignment. I suspect that I will still need to be flexible in this and provide more/less guidance and feedback as time goes on. I’m concerned though as I don’t want to be too prescriptive. I want to encourage self learning…..but…….I also want this to be a positive experience for both groups of students (and their teachers!) and one that we can develop further in the long run. So making sure it doesn’t go horribly in from week 2 onwards is important.

I’ll keep you posted….