Experiences in Developing a Learning-Centered Natural Resources Curriculum J. Thompson,* S. Jungst, J. Colletti, B. Licklider, and J. Benna ABSTRACT Graduates of natural resource programs are entering a profession with increasing demands for strong interactive and collaborative skills. Active participation in guided collaborative experiences during their college careers can enhance students’ abilities to perform effectively after graduation. In addition, much cognitive research indicates that learning can be enhanced through social interaction, an element that is sometimes missing in the college classroom. The objective of this article is to describe how faculty members in the Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management at Iowa State University have begun making the transition from teaching-centered to learning-centered classrooms. Specifically, this article outlines the coordinated approach that has been taken to incorporating active and collaborative learning strategies in a group of six integrated courses in the forestry curriculum. We discuss the curriculum, the integration of learning-centered pedagogy into the curriculum, the cooperative skills and interactive strategies that we emphasized, and student responses to this pedagogical shift. Survey data collected from students during fall semesters 1998–2001 indicated greater student awareness of how their own learning occurred, the importance of interaction with both peers and faculty for their learning, and an increased level of interaction with college faculty than students had previously experienced. Student ratings of this set of courses also indicated that the learning-centered curriculum was effective in engaging them as learners, improving their communication skills, prompting their curiosity to know more, helping them apply fundamental principles to new problems, and developing the ability to think critically.
ECENT REPORTS of what employers want indicate new expectations of natural resource program graduates in terms of their abilities to participate in adaptive management and problem solving (Brown and Lassoie, 1998; Sample et al. 1999). Several employer preferences reported in the literature could be addressed by shifting natural resource curriculum emphases toward teaching for student understanding and improved interaction with others in developing that understanding (Wiggins and McTighe, 1998). Recent research examining teaching and learning indicates that learning-centered, active, and interactive approaches are effective in engaging students in classroom work with their peers, and enhancing student comprehension and retention of course content (Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Svinicki, 1992; Leinhardt, 1992; Gar-
R
J. Thompson, S. Jungst, and J. Colletti, Dep. of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 253 Bessey Hall, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011; B. Licklider, Dep. of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, N243 Lagomarcino Hall, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011; and J. Benna, formerly Dep. of Educ. Leadership and Policy Studies, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011. Received 11 Apr. 2002. *Corresponding author (
[email protected]). Published in J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 32:23–31 (2003). http://www.JNRLSE.org © American Society of Agronomy 677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
diner, 1994; O’Banion, 1998; Sanders, 1998; Spence, 2001). However, successfully shifting the focus of a curriculum to incorporate these approaches requires structure and support for both faculty and students, and careful attention to the responses of students (Licklider et al., 1997; Fulton and Licklider, 1998). Since 1996, several members of the Iowa State University Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management (NREM) faculty have been making such a shift in their approach to classroom instruction in a Forestry curriculum. This paper details faculty experiences and student responses during the most recent four years (1998–2001) of this transition. Faculty participants in this curriculum project have been involved in a university-wide faculty development effort, Project LEA/RN, led by individuals in the Iowa State University Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (Licklider et al., 1997). This effort was initiated in 1994 to assist the Iowa State University College of Engineering in creating more effective learning environments in engineering courses (Jacobson et al., 1998). The project has grown to include faculty from most colleges at Iowa State as well as some faculty at other higher education institutions. Central to Project LEA/RN are the premises that reflecting on teaching practice and modeling cooperative learning strategies together with other faculty encourages individual faculty development and individual accountability, and that these elements encourage fundamental change within academic units (Fulton et al., 1997). Individual NREM faculty have participated in Project LEA/RN on a voluntary basis, and have attended one or two 4-d workshops as well as being involved in biweekly group meetings during academic semesters (Jungst et al., 2000). THE CURRICULUM In 1998, a core group of NREM faculty responsible for instruction in several 200-level courses proposed moving from use of learning-centered strategies in single classes to an integrated approach that involved a set of courses in the forestry program. This set of courses is a captive semester in which students must concurrently enroll in six courses (15 semester credit hours) in Forestry (Table 1), usually taken the first semester of the students’ sophomore year. Of note, Forestry 205 is a once weekly all-day laboratory, and Forestry 206 is a 3wk off-campus intensive course that is held in a camp setting in a location determined by faculty leaders (e.g., Alabama, Minnesota, and Wyoming). This integrated semester offers an unparalleled opportunity to immerse students in a learning-centered environment that could be coordinated above the individual course level. During the process of curriculum modification, NREM faculty participating in Project LEA/RN explored a number of ideas that might lead to better student learning in the Forestry major as a whole. Five important questions emerged: (i) What are the elements that are necessary for development of learning-cenJ. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 • 23
Table 1. Integrated coursework taken during fall semester of the sophomore year. Course no.
