To produce competent students who can support the rapid changes occurring in natural resource management you need to get them to do more than listen: students must read, write, discuss, analyse, synthesise, evaluate, solve problems and work together. There is a growing need to include other strategies and skills development in classroom teaching. Both authors have attempted to use problem based learning (PBL) to strengthen and develop student competencies in the areas of information literacy, communication and solving "real-world" problems. Our teaching approach is to integrate knowledge acquisition and teaching strategies to actively engage students in the learning process. The authors present class activities and student and lecturer evaluations of PBL in two units: Land Evaluation and Land Degradation (Lobry de Bruyn), and Rural Extension Science (Prior).
The use of PBL has identified some generic learning issues in a natural resource management context and they include:
To develop a successful PBL teaching framework requires frequent monitoring of student learning progress and perceptions, and a considerable degree of responsiveness on the part of the teacher. In conclusion PBL can provide effective strategies for strengthening and developing student competencies in a number of desired learning areas.
- Students often feel uncomfortable in being presented with "messy" ill-defined problems which is characteristic of the "fuzzy" nature of the PBL environment.
- The nature of the problem solving skills required - a range of problem solving skills or tools (eg. critical thinking, strategic planning) must also be taught (or developed) as part of PBL exercises.
- The nature of the group/team skills required - most PBL exercises are conducted within student groups or teams. Thus students must develop team skills and perspectives in order to successfully undertake the PBL exercise.
Problem Based Learning is a strategy for encouraging critical thinking and problem solving skills along with content knowledge through the use of real world situations, or problems (Littlejohn 1998).There are also several characteristics of PBL that appealed to our teaching philosophy and make PBL distinctive from subject-based teaching. The characteristics (Table 1) can be summarised as follows (Boud and Feletti 1997):
|Subject-based learning paradigm||Problem-based learning paradigm|
|Lecturer assumes the role of expert or formal authority.||Lecturer role is as a facilitator, guide, co-learner, mentor, coach, or professional consultant.|
|Lecturers work in isolation.||Lecturers work in teams with one another and staff outside discipline.|
|Lecturers transmit information to the students.||Students take responsibility for learning and create partnerships between student and teacher.*|
|Lecturers organise content into lectures based on context of discipline.||Lecturers design course based on "ill-structured" problem empower students, and select concepts that will allow students to transfer knowledge.|
Lecturers enhance student motivation by providing real life problems and by understanding students' problems.
|Students are viewed as "empty vessels" or passive receivers of information.||Lecturers seek to encourage student initiative, empower students, and select concepts that will allow students to transfer knowledge.|
|Students work in isolation.||Students interact with lecturer/s to provide immediate feedback about performance for improvement.|
|Students absorb, transcribe, memorise, and repeat information for content specific tasks such as quizzes and exams.||Lecturers design course based on "ill-structured" problems that provide a role for the student in learning.|
|Learning is individualistic and competitive.||Students experience learning in a collaborative and supportive environment.|
|Students seek "right answer" to achieve success on a test.||Lecturers discourage only one "right answer" but help students learn to frame questions, formulate problems, explore alternatives, and make effective decisions.|
|Performance measured on content specific tasks.||Students identify, analyse, and resolve problems using knowledge from previous experiences and courses, rather than simply recalling it.|
|Grading is summative, and the instructor is the only evaluator.||Students evaluate their own contributions as well as other members and the entire group.|
|Lecture based on one-way communication; information is conveyed to groups of students.||Students work in groups to solve problems.|
Students acquire and apply knowledge in a variety of contexts.
Students find resources, and faculty guide students to information and resources.
Students seek useful and relevant knowledge to be able to apply toward job skills and employment.
|* Cambridge, B. L. (1996). The paradigm shifts: Examining quality of teaching through assessment of student learning. Innovative Higher Education, 20(4), 287-297.|
This paper is dealing with the experiences and lessons learnt by two lecturers teaching in two units in the discipline of natural resource management for three different degree programs (Rural Science, Natural Resources and Urban Regional Planning). The two units in question are Rural Extension Science (AGEX 310/510, Julian Prior), and Land Evaluation and Land Degradation (EM 311/511, Lisa Lobry de Bruyn). Both units are taught internally and externally. Problem Based Learning (PBL) was applied in the Classroom for Land Evaluation and Land Degradation, while Rural Extension Science used PBL as a Field-based approach in the form of a professional consultancy with an industry client. The following outline of paper summarises the topics covered:
Many undergraduate students on completion of their degree will find work in land management agencies either at local, state or federal level, and will often find themselves working in teams with disparate backgrounds and experiences in problem solving. Graduates must function effectively as a group member, as well as achieve progress within the project upon which they will be working. Thus they must understand how to work as part of a team, delegate tasks, make joint decisions and allocate resources. Hence PBL involves students in learning about team work and implementing a range of tasks to achieve an outcome (eg of tasks are interpersonal skills, time management, report writing, communication and active listening).
