Abstract 100 - 1st Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop Adelaide 2012

Geological Society of Australia

ABSTRACTS Number 100

r* Australian Geoscience Teaching Worl<shopl

Australian Geoscience Learning and Teaching Network

•z

Adelaide, 18th-19th January 2012

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 l'* Australian Geoscience Teaching Worl<shop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Geological Society of Australia Abstracts 100

Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop

Australian Geoscience Learning and Teaching Network Adelaide, 18'^-19'Nanuary 2012

Program & Abstracts Editors: Marl< Tingay, Leslie Almberg, Marion Anderson, Tom Blenkinsop, Maree Corkeron, Sandra McLaren, Colin Murray-Wallace, Tom Raimondo, Michael Roach, Andrew Tomkins

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Geological Society of Australia Abstracts Number 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia 18-19 January 2012 Editors: Mark Tingay, Leslie Almberg, Marion Anderson, Tom Blenl<insop, Maree Corl<eron, Sandra McLaren, Colin Murray-Wallace, Tom Raimondo, Michael Roach, Andrew Tom kins

ISSN: 0729 Oil X © Geological Society of Australia Incorporated 2012

Recommended citation for this volume: Tingay, M., Almberg, L, Anderson, M., Blenkinsop, T., Corkeron, M., McLaren, S., Murray-Wallace, C , Raimondo, T., Roach, M. & Tonnkins, A. (editors). Program & Abstracts, Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, 18-19 January 2012, Adelaide, Australia. Geological Society of Australia Abstracts No. 100.

Example citation for abstracts in this volume: Amos, K., & McGowen, U., 2012. Accelerating Academic Language Development. In: Program & Abstracts, Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, 18-19 January 2012, Adelaide, Australia.

Geological Society of Australia Abstracts No. 100, 8-9.

Australian Geoscience Learning and teaching Network logo design: Leslie Almberg Printed by: University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005 Australia

1

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Table of Contents

I

I

I I

I

Preface

i

Workshop Sponsors

ii

Organising Committee

iii

Program

iv

General Information

vi

Abstracts

1-35

Notes

36

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Preface The teaching of geosciences in Australian universities has recently been facing a nunnber of challenges, particularly surrounding the rapid increases in undergraduate numbers. With some university classes doubling in size in just a matter of years, teaching practices have been required to quickly adapt, and new approaches are being adopted to improve student learning both in the class room and in the field.. This meeting will bring together approximately 40 Australian academics to, for the first time, discuss new approaches, techniques and strategies for tertiary geoscience teaching. This workshop represents the first event run by the newly formed Australian Geoscience Learning and Teaching Network, which involves partnerships between geoscience departments in 12 universities from seven states and territories, to collaborate and constantly strive to improve geoscience teaching.

The Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop comprises 26 presentations and nine discussion periods over two days, with sessions including 'Enhancing the First Year Experience', New Technologies for Learning and Teaching', 'Developing Field Work Skills' and 'Graduate Attributes/Geoscience Curriculums'.

On behalf of the organizing committee, we hope that you will enjoy your participation in this workshop.

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Workshop Sponsors The

Geoscience Teaching Workshop could not have taken place without the generous support

of our sponsors. The Australian Geoscience Learning and Teaching network would like to thank the following organizations for their fantastic support and encouragennent.

Major Sponsors

I

Minerals Council of Australia Minerals Tertiary Education Council

Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists

Ausimin

THG MINERALS INSTITUTG Geological Society of Australia

Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

Minor Sponsor

Australian Geoscience Information Association

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Organising Committee Leslie Almberg - Curtin University Marion Anderson - Monash University Tom Blenl<insop - James Cook University Sandra iVIcLaren - University of Adelaide Colin Murray-Wallace - University of Wollongong Tom Raimondo - University of South Australia Michael Roach - University of Tasmania

I

Mark Tingay - University of Adelaide Andrew Tomkins - Monash University

I

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Program Tuesday

January

5:00-7:30pm

Ice b r e a k e r - S t a f f Club, Level 4, Union House

DAY 1 - Wednesday 18'^ January 9:00

Welcome - Eclipse Room, Level 4, Union House

Session 1: Graduate Attributes/Geoscience Curriculums 9:10

10:30

Earth and Environmental Science in the emerging Australian Science Curriculum Threshold Concepts, Misconceptions and Alternative Ideas A new Earth Science curriculum at ANU Learning and Teaching Academic Standards for Science: Aims, Outcomes, and Adaption for the Earth Sciences Discussion

10:40

Morning Tea

11:00 11:20 11:40 12:00

Students becoming Geoscientists, Geoscientists becoming renowned Accelerating Academic Language Development Developing Graduate Skills in First Year Undergraduate Geoscience Students through a Problem-based Learning Strategy Discussion

12:30

Lunch

9:30 9:50 10:10

Len Altman Ian Clark Joerg Hermann Ian Fitzsimons

John Willison Kathryn Amos Kelsie Dadd

Session 2: Improved Geoscience Teaching Facilities 1:50 2:10 2:30 2:50

Informal Campus Learning Spaces: Do and how do students use them?

Enhanced Learning in First Year Sciences: iPads and big questions Teaching in Beautiful (and high-tech) Places - the Monash Geoscience Undergraduate Teaching Laboratories.

Discussion

3:00

Afternoon Tea

Karin Barovich Karin Barovich Marion Anderson

Session 3: Enhancing the First Year Experience 3:30 3:50 4:10 4:30

Something to try when you can't bear the thought of delivering another 36 lectures over 12 weeks in an introductory geology course An extended field component to enhance the first year geology experience Increased popularity of First Year Earth Science units: challenges and tactics Discussion

5:30-6:30pm

End of day drinks and informal discussion

7:00-9:30pm

Workshop Dinner - Stag Hotel, Corner of Rundle st and East Tee

Karin Barovich Anne-Marie Tosolini Mary Gee

IV

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Program D A Y 2 - Thursday

January

Session 4: Developing Field Work Skills 9:00 9:20 9:40 10:00 10:20

Geosciences in an Urban (no-outcrop) environment Photogrammetric Methods for 3D Visualisation of Geological Structures New methods of visualisation and teaching in structural geology Encouraging 4D cognition in structural geology teaching and learning: A group-based assessment using sand box experiments Discussion

10:40

Morning Tea

Marion Anderson Michael Roach Tom Blenkinsop Timms/Almberg

Session 5: Challenges for Geophysics Learning and Teaching 11:00 11:20 11:40 12:00

The Deductive Approach for Teaching Numerical Skills to Earth Science Students The Challenge of Teaching Large Geophysics Classes Vacation projects for Geoscience Students Discussion

12:30

Lunch

Michael Roach Graham Heinson Bob Smith

Session 6: New Technology for Learning and Teaching 1:30 1:50

2:50

Let's GLOW!: Geoscience Learning in an Online World (Im)practical portfolios? When pedagogically sound design fails in implementation Working with your own data: a rational approach to a digital learning and research framework for Australian geology students Using Planetary Science as a Platform for Digital Geoscience (geology & geography) in Education and Research: Project DiG2ER Discussion

3:10

Afternoon Tea

2:10 2:30

Pat James Leslie Almberg

I 1

Grant Jacquier Mark Bishop

Session 7: Assessment 3:30 3:50 4:30

Assessing geoscience learning - making assessment a learning activity to engage and encourage Co Tiparison of Wiki, Peer and Self Assessment of Group Research ^ n^sion

Sandra McLaren Mark Tingay

Session 8: Future of the Australian Geoscience Learning and Teaching Network 4:30 4:50

Inaugural General Meeting of the AGLTN Discussion and workshop closing remarks

5:30

Workshop closes

I I

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

General Information Venue: All events other than the conference dinner will be held on Level 4 of Union House on the University of Adelaide Cannpus (see nnap). The conference dinner will be held on the Wednesday night at the Stag Hotel (corner of East Terrace and Rundle Street; see nnap).

SI Mark's College enn^^^Aecommadatiori :

Fmmn^Xm

%

m

1I

rmm ^

\

-

*

Gardens ^

BQmmc PMrk

Ovui

'^

I'

" " liii;;:'

?

Union Hoyse Workshop vanoe

I

Uniof

:

„ 0

^

- Adelaide „

„

i Stag Hotel -

Hrm^ ConfBmnm

•I sc

/^''^fkmimm

•

Dinner ^

-

^^^Sf: W

t} tfi "

r~iTftnffi! m

li- '

- I

Gce^^tll St ^

Emergency Contact: If you need help or assistance during the workshop, contact Mark Tingay on 0417 899 634.

VI

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Workshop Abstracts

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Earth and Environmental Science in the emerging Australian Science Curriculum Len Aitman Marden Senior College, South Australia LAItman@msc.sa.edu.au

The emerging senior secondary Australian Curriculunn: Science will include Earth and Environmental Science (EES), (still in draft), in four semester units across years 11 and 12. This course can (potentially) become an important means of attracting students to tertiary studies in the geosciences.

