2. Bioscience Education Research Group
People Interests
 Graham Scott (NTF, UTF)  Student managed learning
 Chris Murphy (UTF)  Value of fieldwork
 Ray Goulder  Assessment and Feedback
 Phil Wheeler (UTF)  Student autonomy
 Julie Furnell  Employability
 Margaret Boyd Current collaborations
Hull: Modern Languages; Physical Sciences; Geography
UCLAN; Birmingham; Tasmania; Bangor
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/biological-sciences/research/functional-ecology/bioscience-education-group.aspx

3. Session outline
 Briefly describe some
past/current projects and
methodologies
 Outline some works in
progress
 Discuss some ideas for further
work
Two key themes
1) Student managed learning
2) Value of fieldwork
Linking to
 Student autonomy project

4. Student managed learning
 Ownership
 Problem solving
 Protocol design
 Site selection
 Setting own learning
targets
 Reflective practice
 Self and Peer
assessment
 Curriculum content

5. Value of Fieldwork
 What is the value of
fieldwork?
 What is its relative cost?
 Is it equally valuable to
all?
 Do we have/need a
pedagogy of fieldwork?
 Is it a vehicle for
multiple pedagogies?

6. Whales, Dolphins and Sharks
SML in a class-room setting
 Marine Biology
students tend to
want to learn about
whales, dolphins
and sharks
 This motivation can
be harnessed to
encourage them to
move beyond their
comfort zone

7. Triggers to stimulate engagement
 Short articles to trigger
discussion
 students bring own prior
knowledge to group
 themes of interest
are identified

8. where is when is
it a it a statistics/
problem problem data/
seismic
tests evidence Geography
Military
beaching Signature
Industry Sound Whistles
Shipping in Depth and
Self
water temperature
Conservation Noise awareness
pollution Social
Senses Season
Legislation behaviour
Sonar
Whistling Play
Killer Whales Communication
Transients/
residents Biology reproduction
Hunting
Evolution Anatomy
Confilict Diet Which
with baleen/ Physiology individuals
What
fishing toothed do it
species
Bubble do it
Whales, Traditional
Whaling Dolphins and Sharks. curtains
14 September 2010 |
8 practice

9. Learning process
1. 2.
Trigger Sharing
article information
Planning Sharing
information Setting own
Reflection goals
4 weeks
Setting own
goals Research &
Feedback 5 weeks discussions
from tutor Research &
discussions Self evaluation
Self and planning
feed-forward Report
Report
submission
Self/peer submission
assessment

10. Initial reaction of peers
 Colleagues were initially sceptical
 How could students decide what to learn?
 How could I assess their knowledge acquisition if I didn’t
decide what they would learn?
 How could students be expected to manage their own time?
 How can all members of a group get the same mark?

11. Impact on students
 Improved student attendance
 Higher than average module marks
 Increased awareness that skills developed in this module
can be used in others and in life after graduation:
 e.g. research skills, listening & communication skills, time
management, proof reading, group work, understanding that
content is perhaps more important than appearance,
understanding marking criteria, ability to reflect, confidence in
ones-self.
Maw, 2010

12. Current view of peers
 The SML approach is now used by a number of them
 pre-certificate and final year projects and fieldtrips, level 5 group
based core module, Biomedical Sciences professional studies,
modules in other departments
 Module recognised as good practice within institution (and has led in
part to a UTF, an NTF and an HEA award)
 Practice is informing curriculum re-design
 But can we have too much of a good thing?

13. SML and fieldwork

14. Student managed learning:
People Biology and the Environment
 Link to employability
 Allow the group to
determine their own
learning goals
 Enable students to find
relevance in their
learning
 Stimulate linkages
between modules
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/science/pdf/Community_Resources_compressed.pdf

16. Evaluation Strong Strong
agreement disagreement
Statement 1 2 3 4 5 Mean
I am more aware of community resources in the 6 4 1 0 1 1.8
Hull area
I am more likely to visit/use community 2 6 3 0 1 2.3
resources in the Hull area
I am more likely to visit/use community 2 5 2 2 1 2.6
resources where I live after graduation
I am likely to use community resources to 0 0 2 7 3 4.1
support my learning in final year
I expect to use community resources in 0 1 5 2 4 3.8
connection with my employment after
graduation
N = 12
(Goulder & Scott, 2010)

17. Extending whole class knowledge
 Allowing the individual some
control over what is learned
e.g. 52 students in Dalby forest:
Total n of tree species identified
Conifers 18
Broad-leaved trees & shrubs 27
Total n of tree species drawn,
labelled and annotated
Conifers 12
Broad-leaved trees & shrubs 12

18. Extending whole class knowledge
 Outcomes
 Many students listed/drew more plants than we anticipated.
 Their collective knowledge led them to undertake a wider range of
projects.
 Student perception
 In terms of enjoyment, this [fieldwork] is definitely preferable – to be
able to view the organisms in their environment first hand and then
apply that to what we see in the lab.
 This helped me as I could choose the plants that interested me
BUT
 Field study is in a way more interesting but it’s far easier to learn in the
lab when you have everything in front of you and there aren’t hours
wasted in the day.
Goulder & Scott (2009)

19. The value of fieldwork
 Literature supports affective
benefit of fieldwork and
suggests a cognitive benefit
 Pilot Study for the objective
evaluation of the value of
field work for learning about
biological diversity
 Using volunteers to assess
the impact of fieldwork
through a comparison of
two tasks.