An important unit learning goal was to allow students to develop skills in problem identification, and PBL was considered a suitable approach for developing such a skill. In the real world graduates will be confronted by not one, but several, land degradation problems. They will need to be able to separate the various strands that have led to their development so they can advise clients on appropriate forms of remediation or preventative action. The provision of real-life examples in the classroom and field allow students to gain experience in interpreting and identifying the true cause of the problem. Using PBL was also an approach for promoting the development and practise of learning skills such as acquiring knowledge and critically evaluating its worth, relevancy and currency rather than emphasising the recollection and regurgitation of "facts". The series of PBL exercises in Land Degradation and Land Evaluation relies on individual students developing an argument and being able to justify it based on various forms of evidence, after having worked in groups discussing the issues. This approach gives students a sequence of skill and knowledge development (description to explaining, synthesis and evaluation) (Bloom Taxonomy, Bloom et. al., 1956, and SOLO Taxonomy, Biggs and Collis 1982).
Implicit in the use of PBL was the desire to demonstrate to students that their learning needs were a priority as was their ability to demonstrate competencies relevant to the workplace. PBL provides a framework for cohesion and integration of unit curriculum, class activities and assessment tasks. In the Field-based Professional Consultancy students identify their own workplace-relevant training needs as they progressed through the consultancy. Then hopefully, students work towards meeting these training needs. Finally, students applied their learning outcomes within the context of their extension project. Their performance in the Field-based Professional Consultancy was assessed by self, peer, client and lecturer upon the quality of the application of these learning outcomes. Hence, PBL allows the lecturer to align assessment tasks, content delivery and learning outcomes so that all three areas complement each other and assessment activities were not considered "gratuitous".
This alignment of teaching and learning goals and actions is especially important since both units do not have an end of unit exam and using PBL approach in the classroom and field-based activities was a technique for motivating class attendance and participation. For example, the replacement of an end of unit exam (30%) with PBL exercises in Land Evaluation and Land Degradation provided the opportunity to give students more feedback, highlight conceptual errors, and focus on improving learning skills and written expression, especially in explaining or justifying their chosen solution.
The Land Evaluation and Land Degradation unit caters for two different degree program students with varying levels of prior knowledge. Hence the unit needs to be designed so that it can provide intellectual stimulation for both groups of students, those with a greater foundation in soil science, and still support the alternate group who are less confident about the subject material. PBL allows for the disparity in prior knowledge by encouraging students to share what they know as well as identify what they need to know and where are they going to find it. Thus, each student could choose to explore a different area deeply, to find their own level of learning, and pursue areas of interest to them, hence encouraging intellectual curiosity and discovery.
To summarise, the use of PBL was designed to create an learning environment for the student that:
Figure 1: Results of three PBL exercises for Land Evaluation and Land Degradation students (n =37) over 13 week semester. PBL one due in week 5, PBL two due in week 8 and PBL three due in week 13 of the semester.The students in Land Degradation and Land Evaluation were evaluated at the end of the unit to ascertain their approach to learning using a survey instrument adapted from Biggs (1986). The two reasons for evaluating the students approach to learning was to determine if PBL was suitable teaching approach and raise students awareness of their preferred learning approach. On average Figure 2 shows that students used a mixture of the three learning approaches - surface, deep and strategic, with no one approach dominating.
Figure 2: Learning approaches by students enrolled in Land Evaluation and Land Degradation (n = 18), and myself evaluated at the end of the unit. 35 = always true, 21 = half the time true and 7 = never applies.The relationship between class attendance and grade in the final PBL exercise was an interesting one (Figure 3). It shows that for those students who regularly attended class achieved a Credit and above grade, while those students who consistently missed classes achieved a Credit or lower grade for the last PBL exercise. This graph will be used to motivate students to attend class and realise the benefits of doing so.