This session will provide a brief overview of the ratified (K-10) Australian Science Curriculum, with a particular focus on the "Earth and Space" sub-strand, and implementation plans for this national curriculum in each state and territory.

It will present ways in which partnerships between universities and schools can not only be mutually beneficial, but also instrumental in developing and retaining student interest during the critical "middle years", and hence student awareness of possible future STEM study and career pathways. Two recent partnerships between universities and schools will be presented as examples.

I

Biography: Len Aitman is a currently a practicing teacher of Year 12 Geology at Marden Senior College, a leader in SACE Geology in SA, a state coordinator of the Teacher Earth Science Education Program and currently the Chairperson of the SA Division of the GSA. Len has won numerous teaching awards including the 2009 Prime Minister's Prize for Science Teaching in Secondary Schools.

I Geoscie

pedagogic knowledf

and Mangan 2007). To

I

is: lat mav be a

jblesome. A: (ploration ofi

irreversible, in a If we

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

A new Earth Science curriculum at ANU Joerg Hermann Australian National University Joerg. Hermann@anu. edu. au

Structural changes In the last two years there has been an extensive review of the Earth Science curriculunn at ANU. Together with structural changes, this led to a significant modification of the program. The College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences at ANU will move to a system with Majors (8 courses), Minors and Specialisations (4 courses each) in 2012. The Earth and Marine Science program will offer Majors in Earth, Marine and Water Science that are complemented by Specialisations in Geochemistry and Petrology, Marine Geosciences and Earth Physics. Additionally a Minor is offered for students in other disciplines. The offered courses have been modified to better fit the new structure.

Merger of Faculty and Research School In the past. Earth Science at ANU was subdivided into a Faculty (with an undergraduate teaching program) and a Research School (with a PhD program only). Three years ago, the two units were merged into a single school. This provides now a much larger pool of potential teachers and a more balanced teaching load. On the other hand, there is a challenge to induce researchers into the world of teaching. A new Earth Science building will be operational in 2012 that allows collocation of all staff in one place. Moreover the 2"^ and year teaching as well as all Honours students will be hosted in the new building. This promotes the mingling of undergraduate and postgraduate students and will move teaching close to where research is done.

Challenges The mining boom did not generate a significant increase in Earth Science undergraduate students at ANU so far. Student recruitment is thus a high priority. Efforts will be made to involve Schoolteachers through the TESEP program to introduce Earth Sciences to high school students.

Another challenge is to encourage first year students to take up basic science disciplines such as chemistry, mathematics, physics and biology. For the time being ANU sticks to a one-year honours program. However, discussions are underway if a 3-2-3 system would be beneficial. The current honours year is rather short to accommodate the required course work as well as a substantial research topic.

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Learning and Teaching Academic Standards for Science: Aims, Outcomes, and Adaption for the Earth Sciences Ian Fitzsimons Curtin University /. Fitzsimons@curtin, edu. au The Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project was coordinated by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council, with the support of the Commonwealth Government. Its aim was to develop discipline-based academic standards for bachelors level degrees in preparation for the Government's new standards-based quality assurance framework. Eight discipline groups were established, including one for "Science", each led by one or more discipline scholars who developed a series of threshold learning outcomes for bachelors graduates. This work was informed by feedback from public consultation and by reference and advisory groups representing universities, professional societies, employer groups and students. The Academic Standards Statement for Science was released in September 2011 (Jones et al. 2011) and comprises five overarching threshold learning outcomes that articulate minimum standards for science graduates. The Australian Council of Deans of Science (ACDS) endorsed this work as a generic statement of Bachelor of Science learning outcomes, but recognises that these outcomes should be adapted for each sub-discipline area within science. Chemistry was selected as a pilot area for this process, and a Chemistry Academic Standards Statement was developed in parallel with and included as an appendix to the Science Statement. The ACDS has taken ownership of these standards on behalf of the science community, and is encouraging other disciplines to adapt the generic standards into statements that will be directly applicable to their specific areas of study.

The development of a standards statement for Earth Sciences is timely given increased demand for geoscience graduates in the workforce, and should be based on consensus amongst the discipline community, including the employment sectors that rely heavily on geoscience expertise.

Some guidance is provided by recent work in the UK (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2007) and European Union (Tuning 2009), and specific issues to be addressed include the need to accommodate an increasing variety of breadth and depth in course coverage, from dedicated three-year Geology degrees to Earth Science majors in more general science programs, whether the standards can be used to protect field programs in the face of increasing costs and compliance issues, and whether Australia would be served by a formal accreditation process for geoscience degrees (as in the UK), or a registration process for practicing professional geoscientists that specifies discipline knowledge requirements for geoscience bachelors degrees (as in Canada).

References Jones, S., Yates, B and Kelder, J-A, 2011. Science Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Statement, Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project, September 2011. [http://www.altc.edu.au/svstem/fiies/altc standards SCIENCE 240811 v3.pdf1

I

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Tuning, 2009. Reference Points for the Design and Delivery of Degree Programmes in Earth Science, Tuning Education Structures in Europe Project. [http://www.unideusto.org/tuningeu/images/stories/Publications/Earth Science version FINALpdf] Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2007. Subject Benchmark Statement: Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies. [http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/lnformationAndGuidance/Documents/EarthSciences.pdf]

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Students becoming Geoscientists, Geoscientists becoming renowned John Willison Centre for Learning and Professional Development, University of Adelaide John, willison@adeloide.edu.au If you are feeling the pressure from increasing numbers of students as well as requirements to lift your research outputs, you may need to consider strategies that allow your research to benefit from your teaching efforts, and vice versa. Whilst teaching and research frequently compete for academics' time, focus and energies, there are ways that each may complement the other.

Undergraduate student research in the sciences has a been viable mechanism to achieve this complement in the USA, and increasingly in Australia, in terms of mentored summer scholarships, however the global downturn threatens capacity to do this. Moreover, the choice of suitable candidates for such scholarships has tended to rely on Grade Point Averages, using academic success as a proxy for research ability; this does not always give those with the capacity a chance to participate in mentored research. So an increasing number of academics are now turning their gaze to strategies that are embedded in the curriculum.

In Australia, the Researcher Skill Development (RSD) framework^ has been used in the sciences to guide the teaching and assessment of students' research skills in the undergraduate curriculum, including from First Year. Academics have found that the focus on explicitly developing student research skills has resulted in positive long-term outcomes for students, in terms of skills gained and attitudes to research. Academics have also found that this process has influenced the ways they themselves think about research and, for some, even suggested fresh research directions.

Those who have been explicitly developing and assessing research skills in the curriculum for three or four years are starting to see the benefits due to an increased capacity to teach research processes clearly to current undergraduates. This increase in capacity is due both to the academics own learning and due to the tutors who were undergraduates under this regime being more equipped to teach about research skills.

The RSD has not been utilised in the Geosciences and so this presentation will provide opportunity for you to become acquainted with the framework and to consider its potential application in your context. It may be that by explicitly developing the Geoscience research skills of students from their First Year of study, you are able to develop an enhanced pathway towards them becoming geoscientists and, through building your research profile as a consequence, towards your research team becoming renowned.

Note ^ The RSD framework, articles and conference papers on its use, and a variety of resources based on the RSD are available at www.adelaide.edu.au/clpd/rsd

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Accelerating Academic Language Development Kathryn Amos^ and Ursula McGowan^ ^Australian School of Petroleunn, ^Centre for Learning & Professional Development; University of Adelaide kamos@asp. adelaide. edu. ou Aims:

-

integrate content taught over first few weeks of the course introduce some academic reading to the course develop academic reading and writing skills in a way that will provide students with tools for future use, in this discipline and in other walks of life. engage students with course content (not always easy, since the students are engineers!)

The course: Sedimentology and Stratigraphy for

year Petroleum Engineering undergraduates

Methods: It was decided to dedicate a significant portion of the class time and assessment weighting to this, 1) to emphasise to the students how important these transferable skills in reading and writing are, ii) to make enable full integration of these with course content.

- A written assignment was set, to comprise 15% of the final mark for the course.

- Four 'writing workshops' were run, each given one-hour of scheduled lecture time.

- Homework tasks were set after the first three workshops. These were not assessed, however, students were encouraged complete these: they were given 0.5% of their final mark for the written assignment just for submitting each one; each was directly related to the assignment; students who submitted the homework tasks were provided with feedback that they could directly input to their assignment.

- Writing workshops were based on a published article from a leading international peerreviewed publication, with content directly applicable to their set writing assignment.

Instead of just giving this to the students to read - most of them would have been completely turned off, lots of unfamiliar technical language and in a field that isn't their core degree area.

- Selected focus topic = 'Sedimentologic Controls on Reservoir Quality'. A topic that is directly related to petroleum systems, with application to engineering problems; also one that nicely brings together all of the content taught in the first six weeks of the course, but which are taught fairly independently from one another (petrography, diagenesis, reservoir quality, sediment transport processes and sedimentary structures, depositional environments).

Observations: A lot of work involved in terms of preparation and assessment/providing feedback Workshop attendance was lower than lecture attendance, despite being the last hour of a block lecture slot.

