Element contents
Series: Elements of Paleontology
Beyond Hands On
Incorporating Kinesthetic Learning in an Undergraduate Paleontology Class
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 October 2018
Summary
Hands-on learning in paleontology, and geology in general, is fairly common practice. Students regularly use rocks, fossils, and data in the classroom throughout their undergraduate career, but they typically do it sitting in a chair in a lab. Kinesthetic learning is a teaching model that requires students to be physically active while learning. Students may be involved in a physical activity during class or might be using their own bodies to model some important concept. This Element briefly discusses the theory behind kinesthetic learning and how it fits into a student-centered, active-learning classroom. It then describes in detail methods for incorporating it into student exercises on biostratigraphy, assessment of sampling completeness, and modeling evolutionary processes. Assessment data demonstrates that these exercises have led to significantly improved student learning outcomes tied to these concepts.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements of PaleontologyOnline ISBN: 9781108681544Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 29 November 2018
References
Anbarasi, M., Rajkumar, G., Krishnakumar, S., Rajendran, P., Venkatesan, R., Dinesh, T., Mohan, J., and Venkidusamy, S. (2015). Learning style-based teaching harvests a superior comprehension of respiratory physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 39, 214–217.Google ScholarPubMed
Beaudoin, C. R. and Johnston, P. (2011). The impact of purposeful movement in algebra instruction. Education, 132, 82–96.Google Scholar
Bennington, J. B. (2018). Biostratigraphic and lithostratigraphic correlation of sedimentary strata in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Retrieved February 1, 2018, https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/paleo/activities/33136.html.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. (1987). Random walk and the existence of evolutionary rates. Paleobiology, 13, 446–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgeman, A. J., Schmidt, T. W., and Young, N. J. (2013). Using atomic orbitals and kinesthetic learning to authentically derive molecular stretching vibrations. Journal of Chemical Education, 90, 889–893.Google Scholar
Brown Wright, G. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23, 92–97.Google Scholar
Bull, S. and McCalla, G. (2002). Modelling cognitive style in a peer help network. Instructional Science, 30, 497–528.Google Scholar
Carlson, L. E. and Sullivan, J. F. (1999). Hands-on engineering: Learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. International Journal of Engineering Education, 15, 20–31.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. and Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219–243.Google Scholar
Christensen, R., Knezek, G., and Tyler-Wood, T. (2015). Alignment of hands-on STEM engagement activities with positive STEM dispositions in secondary school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 898–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clasen, R. E. and Bowman, W. E. (1974). Toward a student-centered learning focus inventory for junior high and middle school teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 68, 9–11.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. (1885). On the evolution of the vertebrata, progressive and retrogressive. American Naturalist, 19, 140–148.Google Scholar
Dunn, R. S. and Dunn, K. J. (1978). Teaching Students through Their Individual Learning Styles: A Practical Approach. Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.Google Scholar
Favre, L. R. (2009). Kinesthetic instructional strategies: Moving at-risk learners to higher levels. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 6, 29–35.Google Scholar
Felder, R. M. and Brent, R. (1996). Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College Teaching, 44, 43–47.Google Scholar
Fleming, N. D. (1995). I’m different; not dumb. Modes of presentation (VARK) in the tertiary classroom. In Zelmer, A., ed., Research and Development in Higher Education, Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Higher Education and Research Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), pp. 308–313.Google Scholar
Flick, L. B. (1993). The meanings of hands-on science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 4, 1–8.Google Scholar
Gotelli, N. J. and Colwell, R. K. (2011). Estimating species richness. In Magurran, A. E. and McGill, B. J., eds., Biological Diversity: Frontiers in Measurement and Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
Griggs, L., Barney, S., Brown-Sederberg, J., Collins, E., Keith, S., and Ianucci, L. (2009). Varying pedagogy to address student multiple intelligences. Human Architecture: Journal of the Society of Self-Knowledge, 7, 55–60.Google Scholar
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawk, T. F. and Shah, A. J. (2007). Using learning style instruments to enhance student learning. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhammer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoellwarth, C. and Moelter, M. J. (2011). The implications of a robust curriculum in introductory mechanics. American Journal of Physics, 79, 540–545.Google Scholar
Hofstein, A. and Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty‐first century. Science Education, 88, 28–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, G. (2006). Fitting and comparing models of phyletic evolution: Random walks and beyond. Paleobiology, 32, 578–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keng Sheng, C. (2016). Tailoring teaching instructions according to students’ different learning styles: Are we hitting the right button? Education in Medicine Journal, 8, 103–107.Google Scholar
Lujan, H. L. and DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 13–16.Google Scholar
McShea, D. W. (1994). Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution, 48, 1747–1763.Google Scholar
Michael, J. (2006). Where’s the evidence that active learning works? Advances in Physiology Education, 30, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michael, J. and Modell, H. I. (2003). Active Learning in Secondary and College Science Classrooms: A Working Model for Helping the Learner to Learn, 1st edn. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Mobley, K. and Fisher, S. (2014). Ditching the desks: Kinesthetic learning in college classrooms. The Social Studies, 105, 301–309.Google Scholar
Niklas, K. J. (1994). Morphological evolution through complex domains of fitness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 91, 6772–6779.Google Scholar
The President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Report to the president – Engage to Excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Retrieved February 28, 2018, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2–25-12.pdf.Google Scholar
Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. (1991). Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? 1st edn. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Roopnarine, P. D., Byars, G., and Fitzgerald, P. (1999). Anagenetic evolution, stratophenetic patterns, and random walk models. Paleobiology, 25, 41–57.Google Scholar
Sorgenfrei, T. (1958). Molluscan Assemblages from the Marine Middle Miocene of South Jutland and Their Environments. Copenhagen: Geological Survey of Denmark.Google Scholar
Smith, A. B. (1994). Systematics and the Fossil Record: Documenting Patterns of Evolution, 1st edn. Oxford: Blackwell’s Science.Google Scholar
Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., and Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 2, 28–34.Google Scholar
Volpe, E. P. (1984). The shame of science education. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 24, 433–441.Google Scholar
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, 1st edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, V. (2002). Moving poems: Kinesthetic learning in the literature classroom. Pedagogy, 2, 409–425.Google Scholar
- 20
- Cited by