Course name
Forestry 201 Forestry 202 Forestry 203 Forestry 204 Forestry 205 Forestry 206
Forest Biology Harvesting/Wood Utilization Resource Measurements/Evaluation Forest Ecosystem Decision-making Integrated Forestry Laboratory Fall Forestry Camp
Semester credits
Semester total
2 2 2 2 3 4 15
tered classrooms? (ii) How will individual course structure and content change? (iii) How can a new approach be integrated into single classes as well as a curriculum? (iv) What specific strategies can be used to structure learning-centered activities? and (v) How do students respond to learning-centered approaches? ELEMENTS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LEARNING-CENTERED CLASSROOMS There are at least six elements that contribute to successful transformation to learning-centered instruction. First and foremost, any new approaches adopted should deepen student understanding of course and curriculum content (concepts, technical knowledge, and appropriate skills in the application of these). Second, individual faculty need to independently and genuinely seek understanding about how learning occurs (Sousa, 1995; Stage et al., 1998; Bransford et al., 2000; Marzano et al., 2001). Third, a different kind of classroom environment is often necessary. This includes physical details, for example, movable chairs and desks or tables. In addition, attention to the social and emotional aspects of learning is very important (Caine and Caine, 1997; Leamnson, 2000, Bransford et al., 2000). Fourth, the focal point of classroom activities should be learning, rather than teaching. The faculty should become facilitators that provide opportunities for students to experience and reflect, with other students as well as individually, and to develop meaning from information (Sousa, 1995; Brookfield, 1995; Leamnson, 2000). Fifth, the move from implementation of learning-centered educational experiences in individual classrooms to coordinated implementation in a curriculum is aided by faculty learning about learning as a group, and working together to improve practice (Johnson et al., 1991b; Fulton et al., 1997). Ongoing support for a core group of faculty engaged in faculty development activity has been an essential ingredient in the transformation from a teaching-centered to a learning-centered approach in our curriculum (Fulton and Licklider, 1998). Sixth, student buy-in to a learning environment that focuses on them as learners is critical to the success of this approach (Bransford et al., 2000). COURSE STRUCTURE AND CONTENT BEFORE AND AFTER THE TRANSITION Before adoption of the learning-centered approach, most coursework in the 200 sequence (Forestry 201, 202, 203, and 204) relied heavily on 50-min lectures, supplemented by textbooks and other printed documents, as well as hands-on activities in the weekly all-day laboratory and the 3-wk field (Fall 24 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003
Forestry Camp) course. Student learning was primarily assessed using individual students’ quizzes, tests, and written laboratory reports. Lesson plans consisted only of lecture notes for topics to be covered. Also before curriculum modification, students were frequently placed in teams to accomplish specific tasks, particularly during laboratory sessions. However, there was no formal emphasis on improving interactive skills to enhance group performance, even when students were working in teams. After adoption of learning-centered pedagogy, most 50-min class periods included 10 to 20 min of lecture, still supported by individual reading done outside the classroom. In the lesson plan, these mini-lectures were usually interspersed with carefully structured group activities (see strategies, below) that required students to assess the material that had been read or presented, and interact with each other in analyzing and applying the information encountered (Fig. 1). After the transition, individual courses have retained similar content coverage and use of individual homework assignments, quizzes, tests, and projects to assess individual student learning as well as group dynamics and group learning (Fig. 2). The interactive classroom also lends itself to more frequent and less formal assessment of student learning using a number of classroom assessment techniques (Angelo and Cross, 1993). Initially, changes in course structure have required a high level of faculty effort to tailor active learning strategies and mesh them with course content. In addition, this approach entails much more student–faculty interaction as well as student–student interaction during classroom sessions. The increased level of accountability given to students for their own learning requires higher levels of student effort both inside and out of the classroom. INTEGRATION OF THE LEARNING-CENTERED APPROACH AT THE CURRICULUM LEVEL The model of learning-centered pedagogy that we have adopted is the cooperative and active learning philosophy of Johnson et al. (1991a). This approach emphasizes five basic elements of formal cooperative learning: positive interdependence among students, face to face interaction among students, individual accountability of all students, development of cooperative/collaborative skills for group work, and group processing (Johnson et al., 1991a). Successfully implemented in the classroom, this model enhances student understanding of scientific/technical content while at the same time students learn interactive skills that are so much in demand by today’s employers. The learning-centered model is supported by a growing body of cognitive research, indicating that an interactive learning approach results in higher-level reasoning abilities, deeper understanding, more critical thinking, greater intrinsic motivation for learning, more positive relationships with others, and a greater likelihood of life-long pursuit of learning, when compared with lecture-style classroom approaches (Gough, 1987; Johnson and Johnson, 1989; Slavin, 1990; Natasi and Clements, 1991; Slavin, 1992). Student introduction to this group of courses was a 2-h session (on the first day of the semester), led by Project LEA/RN facilitators, in which activities were structured for students to get to know each other and the group of faculty who were facilitating the courses. Students were given a brief description
Fig. 1. A typical lesson plan for an interactive 50-min session in Forestry 201, Forest Biology, focusing on soil characteristics and processes/factors affecting soil formation. Student activities focus on analyzing similarities and differences and replace the previous lecture-only presentation of material.