Figure 3: The relationship between student grade of the final PBL Exercise and consistency of Class Attendance through the semester (n = 32)
|What the team did well|
|Technical components of consultancy (background information for technical aspects).|
|Teams generally worked well together, communicated, and delegated and shared responsibilities.|
|Achieved client satisfaction and delivered project outcomes.|
|What the team could do better|
|Student Professionalism was an intended behavioural outcome and students felt they had not performed to an acceptable standard. Teams tended to view themselves as "students" rather than as adult consultants. Teams tended to develop a student-lecturer relationship with clients rather than one of equal power between all parties.|
|Effective Communication.* More frequent communication with client to inform of progress and seek feedback. Utilise active listening skills taught in class.|
|Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)*. Formalise and document client's needs for the Field-based Professional Consultancy in a MOU, and avoid misunderstandings between team and client expectations regarding project's outcomes.|
|Interpersonal Skills. Resolve internal conflicts such as inequitable commitment of group members by revisiting ground rules (codes of conduct with consequences for non-compliance) earlier in the consultancy project.|
|Time Management.* Improve planning in the early stages of the consultancy and set clear objectives and milestones via the Action Plan to avoid time being wasted and causing a 'log jam' of tasks to be completed near the end of the project.|
|Scaffolding and support of Lecturer Learning needs for the Field-based Professional Consultancy were not always sequenced at the appropriate time for the learner. Hence teams were only realising they needed certain skills in the field after they had been taught them, but often it was too late to make effective use of the information.|
At the end of semester students were asked for feedback on assessment and the use of PBL, and directly asked them "How do you think you could improve on your performance in the problem based learning exercises?" and 12 out of 21 students responded by saying " by understanding what is required" or " what was expected to begin with ie the marking schedule - had no idea what format or structure was expected" and "I need to have more specific knowledge of what the lecturer wants...". A few students identified their contribution to their performance by saying, "make more concrete suggestions/ recommendations and display insights not regurgitated from text." The remainder made no comment. Personally their responses were quite frustrating as with every "meet the problem" an approach was reiterated and it highlighted the requirements of the three page submission using an asterisk. It was assumed that this was adequate direction. In class "clues" were given as to where useful information could be found and some possible solutions. Upon subsequent reflection it was decided that more scaffolding is required, and they relied too much on the lecturer to provide them with information to solve the problem, and avoided further self-directed research. To redirect student focus onto their individual and collective responsibility it was decided to establish early in the semester a set of ground rules that explicitly identify student responsibilities and consequences of non-compliance and identify lecturer, student and class responsibilities and actions to support learning. It is also necessary to reinforce the ground rules through the semester if student enthusiasm wanes.
To value the learning skills that they are expected to use and develop in the PBL exercises they were explicitly included n the marking framework. Unfortunately the original marking framework used to assess PBL 1 and 2 was not well accepted by students (several commented on this in evaluations), and they felt that feedback did not help them improve on their performance in the PBL exercise. By the last PBL exercise the marking framework had been modified and based on observable/demonstrable performance criteria, avoided jargon and provided more focused feedback on what students had done well, where they could improve and areas they had not mentioned, but needed to. To emphasise research and learning skills they were also included as part of the marking framework and students would need to demonstrate that they had done more than use the information provided to them. In future they will be asked to address the following question "How confident are you your solution is the best one and explain why?"
An overall summary of the following strategies is that they are: building students' confidence in their abilities (1); encouraging students to be more proactive in their learning (undertaking tasks and identifying needs) (2, 3 and 4), and reinforcing desirable outcomes by formalising them in assessment procedures (5, 6, 7 and 8).
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst E. J., Hill, W. H., and Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives 1: Cognitive Domain. McKay, NY.
Boud, D. and Felletti, G. I. Eds (1997). The Challenge of Problem Based Learning. 2nd Edition. Kogan Page, London.
Collis, K. F., and Biggs, J. B. (1983). Matriculation, degree requirements, and cognitive demands in Universities and CAEs. Australian Journal of Education, 27, 41-51.
Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the Effective University. Higher Education Research and Development, 17, 347-370.
Littlejohn, R. (1998) A workshop on Problem Based Learning.
[verified 12 Oct 2001 at http://www.belmont.edu/Humanities/Philosophy/PBL/PBLBUhome.html]
for you to go away and answer
for me to go away and answer
Those sections with the asterisk need to be written up and presented in your 3 page synopsis
|Authors: Lisa Lobry de Bruyn, Ecosystem Management, School of Rural Science and Natural Resources, University of New England. Phone: 02 6773 3119 Fax: 02 6773 2769 Email: email@example.com
Julian Prior, Animal Science, School of Rural Science and Natural Resources, University of New England
Phone: 02 6773 3610 Fax: 02 6773 3275 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please cite as: Lobry de Bruyn, L. and Prior, J. (2001). Changing student learning focus in natural resource management education - problems (and some solutions) with using problem based learning. In L. Richardson and J. Lidstone (Eds), Flexible Learning for a Flexible Society, 441-451. Proceedings of ASET-HERDSA 2000 Conference, Toowoomba, Qld, 2-5 July 2000. ASET and HERDSA. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/aset-herdsa2000/procs/lobrydebruyn.html