8

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

-

The first workshop seemed to disengage the confident students, who saw it as being too simple/obvious.

-

The rubric perhaps too-heavily weighted some aspects of writing; grade distribution was higher than 'nornnar for me and for this class.

-

Immediate benefit as students were forced to think and integrate course content early on.

From a class of 25 students, 19 responses to a survey were submitted on the day of assignment submission. Of those who attended > 1 workshop (n=17): 16 said that they believe the workshops helped them improve their writing skills, 14 said that the workshops helped them to improve their understanding of the course content.

Conclusion and Future Direction: Overall, the series of workshops engaged those students that participated, and increased student learning. Setting the written assignment was an important incentive to get students to focus on writing skills and integrating course content; I believe this worked. I will run this again next year, with some modification: i) remove the content of the first writing workshop and spread the other material over the four weeks, ii) some adjustment to rubric, iii) provide less individual feedback on submitted homework tasks. The next 'biggerpicture' step for 2012 is to run an overview of transferable skills taught into the degree program, to ensure that different courses complement each other in terms of graduate attribute development. We're hopeful that we will see improvement in student research and writing skills in a couple of years time, once these students reach their Honours year!

Writing Workshop Content 2011: o Workshop 1: Introduction and reading academic articles • how to deconstruct / 'translate' densely written, formal academic language.

• homework task: translate an excerpt from the article provided into more easily understood, spoken-style language o Workshop 2:De-constructing an article to identify its structure • how to analyse a model text, and how to imitate it for structure • how to de-construct your assignment task to make a plan • homework task: putting together the structure for your assignment (this given > 1 month before assignment submission deadline) o Workshop 3: Paragraph structure • group exercises to identify common structure of paragraphs using excerpts from the provided article • homework task: writing a paragraph of your planned assignment (3 weeks prior to assignment submission deadline) o Workshop 4: Re-useable language • how to extract language from well-written academic text; identifying 'common language'; tips for using some extracted language in your writing •

how to practice academic integrity; citing sources and referencing

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Developing Graduate Skills in First Year Undergraduate Geoscience Students through a Problem-based Learning Strategy Kelsie Dadd\ T. Winchester-Seeto^ T.2 and R.H. Flood^ ^Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, \earning & Teaching Centre, Macquarie University kelsie. dadd@mq. edu. au Our project aimed to instil graduate skills in first-year undergraduate geoscience students through a problem-based learning (PBL) strategy. This learning and teaching initiative was developed in response to the demands of students, the community, employers and government. Graduate skills can include such things as discipline specific knowledge and skills; critical, analytical and integrative thinking; problem solving and research capability; creativity and innovation, effective communication; ethics; social and environmental responsibility; a commitment to continuous learning; and leadership. We chose to investigate the enhancement of these skills through the use of a PBL strategy in both new and existing teaching units. We chose PBL as it is seen as a powerful way to develop these skills.

PBL has been used in many different forms; however, the general characteristics are that it is context-driven, uses real-world situations, focuses on thinking skills, requires the integration of knowledge and skills, is self-directed, aims to promote life-long learning, and involves small groups. The tailored approach used in this project sought to assist students to progressively develop these skills through scaffolding as many studies have found that students with weak technical backgrounds had difficulties with a PBL approach, particularly early in the course. The conventional approaches used in geoscience education may not engage the students, as they are not involved in the process, whereas a PBL curriculum is more likely to encourage students to employ deep approaches in their learning.

Our tailored PBL approach involves staged introduction of PBL principles, starting with short, wellstructured problems and progressing to more complex problems involving multiple hypotheses, and an emphasis on communication. The use of "real-life" problems in PBL places the learning in context, fostering the integration of theory and practice, and the transfer of knowledge and skills to a different situation. A unit that has obvious connections to the student's future career or is based on current research should engender interest and equip students for future employment.

We believe the vast majority of the students responded well to the new PBL approach and that the units in which PBL has been used were successful. Evidence suggests that students have gained as much subject-specific knowledge as in the past but have also gained a number of graduate skills previously not included as part of the unit content. Anecdotal evidence from staff marking under both the old and new systems suggests that the lower ability students have performed better than in the past while the upper band students have performed as well as in the past.

10

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Informal Campus Leaming Spaces: Do and how do students use them?

Karin Barovich Discipline of Geology and Geophysics, University of Adelaide karin.barovich@odelaide. edu. ou The Mawson Building is largely used for geology teaching, particularly on the first floor, where the specialist teaching laboratories are located. In 2009/2010 the upper level was refurbished to provide a new level I teaching laboratory and an informal space for students to use between classes for study and group work. The informal space includes a variety of seating, several networked computers, a student printer, vending machines, a sink with filtered water, and a small closable project workroom. Both spaces opened up semester 2 2010. The first year teaching space, the Sprigg room, has four 1st year practicals per week (50 students each), 2nd year practicals, 3rd year lectures as they fit around the first year teaching. There are approximately 450 students per week, most weeks, who pass through the informal space and the Sprigg room. I created a paper-based survey left in the informal space through Week 12 of semester 2. I received 82 responses. The goal of the survey was to understand what parts of the informal area the students used frequently, and where improvement could be made.

The students use the computers extensively. They are appreciative of being able to be able to relax between classes. They sit just about anywhere, with no particular preference for any style of seating. Their main suggestions for improvement are more computers and a kettle. The refurbishment has provided a somewhat intangible but significant enhancement to the already strong cohesion among staff and students in the geosciences.

11

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Enhanced Learning in First Year Sciences: iPads and big questions Karln Barovich, Associate Dean Year Experience) Faculty of Sciences, University of Adelaide karin. barovich@adelaide. edu. ou There is a world-wide decline in the participation rate of students in science programs. For the Faculty of Sciences at the University of Adelaide, there is a decreasing pool of eligible applicants and increased competition from professional degrees. With the introduction of the new South Australian Certificate of Education, the challenge of attracting students into science programs may be even greater in future. The Faculty has pursued several initiatives in 2011 to make its Science programs more attractive to prospective students, especially non-School leaver students and those from low socio-economic backgrounds.

Feedback from student and high school staff suggested that our programs were seen as lacking job relevance and, in some cases, even relevance of any kind. We have begun development of a new approach to teaching that more overtly uses our research excellence to inform our teaching immediately from first year. To illustrate relevance of research to teaching the faculty developed 10 Big Questions that best demonstrate our research strength and social and scientific relevance.

We then committed to changing the 2011 first year curriculum to reflect these questions.

We also considered the teaching resources used across the core science disciplines of chemistry, biology, geology and physics. Most first year science courses across Australia and other countries are tied to teaching via an introductory textbook. Despite the publishing industry's efforts to develop engaging web-based material to accompany books, feedback from first year teaching staff and from students themselves is that students did not seem to engage with the prescribed reading material. A 2010 survey of textbook purchase among first year science students indicated only about one third to one half of students were buying the first year text books.

The combination of a desire to reduce textbook costs and to provide improved accessibility to the university's online learning management system led the Faculty to provide each 2011 commencing first year Sciences student with a mobile device. The iPad was selected for several reasons including portability, robustness, graphics, and apps. Students were given the iPads to keep with the only caveat being enrolment past the university's census date. Textbooks were arranged for purchase as electronic books, at approximately 60% of the cost of the paper copies. iPad use and application in university study was allowed to grow organically, with guided assistance from the Faculty and first year coordinators. Student feedback at the end of semester 1 2011 as to how the iPad helped with learning was overwhelmingly positive, and included easy accessibility to lecture notes, ability to check email and the online learning management system, freedom from the weight of textbooks, convenience, a periodic table always at hand. Level I geology students highlighted Google Earth and other earth science related apps. The program will continue in 2012 with the shift of iPads into the 2nd year curriculum with the continuing student cohort, and new iPads for the 2012 commencing first year class.

12

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Teaching in Beautiful (and high-tech) Places-the Monash Geoscience Undergraduate Teaching Laboratories Marion Anderson Monash University morion, onderson @ mo nosh, edu

I

In 2009 the School of Geosciences at Monash University opened a new, high-tech, undergraduate first and second year teaching laboratory, effectively dragging their labs out of the 1960s and into the 21st Century.

The existing laboratory had been designed for teacher-centred, teacher-directed solo learning. By 2008 the highest technological advance that had reached the lab was the installation of projection screens for data projectors (that needed to be setup at the start of each class and packed up at the end). The design of the new laboratory is a radical departure from this and has introduced a new learning paradigm to Monash Geosciences.

The new laboratory was primarily designed to allow student-centred learning, and build learning (and friendship) communities amongst the first-year students. Students previously sat at long benches, with at least one metre between them and the next student. This traditional 1960's design made testing easy, but strongly discouraged interactions between students, often leaving them feeling isolated and lost, even within a large class of 64 students.