of cooperative learning, and individual student surveys were administered to gather information essential for team formation. During the first 2 h of the all-day laboratory session, later in the first week, students were assigned to 3- or 4-member base groups and engaged in activities designed to illustrate the concept of cooperative learning as an alternative to individualistic or competitive learning models. During this laboratory, student groups also began to learn formal interactive skills and simple active learning strategies. Rigorous application of this learning model has made it necessary to offer students in-class opportunities to develop professional interactive skills working in carefully structured groups (with two, three, or four members that are assigned to work together) on carefully structured problems. Using the model of Johnson et al. (1993), we provided settings in which students learned and applied a progression of forming, functioning, formulating, and fermenting cooperative skills to forestry content problems ranging from basic biology, to forest inventory, forest policy issues, and resource allocation (Fig. 3). For individual classes, faculty chose from among the interactive skills and emphasized those that most directly addressed specific student learning outcomes. A faculty convener scheduled regular meetings for the faculty responsible for the six courses, and a template was prepared to identify skills and strategies to be emphasized in the various courses during the 16-wk semester (Fig. 4). After a particular skill or strategy had been introduced in one course, faculty could later use and reinforce it in other courses. Meetings during the semester also allowed collaborating faculty to discuss issues related to both coursework and classroom dynamics in the six classes, and to develop plans to address prob-
lems if they arose. Dynamics among students in base groups were closely monitored and students were periodically asked to provide anonymous feedback on how their groups were functioning. Specific exercises were also used during a 2-h session after students returned from fall forestry camp to enhance skills necessary for student resolution of base group conflicts. STRATEGIES FOR STRUCTURED INTERACTIVE LEARNING A collection of well-documented strategies exists to help with development of carefully structured problems involving interactive and collaborative learning that are adaptable for many disciplinary areas (Johnson et al., 1991a; Jaques, 1992; Angelo and Cross, 1993; Marzano et al., 2001). Three strategies that have been used with success in forestry classrooms include problem-solving pairs (adapted from Johnson et al., 1991a), similarities and differences (Marzano et al., 2001), and academic controversy (Johnson et al., 1991a). Problem Solving Pairs Exercise. In a problem solving pairs (PSP) exercise on trade-off analysis (Brown, 1981) in Forestry 204 (Forest Ecosystem Decision-Making), after a brief lecture supplemented by before-class reading, students were assigned partners and given the role of analyzing tradeoffs or clarifying and improving the analysis. Student pairs reached consensus on both the type of trade-off and the numeric values of forest outputs/functions. Each student pair then verified their answers by working with another student pair. Each individual student was expected to be ready to provide answers and justifications if called upon in class discussion. The work of each pair of students was handed in for assessment. Compared with presentation of this material only as a J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 • 25
lecture, the PSP strategy allows for quicker student comprehension, more accurate computation, and more thorough analysis of results. The PSP exercise also allows the instructor to more quickly identify areas of misunderstanding or incomplete student knowledge. Similarities and Differences Exercise. In Forestry 203 (Resource Measurements and Evaluation), students participated in a similarities and differences exercise in which individual students prepared a Venn diagram identifying similar-
ities and differences between fixed-radius and point sampling techniques. After students prepared individual diagrams, they worked with a partner to add information to their diagrams. Lastly, students worked together to generate still more ideas to include. Each student’s Venn diagram was then handed in for the instructor to assess. Students have been able to discover additional and more substantive similarities and differences as they worked with their partners in this exercise. And, the increased level of discussion and informal assessment process
Fig. 2. Course syllabus for Forestry 201 after the transition to collaborative learning. Course content is essentially identical to syllabi prepared before the transition.