20. The value of fieldwork
Comparison of two tasks
1. Freshwater invertebrates from a stream at Dalby Forest were collected
in the field by the students and sorted, identified and drawn in the
forest classroom.
2. Marine invertebrates from a sandy shore were collected by staff and
preserved. Sorting, identification and drawing was done by students in
a laboratory on campus.
3. After 1 month students were asked to describe the collection method
and to annotate diagrams of organisms that had been encountered

21. Evaluation of cognitive impact
 Short term - Students were better able to achieve the learning
outcomes in the task involving fieldwork (but N.S.)
 Longer term – Students were better able to describe the
sampling method that they had practiced (P<0.05 (Wilcoxon
matched pairs test)
 Longer term – Students were better able to annotate diagrams
of organisms encountered as part of the fieldwork session (but
N.S.)

22. Evaluation of affective impact: student perceptions
of the tasks
 Aimed to investigate potential shifts in attitude pre/post task
but – all of the volunteers were already converted to the
teaching methods!
 Reflecting upon recent experiences the students did enjoy
fieldwork more than laboratory work (p= 0.02, Wilcoxon
matched pairs test)
Survey tool adapted from Boyle et al (2007)

23. Student opinions
Field day was best….fun…..valued social dimension…Lacked
motivation in Scarborough….Scarborough was harder….field
day was more valuable – I acquired real skills…fieldwork links
to my career aims…..fieldwork made me think about safety
The fieldwork had greater value, it showed me that people
work together, meet new people and enjoy themselves when
they are having fun and doing something they find interesting
BUT
the day [was] quite long, this made the whole process quite
tiring

24. Negative views of fieldwork
 The literature focuses upon those students who like
fieldwork, but:
 People Biology and environment
 83% unlikely to use the “field” in final year
 Dalby tree practical
 Field study is in a way more interesting but it’s far easier to
learn in the lab when you have everything in front of you and
there aren’t hours wasted in the day.
 Value of Fieldwork
 the day [was] quite long, this made the whole process quite
tiring

25. Fieldwork for all?
Survey of 52 Biology students
 50% cite opportunities for
field work in top 3
reasons to choose Hull
 We found that mature
students have a better
perception of fieldwork
 Students who report a
negative experience of
pre-university fieldwork
have a poorer perception
of fieldwork at university

26. Two types of student?
 Do we have two types of student: Those preferring
fieldwork and those preferring laboratory work?
 Should all students have an opportunity to learn in the
field?
Fieldwork is something that I enjoy*
I would rather have lectures than do fieldwork†
I lose interest in fieldwork if the weather is poor†
I always feel well prepared for fieldwork*
Time in the field is time wasted†
Fieldwork teaches me valuable skills*
I learn most about the fieldwork topic in the field*
I learn most about the fieldwork topic in the post-trip write-up†
It would be better to work on material brought into the classroom rather than have to go into the field †
I would recommend fieldwork to others*
I feel safe whilst undertaking fieldwork*
*Statements agreement to which indicates a positive attitude to fieldwork.
†Statements agreement to which indicates a negative attitude to fieldwork.

27. Fieldwork or Lab-work?
100
Student perception of laboratory work (Ilab) 90
80
70
60
50
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Student perception of field work (Ifield)
Relationship between the students’ perception of biology fieldwork and laboratory work
(rs = .0.44, n = 48 but some points are superimposed, P = 0.002).

28. Sharing results to encourage engagement
 Explaining pedagogy and module design to
participating students
 Including pedagogical research alongside “Science” in a
range of modules

29. Switching on the skills for lifelong
learning: understanding how
programmes and modules
contribute to the development of
learning autonomy

30. Project Aims
 Understand staff and
students’ views on
learner autonomy and
independent learning
 Identify opportunities
for and barriers to
learner autonomy and
independent learning
 Inform curriculum
development

31. Methodology
Quantitative approach Qualitative approach
Questionnaire distributed Semi-structured interviews with
to students at all levels Staff (n= 15)
(94 responses)
Semi-structured interviews with
(Autonomy, learning preferences, Individual students and focus groups
transition to university, plans for (n= 29)
future etc.)
Statistical analysis Thematic analysis
Synthesis

32. Why is learner autonomy important?
 Developing the skills necessary
for self-managed and lifelong
learning (QAA Biosciences
Benchmark Statement, 2007).
 We will provide a framework that
enables and encourages students
to personalise their learning,
developing them to become
independent, confident,
responsible, enterprising and
ethical graduates, with a life-long
commitment to learning
(University of Hull, Strategic Plan
2011-2015). (My emphasis)