The new lab design groups students into learning communities of 8-10 students, and allows easy communication and peer assistance. It is difficult to be lost or alone in the labs now, and the friendship groups formed over the past two years, many of which have spontaneously become external study groups, testify to the strength of this change. Students are not assigned to a table, but very few choose to change seats after their first week of interaction with their peers. ESL students have also been observed to be more rapidly improving their English language skills since the lab re-design, as they are now forced to interact with other students during every class.

Each table in the lab is topped with a solid slab of real stone, varying from granites, to quartzite, to gabbro, breccia, and a meta-conglomerate. As well as being scientifically important specimens, these are durable and beautiful surfaces to work on. They were surprisingly inexpensive - the slabs costing approximately $1000 per table, with a further $1500 for stonemasonry to shape them into tabletops. They also allow for a "light bulb" moment in each mineral or rock prac in first year when the student suddenly realises that the piece of quartz or granite they are holding is part of the fabric of their table.

The lab is also fitted with one SmartBoard per table, and a computer per table, allowing full access to the internet, Google Earth, all MS Office programs, and any other software required. This has greatly enhanced the 3D-visualisation skills of the students, and allowed us to show the immediate relevance of their studies and constantly changing nature of Geosciences studies.

A second lab is currently under construction for the second and third year classes, and should be completed by the start of Semester 1 2012.

13

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Something to try when you can't bear the thought of delivering another 36 lectures over 12 weeks in an introductory geology course Karin Barovich Discipline of Geology and Geophysics, University of Adelaide karin. barovich @adelaide. edu. au Level I geology course enrolnnents in the Faculty of Sciences, University of Adelaide, have increased substantially from 2002 to 2011, with sennester 1 numbers growing from -"65 to '"300.

Semester 2 level I geology enrolment are always slightly lower, increasing from '"GS to '"239. The lecture portion of the courses has been taught in a standard 'stand and deliver', or 'talking head' lecture style of three 50 minute lecture slots over 12 weeks. Practical sessions run three hours per week. Lecturer numbers have varied from two to three per semester. In 2011, semester 2 geology was taught entirely by one lecturer over the 12-week semester. Such a situation allowed for a level of experimentation in lecture delivery that had previously been difficult to implement.

Traditional 50 minute lectures were largely abandoned. Students signed a staff-student compact in which they agreed to a series of deliverables and responsibilities on the part of both lecturer and student. In 8 of 12 weeks, two short ca 10-15 minute topic synopsis recordings were made, called pre-flight recordings. These were posted from 2 to 6 weeks in advance. In exchange for a full 5% mark, students had to complete the compact and attempt 5/8 online formative quizzes covering the week's topics as highlighted in the pre-flight recordings. The purpose of the quizzes for the lecturer was to permit identification of difficult concepts that could be reviewed in the remaining two 50 minute slots. In exchange for attempting the online quiz, the Monday lecture slot was cancelled. Of 216 students who completed the course, 188 (87%) attempted five or more online quizzes, and 94 or 43% did all eight. The overall final mark for all 216 was 69.8%. The average final mark for the 188 was 67% (72% with the 5% participation mark), while the 29 who did 5 or less averaged 52%. Statistics tracking in the University's online learning management system allows linking of preflight lecture viewing to online quiz participation and final marks.

The remaining two lecture slots in these 8 weeks were filled with a series of activities, starting with a short review of the problem areas, similar to Just In Time Teaching strategies. Worksheets, student demonstrations and practice problems specific to the topic were used. Students worked in groups. A total of 7 bonus quizzes given during the semester in Thursday weekly sessions served as a proxy for lecture attendance. A strong correlation to final marks is indicated. The 49 students who participated in all 7 quizzes averaged a 78% final mark, while the 67 who participated in 2 or less averaged 64%.

Both teacher and course Student Experience of Learning and Teaching (SELT) surveys were conducted. Likert scores were similar to past years for the course. The open-ended comments in the course SELT surveys were varied and voluminous. 128 students filled out the course survey, with 107 comments on the best aspects of the course, 83 comments on how the course could be changed, and 95 comments on the teaching method used. A number of useful suggestions will be incorporated into the 2012 delivery of the course.

14

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

An extended field component to enhance the first year geology experience Anne-Marie Tosolini, Stephen Gallagher, Andy Gleadow, Sandra McLaren and Malcolm Wallace School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne a. tosolini@ unimelb. edu. ou First year Bachelor of Science students at the University of Melbourne are linnited in their choice of first year subjects with field components. First year is often a first encounter with Geoscience for nnost students undertaking BSc. It is imperative we deliver first year Geoscience courses that are engaging, intellectually stimulating and well taught to target positive learning outcomes and to encourage more students to flow through into later years. Geoscience is unique, utilizing fieldwork to teach concepts from first year and throughout undergraduate levels. Geoscience education "relies heavily on geospatial and temporal referencing" (Mogk, 2002), complex concepts that can be difficult to convey in classrooms (SERC, 2011). In fact, research highlights how fieldwork "introduces students to complex natural systems, break down barriers among geoscience fields, encourage multiple observations, and introduces students to the geologic history and geography of an area" (SERC, 2011). Student feedback has also highlighted the positive outcomes of this learning environment.

A completely field-based second year subject has strong enrolments, with student numbers equivalent to first year classes. The second year subject has scored well in student experience surveys. It is open to non-geologists (and non-scientists) and many students comment that if they had encountered the subject earlier, they would have chosen a Geology major. This feedback presents a strong argument for making a highly visible field component in the first year.

The first year course currently has two separate one-day fieldtrips. We plan to extend the fieldwork to a four-day fieldtrip as an integral part of the curriculum (c.f. Orion & Hofstein, 1994), covering all major rock types in geospatial (structural) and temporal (stratigraphic) contexts. The fieldwork will be supported by eight weeks of lectures and practicals, presented before the trip to enhance learning in the field (Orion & Hofstein, 1994). Afield report and practical exam will form the major assessment tasks. Student cohort numbers in first year have been relatively stable, but through-flow into second year has dropped in recent years to its lowest in 2011.

Thus, enhancing the first year experience can be achieved with an extended field component that makes concept learning more accessible to students and has potential to improve second year numbers in Geoscience.

References Mogk, D. W., 2002. Research on Learning in the Geosciences: Contexts, Goals and Opportunities. In, workshop on "Bringing Research on Learning to the Geosciences", sponsored by NSF and the Johnson Foundation, Racine Wl, July 8-10, 2002.

Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. 1994. Factors That Influence Learning during a Scientific Field Trip in a Natural Environnnent.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10): 1097-1119.

SERC, 2011. The Science Education Resource Centre, Carleton College. Pedagogy in Action: Field Labs: http://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/fieldJab/index.htnnl

15

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Increased popularity of First Year Earth Science units: challenges and tactics Mary Gee University of Western Australia mary.gee@uwa.edu.ou

Increasing student nunnbers are not necessarily related to an increasing interest in geology (or Earth Sciences in general) rather geology is an attractive science to non-science students or perceived to be a quick means to a highly paid job in the nnining sector.

Large class sizes (>150) especially in first year, result in the need for repeat lectures and multiple practical classes. In addition accommodation and staffing problems become insurmountable on residential field courses. Is an answer to this to have self-selecting routes through first year units where students choose from a range of options? Three possible options I am thinking of trialling this year are: 1. a residential field course for those wanting to experience field geology; 2. a day field course and lab based exercises integrated with a report; 3. a report.

In addition to the logistic issues associated with large classes there can also be an increased percentage of students who lack motivation and are unwilling to participate in web-based learning or projects. Running regular web quizzes (and other activities) as part of a range of continuous assessment does help engage students in general and give them feedback about their level of understanding. Perhaps placing the whole of the unit assessment on work carried out during the semester would help motivate students even further?

16

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Geosciences in an Urban (no-outcrop) environment Marlon Anderson Monash University marion. anderson @ mo nosh, edu Two optional practical exercises are run each year by the School of Geosciences at Monash University which allow first year students to explore the "geology" of their urban environnnent.

One looks at urban trace fossils, the other looks at stones used in building construction, fascias and internal stonework (both in the CBD and in local shopping centres). The primary driving force behind both of these practicals is the desire to show students that they can apply their new found geologic skills to any environment, and to teach them to be observant wherever they are The urban trace fossils exercise requires students to venture out into their own local "field" environment, and search for evidence of past life preserved in surface deposits of meta-breccias (concrete pavement) within a few kilometres of their houses. They need to find traces or trackways formed by at least five different species, including at least one trackway of five or more sequential prints. They are required to identify the maker of each track, down to species if possible, and then calculate the speed of movement of the trackway-maker using two different formulae, commenting on the differing speeds that may result. Bonus points are awarded for scientific excellence, and/or creativity.

The CBD practical comes in two forms: 1) a self-guided short form that requires students to observe and describe stones at a number of specific locations, and report on them 2) a more detailed staff guided walk, taking about 3 hours, that has primarily been designed for year 10-12 students, or small groups of first year students.