26 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003
Fig. 3. Cooperative skills modeled in the Forestry sophomore series (adapted from Johnson and Johnson, 1989). Emphasis early in the semester has been on forming and functioning skills, and these skills were reinforced as those related to formulating and fermenting were introduced.
Fig. 4. A sample schedule for modeling cooperative skills and interactive learning strategies in different courses in the sophomore series. The schedule varies from semester to semester with the timing of fall forestry camp (For 206) and was customized each semester according to observations of student group interactions. Skills and strategies adapted from Johnson and Johnson (1989) and Johnson et al. (1991a).
J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003 • 27
Table 2. Themes emerging from student responses to open-ended questions about previous college experiences and about the 200-series courses, pre- and postsemester, 2000–2001. Numbers are percent of surveyed students responding in each thematic category.
Questions How would you describe the learning process as it occurs in the college classroom? Faculty lecture, students take notes, exams Students responsible for assembling knowledge Knowledge gained through interaction Learn through hands-on activities Don’t know Other How much have you interacted with college faculty? “A lot” Not at all Only “on demand”
Fall 2000 (n = 21)
Fall 2001 (n = 27)
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
29 5 14 0 43 9
0 5 62 14 5 14
78 7 0 4 4 7
0 0 56 11 4 32
48 38 14
86 0 14
48 30 22
92 4 4
made it easier for the instructor to identify and correct common misconceptions. Academic Controversy Exercise. Academic controversy is a more structured and complex strategy that involves student groups of four debating an issue. Student subgroups of two persons are assigned opposing positions and each subgroup is expected to develop and present a case supporting their position. Then the subgroups are instructed to switch positions, develop additional support for the new position, and present that to the opposing subgroup. Finally, the four-person group is asked to discuss the issue and reach consensus, if possible, on a position. Many natural resource topics lend themselves to academic controversies (Jungst et al., 2003). Topics that have been used for academic controversies include public taking of land, endangered species listings, and federal agency fire policy, to name a few. During academic controversies we have observed student groups completely immersed in the technical aspects of the issue being debated. At the same time, students are practicing important interactive skills (in particular, active listening and challenging ideas, not people), and based on student reflections about their debates, this is a powerful learning experience.
STUDENT RESPONSES Initial student responses may vary from acceptance, to skepticism, to complete rejection of a learning-centered classroom. This range of student response is not unexpected, since many students have successfully progressed through the educational system in teaching-centered classrooms. To increase student buy-in, a clear explanation to students of the learningcentered approach is imperative, what it entails, why it is being used, and what it requires of them. Over the 4 yr studied, most students have been willing to very quickly become active participants in the classroom. As the semester progresses, students develop the ability to interact meaningfully on academic tasks with their peers, and to ask questions and challenge ideas presented by faculty as well as their peers (Fig. 5). Students were surveyed at different points during the semester to assess the learning-centered classroom approach and how it affected student learning (Tables 2, 3, and 4). The data presented here are primarily qualitative and based on student responses to open-ended questions. The primary reason for a qualitative approach is that all second-year students were in the sophomore series and were engaged in this venture, so there was no control group to use for comparison. In addition, relatively low sample sizes make statistical comparisons difficult. The qualitative data gathered do provide important information that has been used to guide modifications to this curriculum, and the information is presented here to inform others considering pedagogical modifications to their own courses and curricula. There were some differences in survey content and pattern of administration in various years. All surveys included openended questions on learning, collaboration, and self-reflection about personal growth by students. To collect this data, midand postsemester surveys were administered in 1998, pre- and postsemester surveys were collected in 1999, and pre-, mid-, and postsemester surveys were administered in 2000 and 2001 (Tables 2 and 3). Quantitative data were collected using questions with responses based on a Likert scale in 2000 and 2001 (Table 4). Although surveys contained a number of questions, student responses to four items provide insight on students’ percep-
Fig. 5. Students engaged in an academic controversy in Forest Biology (For 201). For this interactive learning strategy, students worked first (a) in pairs to develop their position on a controversial issue, and then (b) each pair presented their argument to another student pair supporting the opposing position. Adapted from Johnson et al. (1991a).
28 • J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ., Vol. 32, 2003
Table 3. Themes emerging from student responses to open-ended questions prompting reflection about learning in the 200-series courses, mid-, and postsemester, 1998–2001. Numbers are percent of surveyed students responding in each thematic category.
