Improving a Field School Curriculum Using Modularized Lessons and Authentic Case-Based Learning

Abstract

University course evaluations are replete with student comments expressing frustration with taking time out of work, paying money for, and putting energy into field education projects that lack authentic “real‐world” problem‐solving objectives. Here, we describe a model for field school education that borrows on pedagogical tools such as problem‐based learning, hands‐on instruction, field‐based education, and teaching through research, and employs modularized teaching in a way that incorporates numerous resource management issues and values into a case study that addresses an authentic forest management issue. In presenting the model, we present data from student comments and course evaluations on the effectiveness of our approach and describe and underscore those elements that have served as the guiding force in refining the field school curriculum that we currently use at the University of Northern British Columbia. Additionally, we make recommendations on how to integrate other key elements into the curriculum that appear to be critical for conducting a successful field school.

Student-Generated Questions to Assess Learning in an Online Orientation to Pharmacy Course

“…A context such as this requires not only engaging activities to capture and maintain student motivation, which is a primary determinant of student retention, 5 but also a substantial amount of instructor guidance and feedback. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Within formal educational structures, students have many opportunities to answer questions but few opportunities to pose them. 12 In the sciences, inquiry is an especially important skill that instructors try to help their students develop, yet students are rarely engaged in this activity due to the instructor workload challenges.…”

Implementing Case Studies in a Plant Pathology Course: Impact on Student Learning and Engagement

“…Examples of poor teaching included using a lecture‐only teaching method, disengaged students and instructors, lack of peer‐to‐peer interaction, and lack of student‐to‐instructor interaction (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). Rea and Hodder (2007) further stated that students express frustration in courses that lack authentic “real‐world” problem‐solving objectives. In order to actively engage students in their own learning and improve science instruction, Springer, Stanne, and Donovan (1999) argued for the need to shift the emphasis from teacher‐centered to more learner‐centered approaches.…”

“…Some of the research has found that case studies increase students’ ethical awareness (Lundeberg et al, 2002) and lead to significant improvement in students’ understanding (Dori et al, 2003), whereas other research has suggested no significant differences in performance between the traditional and case study groups (Antepohl and Herzig, 1999; Hoag et al, 2005). However, other research has suggested that when learning via the case study method students report higher satisfaction (Antepohl and Herzig, 1999), have increased attendance (Hoag et al, 2005), and give positive evaluations of the course (Dinan, 2002; Rea and Hodder, 2007). These results are promising in terms of the impact of case teaching method on student satisfaction and learning.…”