Both versions required extensive field-work and research by the author to see what rocks were present at which locations in the Melbourne CBD, and to find the best examples of each rock type accessible to the public 7-days per week. Stones used within commercial buildings are not used in this exercise (despite some of them being outstanding examples of their rock types), and due to the ever-changing nature of the CBD, it is necessary to test-drive this trip each year before giving the exercise to the students to ensure that the cited stones are still in place.

A similar exercise had been run for a number of years at a nearby shopping mall, but was abandoned in 2002 after an unfortunate incident where a first-year geology student of middleeastern origin was accused by the mall's security of being a terrorist looking for places to hide bombs, and questioned by them for two hours...

These exercises are greeted with enthusiasm by our students, and can provide many of the essential undergraduate geology skills in a minimal-cost, low-risk, minimal organisational way for geoscientists in an area with little, or no, traditional geology outcrop. This is especially relevant in an era of risk averse and cost cutting school managers. Copies of the CBD and Trace Fossils practicals are available on request by email.

17

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Photogrammetric Methods for 3D Visualisation of Geological Structures Michael Roach University of Tasmania Michael. Roach @utas. edu. au

Geological features at outcrop and hand specimen scales are inherently three dimensional and it is often very difficult to convey important geometric relationships to students in a lecture or classroom environment even using multiple static photographs acquired from different orientations. This issue is particularly significant for teaching structural geology, since an outcrop or sample may display multiple generations of folding or faulting and may be cut by planar discontinuities with a variety of orientations. Observations at a several scales and from multiple viewpoints are usually needed to enable confident interpretation.

Understanding structural features requires development of 3D spatial skills, but many students struggle to visualise geological structures in three dimensions. Line drawings in textbooks provide simplified depictions of structures but students often have difficulty relating these theoretical concepts to real features in hand specimens or geological outcrops. 2D photographs of geological features are generally inadequate to illustrate the 3D relationships of structural features.

Recent major advances in digital photogrammetry now enable cost-effective generation of interactive, fully three-dimensional, photo-realistic visualisations that can be stored as 3D PDFs. These 3D models can be viewed and manipulated using standard desktop software (Adobe Acrobat) and easily delivered to students via local servers, over the internet, on CD or DVD. Three dimensional geological models are not replacements for conventional field and laboratory exercises. Nothing can fully replace the tactile experience of holding and manipulating a sample or the insight gained by exploring, touching and measuring a geological outcrop. However, interactive 3D models provide an effective way to augment and reinforce conventional specimen and outcrop-based teaching. 3D models also enable students to experience otherwise inaccessible localities in a more immersive and intuitive way than 2D images presented in lectures and conventional virtual field trips.

This presentation will outline and demonstrate the photogrammetric approach for generation of 3D visualisations and showcase examples of structural geology models produced by this method.

Strategies for incorporation of 3D models into the Earth Sciences teaching program at the University of Tasmania will also be presented.

18

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

New methods of visualisation and teaching in structural geology Thomas Blenkinsop James Cook University thomos. blenl<insop@jcu. edu. au

One of the most fundamental yet unfamiliar concepts that must be communicated in an introductory geology class is the relation between geological surfaces and topography. Typically this is taught through map exercises via structure contours, before any field experience, and this poses significant challenges to many geology novitiates. An alternative approach using Google Earth has been demonstrated to have advantages over the traditional method: learning is faster and more enjoyable, and closer to a field experience. The spectacular folds of the MacDonnell ranges and the northern edge of the Amadeus Basin afford excellent examples to explore this topic, and also to expose students to the principles of making geological maps (Figure below). A subsequent stage in three-dimensional understanding is taught through cross-sections. The use of a drawing program offers several advantages in cross-section construction: accuracy, zoom functionality (increasingly valuable for ageing eyesight), and presentation quality. The drawing program in the free OpenOffice suite of programs can be used in a variety of ways, from simply producing an accurate template of the cross-section, to complete construction of the section. The latter requires fairly adept skills with the program: experience suggests that it may be better to forego this stage unless a comprehensive guide to the use of the program is given (skills with a drawing program, however, are very useful). Google Earth also offers excellent opportunities for visualisation of results from field mapping. Planar and linear structures can be represented by three-dimensional symbols, with great flexibility.

Geological Interpretation of part of the northern edge of the Amadeus basin produced in Google Earth

19

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Encouraging 4D cognition in structural geology teaching and learning: A groupbased assessment using sand box experiments Nicholas Timms, presented by Leslie Almberg Curtin University n.timms@curtin.eclu.au Structural geology is a discipline that relies heavily on sound spatial reasoning skills and on the generation and nnanipulation of spatial, rather than propositional, nnental models of geological structures. Geology students are routinely required to perform tasks such as interpreting 3D data, inferring cross-sections through terrain, and mentally reconstructing past sequences of dynamic geological processes (4D) from present structural relations. Activities such as these involve the generation and maintenance of 3D spatial mental models, while engaging cognitive transformation processes to produce imagined rotations, translations, projections and crosssections of these structures. These kinds of abilities are known to vary substantially within the general population. While some individuals have a facility for spatial thinking, others find these processes challenging and perform poorly on these kinds of tasks While it has been shown that the unparalleled immersive environment of field geology can substantially facilitate the development of 3- and 4D geological cognition, the creation and manipulation of 3- and 4D analogue models in practical laboratory classes can also provide a beneficial, hands-on supplement to field classes. However, large class sizes present a potential logistical hindrance to this approach.

In this case study, we present a group assessment used with 2nd year undergraduate students wherein different groups run several parallel deformation models independently to test simple, well established deformation experiments that explore several key concepts in structural geology (critical taper wedge theory, imbricate thrust sequences, fold-thrust relationships, the effects of friction, etc.). Each group is given specific instructions for model setup and collection of structural data at various stages during the model development, and representation of the evolution of a 3D model in 2D. We also provide a template for the low-cost construction of the sand box apparatus used in the student experiments.

In addition to writing a report of their findings, groups are required to complete a reflective, self assessment questionnaire that contributes to their final mark, which targets group dynamics and self evaluation of scientific performance. Feedback on the assessment is given in the form of a lecture that incorporates the collated results from all groups. The collated results can be used to illustrate the consequences of varying the main geological parameters based on the model setup for each group (e.g., base slope, sand layer composition, basal layer material, etc.). The use of students' own results in the summary lecture increases their engagement with the topic.

Furthermore, prior familiarity with the 3- and 4D model geometry permits focus on other threshold concepts during the summary lecture. Qualitative results from student cohorts from two consecutive years demonstrate that the assessment was highly beneficial for achieving the unit learning outcomes.

20

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

The Deductive Approach for Teaching Numerical Skills to Earth Science Students Michael Roach University of Tasnnania Michael. Roach@utas. edu. au

Many Earth Science activities require significant numerical understanding and skills. However, Earth Science students comnnonly lack training in mathematics at the level required to confidently review the literature and perform these tasks. Many students are intimidated by mathematical formalism and even comparatively simple concepts can be obscured if presented with full mathematical rigor. Alternative approaches are required to convey important numerical procedures and concepts to Earth Science students.

Only a small proportion of Earth Science students have significant backgrounds in mathematics and these students may be in a position to directly appreciate the connections between equations and physical processes. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of students, this is not the case and these connections need to be clarified and the mathematical formalism demystified. Experience gained from teaching geophysics at The University of Tasmania suggests that a 'deductive' approach to this problem has significant advantages over more conventional 'inductive' learning approaches. Students are more likely to understand and properly appreciate an important concept if they have 'discovered' it themselves. The connections between a process and its formal mathematical description can then be clarified and explained.

This presentation describes the approach that has been adopted for teaching numerical skills to 3rd year students in geophysics units at The University of Tasmania. The 'deductive' approach has been successfully applied for teaching important topics such as signal processing, data inversion and heat or fluid flow modelling. The 'deductive' model is obviously more time intensive than alternative learning approaches but it results in more complete and detailed student understanding of the connections between physical processes and their mathematical representation.

21

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

The Challenge of Teaching Large Geophysics Classes Graham Heinson University of Adelaide Graham. Heinson@adelaide. edu. au Over the last ten years there has been significant growth in student numbers at the University of Adelaide in the disciplines of Geology and Geophysics. The figures below show changes 2003-11 for the Semester 2 third-year course Geophysics III.

Geophysics III

90

i

80

i

70

1

60 50 B i 40 E o 30 m 20 10 0 2002

1 2003

w

%p

2004

2005

2006

y

A r"

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012 Year

Why have we experienced such dramatic change? There are two primary reasons. Firstly the mining boom since 2005 has provided excellent career opportunities for students, which is obviously a major attraction (Powell, 2007). Secondly, Geology and Geophysics staff members are good educators and have won national awards for their curricula and teaching (Barovich: ALTC Citation in 2008; Field Geology Group: ALTC Citation in 2009).

The challenge of large classes has been how to continue this level of interaction with students when the numbers are so large I no longer know everyone's name?

