Element contents
Series: Elements of Paleontology
Student-Centered Teaching in Paleontology and Geoscience Classrooms
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 October 2018
Summary
Research on learning and cognition in geoscience education research and other discipline-based education communities suggests that effective instruction should include three key components: a) activation of students' prior knowledge on the subject, b) an active learning pedagogy that allows students to address any existing misconceptions and then build a new understanding of the concept, and c) metacognitive reflections that require students to evaluate their own learning processes during the lesson. This Element provides an overview of the research on student-centered pedagogy in introductory geoscience and paleontology courses and gives examples of these instructional approaches. Student-centered learning shifts the power and attention in a classroom from the instructor to the students. In a student-centered classroom, students are in control of their learning experience and the instructor functions primarily as a guide. Student-centered classrooms trade traditional lecture for conceptually-oriented tasks, collaborative learning activities, new technology, inquiry-based learning, and metacognitive reflection.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements of PaleontologyOnline ISBN: 9781108681483Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 29 November 2018
References
Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephin, C., Sikes, J., and Snapp, M.. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Aronson, E., and Patnoe, S.. (2011). Cooperation in the Classroom: The Jigsaw Method, 3rd edn. London: Printer and Martin, Ltd.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(5):356–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruno, B. C., Engels, J., Ito, G., Gillis-Davis, J., Dulai, H., Carter, G., Fletcher, C., and Bottjer-Wilson, D.. (2017). Two-stage exams: A powerful tool for reducing the achievement gap in undergraduate oceanography and geology classes. Oceanography, 30(2):198–208.Google Scholar
Bursztyn, N., Shelton, B., Walker, A., and Pederson, J.. (2017). Increasing undergraduate interest to learn geoscience with GPS-based augmented reality field trips on students’ own smartphones. GSA Today, 27(6):4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, P. (1978). Some aspects of the development of geological thinking. Journal of Geology Teaching, 3:142–148.Google Scholar
Cortright, R. N., Collins, H. L., Rodenbaugh, D. W., and DiCarlo, S. E.. (2003). Student retention of course content is improved by collaborative-group testing. Advanced Physiological Education, 27(3):102–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. The Psychologist, 34:906–911.Google Scholar
Fosnot, C. T. (2005). Constructivism: Theory, Perspective and Practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., and Wenderoth, M. P.. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering and mathematics. PNAS, 111:8410–8415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frodeman, R. (2003). Geo-Logic: Breaking Ground between Philosophy and the Earth Sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Glossary of Education Reform. (2014). Retrieved Dec. 3, 2017, http://edglossary.org/student-centered-learning/.Google Scholar
Gilley, B. H., and Clarkston, B.. (2014). Collaborative testing: Evidence of learning in a controlled in-class study of undergraduate students. Journal of College Science Teaching, 43(3):83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., and Liu, L.. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(3):307–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., and Nagarajan, A.. (2002). “It’s harder than we thought it would be”: A comparative case study of expert-novice experimentation strategies. Science Education, 86(2):219–243.Google Scholar
Kastens, K., Manduca, C. A., Cervato, C., Frodeman, R., Goodwin, C., Liben, L. S., Mogk, D. W., Spranger, T. C., Stillings, N. A., and Titus, S.. (2009). How geoscientists think and learn. EOS Transactions, 90:265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyoungna, K., Sharma, P., Land, S. M., and Furlong, K. P.. (2012). Effects of active learning on enhancing student critical thinking in an undergraduate general science course. Innovative Higher Learning, 38(3):223–235.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, M., Crouch, C. H., and Mazur, E.. (2005). Reducing the gender gap in the physics classroom. American Journal of Physics, 74:118–122.Google Scholar
Lyle, K. S., and Robinson, W. R.. (2003). A statistical evaluation: Peer-led team learning in an organic chemistry course. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(2):121–124.Google Scholar
Lusk, M. and Conklin, L.. (2003). Collaborative testing to promote learning. Journal of Nursing Education, 42(3):121–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McConnell, D. A., Steer, D. N., Owens, K. D., and Knight, C. C.. (2005). How students think: Implications for learning in introductory geoscience courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54(4):462–470.Google Scholar
McGreen, N, and Sánchez, I. A.. (2005). Mapping challenge: A case study in the use of mobile phones in collaborative, contextual learning. In Isaías, P., Borg, C., Commers, P., and Bonanno, P., eds., Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Mobile Learning. Qawra, Malta:IADIS pp. 213–217.Google Scholar
Mogk, D. W., and Goodwin, C.. (2012). Learning in the field: Synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences. Geological Society of American Special Papers, 486:131–163.Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences. (1998). Activities for teaching about evolution and the nature of science. In Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, pp. 61–73.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (1996). From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2000a). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, expanded edn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2000b). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: National Academics Press.Google Scholar
Novack, J. D. (1991). Clarify with concept maps: A tool for students and teachers alike. The Science Teacher, 58:45–49.Google Scholar
Park, C. (2003). Engaging students in the learning process: The learning journal. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27(2):183–199.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1964). Development and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28:213–224.Google Scholar
Ramasundaram, V., Grunwald, S., Mangeot, A., Comerford, N. B., and Bliss, C. M.. (2005). Development of an environmental virtual field laboratory. Computers and Education, 45:21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how it is changing? In Reigeluth, C. M., ed. Instructional-Design Theories and Models, Volume II. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 5–30.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Briggs, D., Iverson, H., Talbot, R., and Shepard, L. A.. (2011). Impact of undergraduate science course innovations on learning. Science, 331(6022):1269–1270.Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. C., and Newby, T. J.. (1986). Metacognition: Relevance to instruction design. Journal of Instructional Design, 9(4):29–33.Google Scholar
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1987). What’s all the fuss about metacognition? In Schoenfeld, A. H., ed., Cognitive Science and Mathematics Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 189–215.Google Scholar
Science Education Resource Center. (2017). Retrieved Dec. 2, 2017, http://serc.carleton.edu.Google Scholar
Spencer, D. (2017). Enhancing Socially-Shared Metacognition in Introductory Geology. Unpublished PhD dissertation, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Tenney, A., and Houck, B.. (2003). Peer-led team learning in introductory biology and chemistry courses: A parallel approach. Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 6:11–20.Google Scholar
Uhen, M. D., Lukes, L., George, C., and Lockwood, R.. (2016). Build creative thinking into the STEM undergraduate classroom experience using large databases: The Paleobiology Database example. Innovations in Teaching and Learning Conference Proceedings Vol. 8, http://dx.doi.org/10.13021/G84G7B.Google Scholar
van der Hoeven Kraft, K. J., 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.Google Scholar
White, B., Fredericksen, J., and Collins, A.. (2009). The interplay of scientific inquiry and metacognition: More than a marriage of convenience. In Hacker, D. J., Dunlosky, J., and Graesser, A. C., eds., Handbook of Metacognition in Education. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 176–205.Google Scholar
Yacobucci, M. M. (2012). Using active learning strategies to promote deep learning in the undergraduate paleontology classroom. In Yacobucci, M. M. and Lockwood, R., eds., Teaching Paleontology in the 21st Century. Paleontological Society Special Publication Vol. 12, pp. 135–153.Google Scholar
Yuretich, R. F., Kahn, S. A., Leckie, R. M., and Clement, J. J.. (2001). Active-learning methods to improve student performance and scientific interest in a large introductory oceanography course. Journal of Geoscience Education, 49(2):111–119.Google Scholar
- 18
- Cited by