33. Why is learner autonomy really
important?
 Its my responsibility and at the
end of the day I have to push
myself to do it.
 You’re given certain tasks to do
and often because of people’s
workloads you can’t rely on
other people to help you and
you have to [be independent]
when you go out in the big wide
world, you have to get on and
have the confidence to get it
done.
quotes from student interviews

34. Staff value student independence and
autonomy
We want:
• [students] able to go and research
it better with the appropriate
guidance.
• [students with] confidence in their
abilities to use transferrable skills
• [students] to be independently
thinking, independently doing,
independently working and
independently writing it and
independently submitting it.
quotes from staff member interviews

35. Do staff encourage autonomy?
 Yes we do
 encourage questioning, provide opportunities for extra work,
encourage critical thinking, encourage study groups, enquiry
based learning
 ALL students should be independent learners by graduation
 With the caveats
 autonomy progression 1st year to final year
 no good just telling them to F-off and find out (FOFO), “that’s
just being lazy in your teaching”

36. Do staff always encourage it?
 Not always
 “probably not because I just give them information”
 “students should be independent anyway”
 But
 if students perform poorly in their final year it’s a reflection
on our teaching rather than their ability
 “I’ve found them [finalists] incredibly reliant on me for
even the simplest things”

37. Autonomous learning scale
 12 statements linked
to learning autonomy
 Rated on 5pt scale
 Very like me
 Not like me at all
 3 factors
 Skills
 Attitudes
 Desire
Macaskill & Taylor (2010)

38. Autonomous learning scale
 Mature students perceive themselves to be more
autonomous than those coming straight from A-levels
(t-test, p0.001).
 Female students perceive themselves to be more
autonomous than male students (t-test, p0.001).
 Finalists do not perceive themselves to be more
autonomous than first years (t-test, p0.054).

39. Student perceptions
Independent learning is......
revising, background reading,
synthesising information, goal setting,
motivation, not being spoon-fed, taking
responsibility, applying skills in new
situations and understanding how you
did it
“making further notes to your lectures and doing extra reading”
“working by yourself” - “self motivation”
“students taking responsibility for their own learning”
“not constrained by instructions just left to learn in your own way at your own pace”
“applying skills obtained from the course independently to produce work and to
understand the processes involved”

40. Student perceptions
Concerns around independent learning
preferring to work with others,
going in the wrong direction,
needing support,
lack of interest means no motivation
“You have to be motivated. If you’re not you’re screwed.”
“It’s a bit daunting at first”
“You have to step out of your comfort zones for those kind of things”
“You can’t be creative and force it I don’t believe you can learn if you don’t
want to”

41. Connecting practice and needs
Staff Students
Reduce control over student time. “Should be allowed to do more
stuff that you’re actually
Promote ownership of learning. interested in. You should find
out what we want to learn”.
Allow student topic choice.
“I’ve developed in myself, for
Teach the process of enquiry. me that’s just as important as a
piece of paper”.
Increase personalised learning at
all stages.
“When I’m sat watching
Instead of content provide tools university challenge I can
and then give them the freedom to answer a hell of a lot more
use them. questions than when I started”.

42. In conclusion..........
Can we all move
beyond our
comfort zones?
Staff want to
develop student
Fieldwork is good autonomy
and can be used
as a vehicle for
SML Motivation and
confidence are
Students want to issues
have some
Can barriers to control over
the benefits of content/learning
fieldwork be
overcome?
.......... personalized learning?

43. References
Boyle A et al.(2007) Fieldwork is good: the student perception and the affective domain. Journal of
Geography in Higher Education 31(2) pp 299-317.
Goulder R & Scott GW (2010) Encouraging Use of Community-Based Resources by Bioscience Students.
Bioscience Education, v16, www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol16/beej-16-c1.pdf
Goulder R & Scott GW (2009) Field Study of Plant Diversity: Extending the Whole-Class Knowledge Base
through Open-Ended Learning. Bioscience Education v14
www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol14/beej-14-1.aspx
Macaskill A & E Taylor (2010) the development of a brief measure of learner autonomy in university
students. Studies in Higher Education 35(3): 351-359
Maw, S. (2010) Student managed learning: Whales, Dolphins and Sharks.
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/ftp/teachaward/scott.pdf
Scott GW & Goulder R (2008) Community Resources In and Around Hull and East Yorkshire. Hull, UK:
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Hull.
www2.hull.ac.uk/science/pdf/Community_Resources_compressed.pdf
Scott GW et al. (2011) The Value of Fieldwork in Life and Environmental Sciences in the Context of Higher
Education: A Case Study in Learning About Biodiversity. Journal of Science Education and Technology.
(Online first January 2011, DOI 10.1007/s10956/010-9276-x).