In 2007 I set up a Peer-Review exercise with the aim of undertaking a research proposal and review cycle to provide insight into how projects are proposed and argued. The objectives were: • To provide experience in analysing key ideas presented in the literature • To present research ideas as a proposal for on-going and future research • To provide experience in critically reviewing research ideas • To constructively respond to criticism

22

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

The more innportant question was whether this is an effective nnethod of teaching and providing feedback? I believe it has been a positive exercise, and outline some of the approach and outcomes below.

Does Peer-Review Provide Good Feedback?

As the primary Geophysicist within the Discipline I have taught most of the Geophysics III course over the last ten years, since my appointment. For much of the first few years, classes of 10-20 students ensured that I knew all students well, provided very prompt and extensive feedback, and was able to introduce students to a range of innovations. At times, lecture classes were run in coffee shops!

Since 2007, high enrolments from first-year classes have arrived at third-year, and since 2009 there have been around 80 enrolments in Geophysics III. The challenge to me, and to all my colleagues, has been to answer the following question: how do we provide the same educational experience that we gave five years ago to five times as many students? Lectures can easily be translated to larger theatres, but laboratory classes, field-demonstrations, and prompt feedback are much harder to scale.

I have been giving much thought as to how to provide interesting and rapid feedback to students, and have been inspired by the use of a Calibrated Peer-Review approach (Robinson, 2001). The essence of Peer-Review is that students assess each other in a critical and structured manner. The teacher acts as conduit for information, and a referee, but does not have to be involved in reading large numbers of projects.

Since 2007, over a semester, I have run a series of Peer-Review exercises that mirror the processes of the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Grant application process. There are three stages: 1. Groups of two-three students develop a four to six-page research proposal (using the same headings as ARC of Title; Aims and Background; Significance and Innovation; Approach and Methodology; National Benefit; and References) based on published research in two leading geophysical journals. Students choose a research paper of interest, and need to thoroughly understand the aims, objectives, approaches, and outcomes of their paper and related published work. Groups then have to express the work as a new proposal; 2. These proposals are then reviewed and scored anonymously by three other groups, using the ARC Discovery Grant one-page review pro-forma, critically and quantitatively assessing the categories of Significance and Innovation; Approach and Methodology; and National Benefit. There is also space for more general feedback and comments; 3. Such reviews are returned to the groups who write a one-page rejoinder to reply to comments.

The aim of this exercise is for students to think critically, and communicate a logical argument effectively. At first, all students think they will be judged on content and presentation of their 23

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

proposal, but instead they are judged (by their peers) on their critical approach and logic. By asking three student groups to anonymously review each proposal, the students receive significant feedback on their work. In writing a rejoinder to the anonymous reviews, I'm impressed at how passionately students defend their proposals and argue scientific process. I provide examples from previous years to demonstrate what the students should achieve.

The Peer-Review feedback is formative rather than summative. I form a summative grade based on my assessment of attainment in terms of the ability of students to critical examine and propose a scientific idea; and to critically review others work. However, the Peer-Review feedback is more direct, in terms of three sets of anonymous student reviews of their proposals, and more extensive than I would be able to achieve as a teacher.

Does it work? Feedback from past students is positive. One student from the 2008 class noted: 'Writing a proposal based on a paper was a unique idea in the fact that you looked at how the process worked in reverse. You could see the end result and imagine what the initial proposal would have been. The peer review then allowed you to see if you got that message across succinctly as you would have to with a genuine proposal. Also it is a gauge of whether you have sparked interest in a subject that the reviewer would know little about. Our response was a great way to re-clarify ideas though it would have been good to see if the reviewer got the idea the second time around.''

In my Student Evaluation for the Geophysics III course in 2008, 85% of students were in broad agreement (Strongly Agree - Agree) that they "received adequate feedback on my work" compared to the Faculty of Sciences average in 2008 of 49% and the University of Adelaide average of 58%.

References Powell, Australian Geoscience Council: Australian Geoscience Tertiary Education Profile 2007.

Robinson, R., 2001, Calibrated Peer Review^"": An application to increase student reading and writing skills.

The American Biology Teacher, v. 63, n. 7, p. 474-480.

24

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Vacation Projects for Geoscience Students Bob Smith Greenfields Geophysics greengeo@bigpond.net.au The author has been involved in vacation projects for students for nnore than 50 years, as a student, as an employer and, more recently, as a consultant to an employer. Currently, as a Committee Member of the AusIMM Geoscience Society he is trying to assist in the development of more workable arrangements to facilitate geoscience students finding vacation projects which have value to both the employer and the student. In practice, these projects can contribute substantially to the students' development and often assist in finding support for post graduate work and, ultimately, employment.

During the last four summer vacations the author has consulted to a major mining company in developing and supervising vacation projects for students. Usually, these apply to students who have just completed third year and who will probably proceed to Honours next year. Projects have usually been conducted on University premises, although this has merely been due to convenience and it is not a fundamental principle. The projects have been almost entirely designed and supervised by company personnel (including consultants) although university staff members have been invited to participate and they have usually checked the students' final report. Projects have been successfully completed at Monash, UWA, Curtin, University of Adelaide and Melbourne University. In the case of Melbourne University and Curtin, the student was housed in a company office, but the others were done on university premises.

In all cases, the projects were designed to be of real use to the employer, and consequently payment was not an issue. The students were paid a fair wage, sometimes administered by the university, and additions fees were paid if university facilities were used. This might be simply working space but it could also include computer facilities, meeting rooms etc. There was also considerable potential for building relationships between the employer and the university staff.

The students were required to produce a final report and make a presentation of their results. This was a major requirement for the employer and a bonus was usually paid on completion to ensure it was achieved. So far, the students have not received course credits for these vacation projects although they have certainly benefitted by the experience and become better prepared for post graduate work.

Although many companies currently do support students in vacation work, there seems to be potential to encourage and facilitate further development of these projects with the assistance of the AusIMM Geoscience Society and AusIMM member companies.

The purpose of this presentation is to discuss the desirable principles behind a more general scheme whereby companies and universities can work closer together to assist in designing and managing vacation projects to their mutual benefit.

25

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Let's GLOW!: Geoscience Learning in an Online World Pat James University of South Australia patricl<James@unisa.edu.au

Along with most STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) disciplines, geoscience teaching in Australian Universities faces the challenge of increasing class sizes, student dennand for greater flexibility, difficulties in enforcing attendance at in-class activities and spiralling costs of field and laboratory training. Uncapping of student enrolnnents in 2012 will bring a new level of competition into an already stretched learning environment.

Computers, media and mobile technology devices have been used for many years (eg. De Paor, 1996), to enhance visually rich content, to allow sophisticated modeling and to enable students to access and analyse professional data. Along with appropriately considered pedagogic principles, these technological innovations have been applied to geoscience curricula to encourage student involvement in the geosciences and to facilitate deep learning.

The recent explosion in availability of almost unlimited bandwidth, highly powerful and mobile convergent devices and sophisticated learning management systems have all led to an accelerated application of these technologies to the curriculum. New modes of interaction with students made possible by these revolutionary technologies, has further allowed them to infiltrate universities, and to create new opportunities for new modes of learning (Kolowich, 2011a).

At UniSA, the technology has been used to develop the growing area (Kolowich, 2011b) of fully online courses in geosciences and engineering, with the support of the Open Universities Australia consortium. These courses will use Web 2.0 technology. Virtual Classrooms, asynchronous communication, simulations, visualisations, interactive experiments, and the Moodle personal learning environment to blend face to face and fully online learning paradigms into a new and hopefully GLOWing style of learning.

References De Paor, D.G. (1996). Structural Geology and personal computers. Computer Methods in the Geosciences (Merriam, D.F. ed), Pergamon.

Kolowich, S (2011a). Exploding the lecture, http://www.insidehighered.eom/news/2011/ll/15/professortries-improving-lectures-removing-them-class#.TsmgZgvygNl.email Kolowich, S (2011) Online Grows, Doubts Persist. http://www.linkedin.com/news?actionBar=&articlelD=900213697&ids=0Te38MdzwPejwldPwPczgVe jAUb3sVdzcNczOMeiMNc3sRdzwVe3wlcjcVcPAVd3AU&aag=true&freq=weekly&trk=eml-tod-b-ttle68&ut=3gea9J9uGy501

26

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

(Im)practical portfolios? When pedagogically sound design fails in implementation Leslie Almberg Curtin University /. almberg@curtin.edu. au Surface learning approaches (i.e. memorisation) are common among first-year students for a variety of reasons, including lack of motivation (both intrinsic and extrinsic), uncertainty about learning objectives and time management issues. The strategy of 'learning to the exam' serves some students well to meet their short-term goals, however it is not sustainable and can have serious repercussions in subsequent course work, wherein students are expected to build upon prior learning from one semester to the next. 'In one ear and out the pen never to be thought of ever again' could describe the so-called 'learning' of many students, who are frequently unable to remember anything about the general exam topic or recall any specific information they needed for the exam a week later. While frustrating or even dismaying from the educator's point of view, it is not unexpected in light of the frequency and weighting of summative assessments that rely on students' ability to regurgitate facts rather than demonstrate deeper understanding and ability to synthesise different strands of information.