Questions What have you learned about yourself in your group work? Can work well with others Can take leadership Get frustrated by group work Need to compromise Need to be patient Have more success as a group than as an individual Other How would you like to grow/have you grown in your ability to work with others? Accept other ideas Remain cooperative/main group relationships Improve communication skills (listening and speaking up) Stay on task Develop patience Other
Fall 1998 (n = 36)
Fall 1999 (n = 29)
Fall 2000 (n = 21)
Fall 2001 (n = 27)
Mid
Post
Mid
Post
Mid
Post
Mid
Post
16 20 3 8 11 22 20
28 17 8 11 8 6 22
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
35 4 15 8 4 11 23
35 0 10 10 0 20 25
43 0 9 0 5 10 33
46 11 0 0 0 11 32
32 16 16 0 0 8 28
6 25 25 17 11 11
3 50 14 0 11 22
NA NA NA NA NA NA
11 54 8 0 4 23
5 30 20 15 10 14
5 67 9 0 5 14
11 38 19 0 4 27
8 60 12 0 0 20
tion of learning and their experiences in the sophomore series. First, students were asked, “How would you describe the learning process as it occurs in college classrooms?” Based on their previous college experiences, 29% of students in 2000 and 78% of students in 2001 (the only years this question appeared in a presemester survey) indicated that the pedagogy they most frequently experienced was a lecture–notes–exam format (Table 2). Their answers usually explained that learning occurred as information was presented by a professor, and that students were later expected to demonstrate their learning by answering questions on exams. Notably, in Fall 2000, 43% of students indicated on the presemester survey that they did not know how learning occurred (Table 2). A much smaller proportion of students (4–5%) indicated they did not know how learning occurred at the beginning of Fall 2001, and at the time of the postsemester survey both years. Responses to the question about describing how learning occurred in postsemester surveys also indicated student awareness of the shift toward a learning-centered approach in the forestry courses. In both 2000 and 2001, none of the students mentioned a traditional lecture format as being part of their college classroom experience on the postsemester surveys. There were increases in the proportion of students indicating that learning occurred through interaction, from 14 to 62% in 2000, and from 0 to 56% in 2001; and for the proportion of students indicating that learning occurred through hands-on activities, from 0 to 14% in Fall 2000, and from 4 to 11% in 2001. Second, students were asked “How much have you interacted with college faculty?” Their responses fell into three general categories, using their words, “a lot,” “not at all,” and “on demand.” Before the fall series, 48% of respondents (in both 2000 and 2001) indicated “a lot” of interaction with faculty (Table 2), whereas after the fall series 86% (2000) and 92% (2001) of responding students reported this level of interaction with faculty (Table 2). Students also indicated in their responses that this was very important to their learning. An emphasis on active and collaborative learning provides many meaningful opportunities for interaction both with faculty and with other students, while remaining focused on technical skills and course content. The third question, which appeared on mid- and postsemester surveys in all 4 yr, was “What have you learned about yourself in your group work?” Student reflections based on this question have particular significance in terms of students’
abilities to successfully interact with others in their future professional careers. A large proportion of students (35–46%) on surveys in 1999–2001 reported learning that they could work well with others (Table 3). Responses to the same item in 1998 reflect differences between class cohorts, with a much lower proportion of students responding in this manner on the mid1998 survey (16%), although these responses were more prevalent on the postsemester survey (28%) that year. The ability to take leadership was reported by a higher proportion of students in 1998 compared with other years, as was the need to be patient when working with groups. Also notable was the proportion of students that reported being frustrated by group work, which actually increased between mid- and postsemester surveys in 3 out of the 4 yr (Table 3). However, the largest proportion of students reporting frustration was 16% (Fall 2001 postsemester survey). In their description of a collaborative semester-long laboratory exercise, Balster et al. (2001) indicated that 20% of students reported a preference for working as an individual rather than as a group member on their course evaluations. Results in both cases indicate a need for faculty to continue to identify additional opportunities to enhance group processes and products. Fourth, students were asked “How would you like to grow (midsemester)/have you grown (postsemester) in your ability to work with others?” On the midsemester surveys, a large proportion of students (25–38%) over all 4 yr indicated that cooperating and maintaining group relationships was an area for further developing their skills. Very high proportions of students indicated that they had grown in their ability to cooperTable 4. Means of student responses about effectiveness of the forestry sophomore series, based on a rising 6-point Likert scale. Results from Fall Semester 2000 and 2001 were pooled to give a sample size of 46. Question How effective has the sophomore series been in terms of: Engaging you in learning Giving you the opportunity to: learn in your preferred learning style develop the ability to think critically learn to communicate with others in a variety of formats help you apply fundamental concepts and principles to new problems prompt your curiosity to know more
Mean
t value†
Significance
4.70
6.017
