Page 8 - i1052-5173-29-10

developing students’ systems-thinking opportunity to engage in data-rich,
skills in introductory courses (Gilbert et problem-solving activities (Egger et al., 5 6
al., 2019; Iverson et al., 2019). 2019). These and other resources can sup- 4 1
plement or replace textbooks to emphasize
Human Interactions with Earth human interactions with Earth and build
Fully one-third of the PEs in the NGSS relevance and motivation for students. Intro
address human interactions with Earth geoscience
(Table S1 [see footnote 1]). Even at the Using Practices to Engage with Data 3
middle school level, students should be The eight science and engineering prac-
able to “construct an argument supported tices of the Framework (NRC, 2012b)
by evidence for how increases in human make components of authentic scientific 2
population and per-capita consumption of investigation explicit (Table S2). The prac-
natural resources impact Earth’s systems” tices move instruction and learning away
(NGSS Lead States, 2013). In contrast, from the unrealistic conception of the lin- 1
almost none of the top fifteen topics listed ear scientific method and toward a more 6
on syllabi in Earth science, geology, or authentic view of what scientists and engi-
oceans highlight connections to humans neers really do (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2017). 2
(Table 2): only resources (in geology) and While the PEs focus on using the prac-
ocean pollution (in oceans). Most instruc- tices to investigate phenomena, the learn- High
tors in geology and Earth science instead ing outcomes in introductory courses 5 school
spend as much as a third of course time emphasize content knowledge (Fig. 4). The
covering rocks and minerals, topics that large number of topics and learning out- 3
are conspicuously absent from the PEs comes addressed in courses may contrib-
(Table S1 [see footnote 1]). Textbooks ute to the paucity of higher-level learning 4
appear to be one of the primary determi- outcomes, but engaging in high-level
nants of topics, which may mean that, activities (while covering fewer topics) has Bloom’s Levels: Action verbs
in order to address topics like hazard mit- been shown to increase learning gains for 1 Remembering: Describe, identify,
recognize, define, know
igation and managing natural resources, students (e.g., Freeman et al., 2014; NRC, 2 Understanding: Explain, under-
instructors need to change or supplement 2015) and allows for more student-driven stand, interpret, discuss, demonstrate,
their required text. questioning that, like relevance, can moti- explore, classify, distinguish, illustrate
There are other reasons to emphasize vate further investigation. In particular, 3 Applying: Use, apply, predict,
connections to individuals and societies instructors mostly do not engage students calculate, solve, utilize
in introductory courses. Investigating in developing and using models (SEP 2, 4 Analyzing: Analyze, differentiate,
compare, contrast, model, investigate
phenomena that connect to their lives and Fig. 3). Most make very limited use of 5 Evaluating: Evaluate, test
communities can provide students with mathematical and computational thinking 6 Creating: Create, synthesize,
motivation for learning (e.g., Glynn et al., (SEP 5)—especially statistics (Fig. 2)— construct, design
2009). But less than half of instructors and obtaining, evaluating, and communi-
engage students in investigations that cating information (SEP 8), since a minor- Figure 4. Frequency of use of action verbs at
emphasize connections to societal issues ity ask students to read the primary different Bloom’s levels in learning outcomes
and disproportionately fewer geology literature or formally present (Fig. 2). In and performance expectations. Note that
more than one action verb may be included per
instructors do so (Fig. 3). analyzing and interpreting data (SEP 4), learning outcome.
Currently, human interactions with nearly all instructors ask students to distin-
Earth are not emphasized in most intro- guish observations from interpretations
ductory geoscience courses, leaving stu- (Fig. 2), but far fewer ask them to collect
dents ill-prepared to make personal, pro- their own data and analyze them with all
fessional, and societal decisions about of the uncertainty and ambiguity inherent
TABLE 3. FINAL GRADE COMPONENTS
development, resource use, and many in that process (Fig. 3). Component No. (%) of Average
other issues. This is unfortunate for The emphasis on exams as a major com- syllabi contribution
teachers, but the lack of connections to ponent of final grades (Table 3) suggests Exams 126 (92%) 41.2%
society (and thus perceived irrelevance that assessment is still heavily weighted Final exam 86 (63%) 22.7%
of the discipline) can negatively impact toward content knowledge rather than Lab 76 (56%) 27.9%
recruitment and retention of students into engagement in the practices. While it is Homework 66 (49%) 19.8%
Quizzes
16.0%
65 (48%)
the geosciences (e.g., Huntoon and Lane, possible to design exams that assess skills Project/report 53 (39%) 18.0%
2007). The American Geosciences rather than content (e.g., Jensen et al., In-class 48 (35%) 16.1%
Institute defines nine “critical needs” 2014), many syllabi indicated that exams activities
where geoscience contributes to the were multiple choice only and/or based Participation 28 (21%) 7.7%
8.9%
Attendance
7 (5.1%)
development of solutions (AGI, 2016); solely on content in different portions of E + FE + Q* 134 (99%) 60.1%
these issues provide a framework for cur- the course. As alternatives or in addition *The sum of contributors to final grades
ricular materials that give students the to exams, labs, homework, projects, and for exams, final exams, and quizzes.

8 GSA Today | October 2019