In an effort to tip the scales from heavily summative to heavily formative assessment with abundant, high-quality feedback in Geology 101,1 supplanted formal practical exams with a practical portfolio. Portfolios were intended to promote deeper approaches to learning by requiring students to demonstrate mastery of rock and mineral identification skills, apply theoretical knowledge from lectures, and reflect upon their learning. Each student's portfolio was comprised of three parts: 1. practical handouts, which contained information about the specimens studied, background theory and a series of guided learning activities; 2. student generated content, including their observations, questions asked to demonstrators/lecturers/ other students, answers received, etc.; and 3. an acquired skill mastery checklist, wherein students could find detailed learning outcome descriptions to assess their own achievement prior to formal testing.

The practical portfolios were designed to be assessed for completeness, skill mastery and student reflections on their learning activities at three census dates throughout the semester. Students were given the option to have their portfolio progress reviewed at any time prior to the census, providing them with feedback on demand. Successful implementation of this assessment strategy should have promoted lifelong learning skills development as students became self-regulated learners, embedded reflection and closed feedback loops, and promoted interaction and dialogue; all essential components of successful first-year assessment and feedback. The implementation was not, however entirely successful. While the strategy was pedagogically sound, it was not practicable with the large student cohort (>200) it was intended to serve.

I will present both student and instructor impressions from this trial run, including a comparison of experiences on two campuses with significantly different student numbers. I will share the portfolio materials and invite discussion to inform a more successful second attempt to implement this style of practical teaching and assessment after discussing the planned changes for 2012.

27

Geological Society ofAustrolio, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Working with your own data: a rational approach to a digital learning and research framework for Australian geology students Grant Jacquler Computers in Geology, South Australia CompslnGeology@bigpond.com Recently, Cockbain reviewed the Apple iPad App "Earth Observer"(Cockbain 2011), the latest component of the digital learning and research framework of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. This is one of the major frameworks being used in the United States with others such as Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, which their web-site suggests is in effect, but not published, and the Victorian Institute of Earth and Planetary Science has, on a lesser scale, used ESRI ArcView. The disadvantages of this approach are: sparse data collected by the student's own efforts do not display well; the diverse student interests are outside the functionality, especially in 3D/4D representations; systems are expensive in man-hours to support.

An alternative is the complete geology curricula written in Mathematica (Caprarelli 2005). In the Australian context the disadvantages of this framework are: no carry over into Australian industry or government systems; and uses algebra/geometry rather than 'set theory' mathematics the preference the CSIRO (Ackland and Cox 2001). Finally, specific programs for laboratory and field devices have the disadvantage of: different graphical interfaces; and poor data exchange leading to a montage of figures that can't be upgraded by industry.

Subsequently the teaching outcomes (preparation for industry, calibration, multiple hypotheses etc.) achieved by a student easily pulling apart and putting back together their own field data sets are diminished. There is hope, a new version of Golden Software Surfer has these features: use of Visual Basic the common business programming language; direct links to Microsoft Access 2010 that can edit CSIRO's grammars, and contains a Structured Query Language (SQL) interpreter, an industry standard for 'set theory'; and integrates with the Geoscience Australia OGC (Open Geospatial Consortium) web mapping service (WMS).

This builds on the strengths of the Golden Software suite: low budget (Jacquier 2011), Microsoft Word like interface, no jargon; makes sparse data look good; includes teaching data and macros; integrates well with Microsoft Office as required for field mapping (Dentith 2008), thesis (Evans 1995) and paper (Andrew 2011) preparation; separate programs cope with diverse data and is used by small companies. It also tackles the [wholly] grail of the "stratigraphic time continuum" to produce an active stratigraphic diagram (www.grantjacquier.info).

References Ackland, R. and S. Cox (2001). Markup mapping. GIS User: 28-31.

Andrew, A. (2011). From the AJES Hon Editor's Desk. The Australian Geologist. Sydney, The Geological Society of Australia Inc.: 40.

28

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Caprarelli, G. (2005). Connputational Geosciences with Mathematica. The Australian Geologist: 39.

Cockbain, T. (2011). EarthObserver. The Australian Geologist. Sydney, The Geological Society of Australia Inc.: 41.

Dentith, M. (2008). Introducing digital geological mapping into a 3rd-year field unit: experiences at the University of Western Australia. The Australian Geologist. Sydney, Geological Society of Australia: 3.

Evans, D. G. (1995). How to write a better thesis or report. Carlton, Victoria, Melbourne University Press.

Jacquier, G. L. (2011). Grimoire of Geological Computing; observatory manual and site notes. Parkside, South Australia, Computers in Geology.

29

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Using Planetary Science as a platform for Digital Geoscience (geology & geography) in Education and Research: Project DIGGER Mark Bishop and Rachel Humeniuk Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona bishop@psi.edu

The field of planetary science has traditionally involved astronomy (nnathematics, physics) and earth science (geology, chemistry, biology). In recent times planetary science has grown to include information and communication technologies (ICT), physical geography, climate science and comparative earth observation (EO). This diversity of knowledge and skill-sets has resulted in several outcomes: cutting-edge innovations in technology; a better understanding of Earth as a planet; a better understanding of society and environment; a strong basis for developing a sustainable human landscape; and a 'toolbox' for which all levels and sub-disciplines of earth science teaching (K-16) can be instigated.

Accordingly, Project DiG^ER was developed over two decades of multidisciplinary teaching and the integration of undergraduate courses in introductory geomorphology, GIS and spatial data analysis using the technological platforms of Google Earth-Mars and ArcGIS. Supplementing content knowledge with 'hands-on' use of digital data from terrestrial and planetary archives used in active research projects promoted a strong sense of self-learning and social importance. Workshop and practical sessions were thematic allowing for students with diverse backgrounds and interests to be engaged in developing generic content knowledge, and research skills, with relevance to a range of discipline interests. New and topical research results also could be readily inserted into the teaching program using such an approach. The demonstration of landscape evolution within a framework of both Australian analogue sites and planetary science proved popular to both local and overseas students and gave students information not only from geological and geomorphic perspectives, but also from Quaternary and climate science, cartography, and dating and analytical method.

Based on this experience, and on that of a NASA-funded EPO program (WiSER: Workshops in Science Education and Resources) developed at the Planetary Science Institute, Arizona, Project DiG^ER has been developed as an Australian-US initiative to build capacity in primary and secondary school teachers in the area of earth observation and planetary science, and to increase the uptake of students engaging in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects, particularly those relating to the earth and space strand. While there are several factors that influence a students' decision to engage in a STEM subject, quality teaching is likely to be the most important lever for change in the short and medium term, and has the greatest impact on learning. The context of science education needs to emphasize the nature of science and how it operates. Hence, Project DiG^ER builds upon the inherent student interest of 'space' that has been reported in recent studies, and the premise that the teacher is a critical factor in determining 30

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

students' interests, enjoynnent and motivation to learn science. Following on fronn earlier experiences, thennatic workshops consist of, Vutback and Beyond: Craters, space rocks and life' which is an examination and comparison of Australian impact and volcanic craters compared with other planetary surfaces such as the Moon and Mars. 'Dust, Dirt, Sand and Salt: Deserts, records of clinnate change' offers a perspective on deserts as records of climate change. While, 'Upside Down, Down Under: Rivers and Inverted Landscapes' examines landscapes showing long-term erosion and the inversion of topography.

The future of successful and inspirational geology and geography teaching, regardless of year level, could be significantly enhanced by integrating planetary science into a geoscience curriculum.

Project DIGGER will continue to evolve using cross-continental access to science and science education staff via videoconferencing, 'app' development for field guide exemplars using GPSguided smart phones and tablets, 3D virtual web-based field trips, and continuous 'hand-on' involvement in new data and planetary exploration with mission scientists, engineers and analysts.

31

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Assessing geoscience learning - making assessment a teaming activity to engage and encourage Sandra McLaren University of Melbourne mclarens@unimelb.edu.au Assessing learning outcomes in undergraduate courses seems to generate stress for both students and instructors alike. Assessment is obviously an important aspect of teaching, yet it's planning is probably given the least attention by time-poor academics and for many there is little time in the busy teaching year to think creatively about assessment. But many standard approaches - theory and practical examinations, literature reviews and field reports - don't necessarily capture or encourage the enquiring, thoughtful student cohort we want. Research elsewhere shows many traditional assessment strategies are not conducive to the development of deep conceptual understanding (Tobias, 1992) and may even detract from a student's view of a discipline (McConnell et a!., 2003). At a time when the size and satisfaction of our student cohort is increasingly important, we need to consider assessment in any attempt to improve our teaching and the overall student experience.

Although it's unlikely to provide answers, this presentation will attempt to raise a number of general issues regarding the way in which we assess geoscience learning in Australian universities.

Assessment practices must obviously be closely related to those graduate attributes that we desire and it is possible that problems with assessment relate to poorly articulated graduate - or subject-specific - learning outcomes. Moreover, in many earth science disciplines desired learning outcomes have changed. For example, the ability to recall mineral formulae or to perform manual work on the stereonet are perhaps less important than they were in the past. On the other hand, the advent of new technologies means that the ability to use advanced geophysical, imaging or positional techniques and new generation software are now seen by many to be essential skills.

Assessment practices should reflect these changes.

Technology for teaching has also changed dramatically over the past decade. In ours and in various disciplines, the use of wikis, internet portfolios and interactive assignments (Neumann & Hood, 2009; Armellini & Aiyegbayo, 2010) - which allow the potential of peer and group assessment - are increasing. But detailed pedagogical studies on the effectiveness of these tools in our field - where complex spatial and temporal concepts are sometimes challenging to assess are only just being evaluated (e.g., Tingay, this volume) and the uptake of new technologies in assessment (in contrast to a teaching tool) is not yet widespread.

For example, in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne most assessment practices are traditional. In the BSc, every subject that has a classroom-based teaching component is assessed at least in part by a written theory examination; around two-thirds of subjects with a 32

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

significant practical teaching connponent have a traditional practical exannination. All field-based subjects are assessed by a traditional written field report, field exercises and/or a paper-based mapping project (c.f., Baustian et al., 2008). Group projects-which may be self-assessed contribute a minor proportion to the total assessment in three subjects but the level of satisfaction, from staff and from students, is variable. In one atmosphere and ocean science subject an innovative oral examination method was recently trialled.

Inquiry-based and experiential learning strategies are known to attract, retain and encourage students (e.g., McConnell et al., 2003; Apedoe et al., 2006). The very nature of our science means we're well placed to use these approaches (e.g., Tewksbury, 1996) and many of us do so, at least to some extent, already. Increasing focus on these assessment styles may help to retain our students or even to boost our student numbers.

Although University bureaucracy may constrain assessment to word-count-equivalent quanta, it may be timely for a broader discussion on the process of assessment in geoscience. Is there still a role for traditional assessment practices? To what extent should new technologies be used to develop assessment practices? And how do we evaluate the effectiveness of any new approach?

In making choices we need to ensure a consistent approach that maximises flexibility for different learning styles, that engages and encourages our students and that capitalizes on the unique nature of our science.

References Apedoe, X.S., Walker, S.E., Reeves, T.C. 2006. Integrating inquiry-based learning into undergraduate geology. Journal of Geoscience Education, 54, p. 414-421.

Armellini, A., Aiyegbayo, 0. 2010. Learning design and assessment with e-tivities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, p. 922-935.

Baustian, M.M., Bentley, S.J., Wandersee, J.H. 2008. Innovative assessment tools for a short, fast-paced, summer field course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 37, p. 37-43.

McConnell, D.A., Steer, D.N., Owens, K.D. 2003. Assessment and active learning strategies for introductory geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 51, p. 205-216.

Neumann, D.L, Hood, M. 2009. The effects of using a wiki on student engagement and learning of report writing skills in a university statistics course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25, p. 382-398.

Tewksbury, B.J. 1996. Teaching without exams - The challenges and the benefits. Journal of Geoscience Education, 44, p. 366-372.

Tingay, M. Use of wikis, peer and self-assessment for a group research assi^... ic;nt: a case study.

Tobias, S., 1992. Revitalizing undergraduate education: Why some things work and most don't. Research Corporation, pp. 192.

33

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

Comparison of Wiki, Peer and Self Assessment of Group Research Mark Tingay University of Adelaide Mark. tingoy@adeloide. edu. au Development of teamwork skills in engineering higher education is essential for the successful progression of engineering graduates into industry. Group work is an established method for developing team work skills, enhancing student engagement with their peers and understanding group dynamics (Bourner et al., 2001). The use of group-based exercises and assignments has additional potential benefits in reducing lecturer marking load, particularly in large classes, and thus facilitating more rapid and effective feedback (Gibbs, 1992; Bourner et al., 2001; Knight et al., 2007). Furthermore, group work is essential for achievement of two of the five engineering threshold learning outcomes established for the Australian Government's Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency: 'coordination and communication' and 'self management' (Wright et al., 2010).

Despite its importance, group work is often perceived negatively by students, with major issues surrounding assessment (group result not representative of individual performance), breakdown of the group dynamic and difficulties for remote students (Bourner et al., 2001; Winchester-Seeto, 2002; Knight et al., 2007). Issues surrounding unfairness or inequity in group work assessment typically arise due to lecturers being unable to reliably gauge group dynamics and thus only assessing the final group work products (Bourner et al., 2001; Winchester-Seeto, 2002). Hence, group work requires assessment of both the final 'products' and the group's work 'process' (Winchester-Seeto, 2002). The perceived fairness of assessment can be further improved through the use of self and peer assessment (Willey and Freeman, 2006). Therefore, the equitable assessment of group project work relates to finding the optimal balance between assessment of 'product' versus 'process', and an appropriate mixture of lecturer, peer and self assessment.

Assessment of individual contributions to the groups work process represents the key challenge in fair and equitable marking of group research assignments, as it is far more difficult for the lecturer to independently monitor (Bourner et al., 2001; Imbrie et al., 2005). Assessment of individual contributions to the group work process have been commonly conducted using a combination of the lecturer's own observations and the analysis of additional records compiled by the students, such as team log books, individual research diaries or group meeting minutes (Winchester-Seeto, 2002; Willey and Freeman, 2006; Willey and Gardner, 2010). More recently, wikis have been increasingly used in the assessment of the group work process (Snelling and Karanicolas, 2008; Ramanau and Geng, 2009). Analysis of the wiki history provides a direct record of each group member's individual contribution that is, arguably, more reliable and representative than other mechanisms. However, all methods for assessing an individual's contribution to the group process are time consuming, particularly for large classes, and such second-hand evidence may be unreliable or incomplete (Winchester-Seeto, 2002).

34

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

This paper presents a case study of the implementation of combined lecturer, self and peer assessment on a wiki-based group research project in a second year petroleum engineering course (37 students). In this study I compare and contrast the results of a variety of assessment types, including self assessment (by individuals and groups), peer assessment (of people both inside and outside of research groups) and lecturer assessment (of a group's overall final product as well as of individual contributions to the group work process). Whilst grades provided by each assessor type were consistent (e.g. all self assigned grades had similar distributions), significant differences were observed between different assessor grades despite all using consistent rubrics. Self and peer assessments mostly exhibited some degree of consistency, but with approximately one third of self assessed grades being significantly (>10%) higher than those given by their peers. Lecturer assigned grades were, on average, 10% lower than peer assessed grades and 15% lower than self assessed grades. The discrepancy between grades provided by self, peer and lecturer assessment are considered herein to result from a combination of grade exaggeration (particularly self assessed grades) and different interpretations of the marking rubrics. This initial small case study suggests that self assessment may be unsuitable for summative grading. Furthermore, these results indicate that peer assessment needs to be conducted carefully and with some ability to moderate marks, particularly when students assess peers from within their research group. Using wikis as a medium for conducting group research potentially provides a reliable mechanism by which lecturers can undertake assessment of individual contributions to the group work process and, particularly in combination with peer assessment practices, may allow marking of group work in a more equitable manner and with greater student satisfaction.

References Bourner, J., Hughes, M. and Bourner, T., 2001. First-year undergraduate experiences of group project work.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26,19-39.

Gibbs, G., 1992. Improving the quality of student learning. Bristol, Technical and Education Services.

Imbrie, P.K., Mailer, S.J. and Immekus, J.C., 2005. Assessing team effectiveness. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, American Society for Engineering Education, Paper 731, 7p.

Knight, D.W., Carlson, LE. and Sullivan, J.F., 2007. Improving engineering student retention through hands-on, team based, first-year design projects. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Research in Engineering Education, June 22-24 2007, Honolulu, American Society of Engineering Education, 13p.

Ramanau R., and Geng F., 2009. Researching the use of wikis to facilitate group work. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 1, 2620-2626.

Snelling, C., and Karanicolas, S., 2008. Why wikis work: assessing group work in an on-line environment. ATN assessment conference. University of South Australia, Adelaide Australia, 20-21 November, 8 pp, http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/atna/issue/view/ISBN 978-0-646-504421.

Willey, K. and Freeman, M., 2006. Improving teamwork and engagement: the case for self and peer assessment.

Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, online publication 2006-02, 21p.

Willey, K. and Gardner, A., 2010. Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35, 429-443.

Winchester-Seeto, T., 2002. Assessment of collaborative work - collaboration versus assessment. Annual Uniserve Science Symposium, The University of Sydney.

Wright, S., Hadgraft, R. And Cameron, I., 2010. Engineering and ICT Learning and Teaching Academic Standards statement December 2010, Learning and Teaching Academic Standards Project, Australian Learning and Teaching Council, 28p.

35

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

NOTES

36

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

NOTES

37

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 Australian Geoscience Teaching Workshop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

NOTES

38

Geological Society of Australia, Abstracts No. 100 l'* Australian Geoscience Teaching Worl<shop, Adelaide, Australia, January 2012

NOTES

39