A Curriculum by Design) I outlined the philosophy and process we used in the Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, to revise our undergraduate curriculum. This continuing contribution describes the process we used to identify student learning outcomes (SLOs) across the curriculum, and how these SLOs have been used to develop our department assessment plan (required in anticipation of our forthcoming institutional accreditation review).
Assessment is collecting data with a purpose. The Department of Earth Sciences completed an extensive review of student learning outcomes at the programmatic level for all courses offered by the department. Our assessment plan is designed to: a) provide faculty with an opportunity to reflect on course goals, methods and expected student learning outcomes, b) aggregate these course learning goals into an overall departmental matrix of student learning outcomes, c) provide formative feedback to improve teaching and learning in Earth Sciences courses, and d) for accountability, to demonstrate that the departmental and institutional vision and mission are being addressed and that the curriculum is consistent with contemporary professional standards in the geosciences. The resulting SLO Matrix (Excel 2007 (.xlsx) 122kB Jan16 14) provides a rapid, visual map of the "landscape" of our curriculum; you can readily see areas of emphasis, and areas that might need more attention in our curricular development. This exercise also provided our faculty the opportunity to reflect deeply on the concepts and skills they emphasize in their own courses, gave them some incentives to revise courses to respond to the SLO goals, and opened the door for more extensive curricular discussions between faculty (who generally were not aware of content/skills being taught in courses related to their own).
Work on our portfolio of SLOs followed the design, development and implementation of a fully revised curriculum for degree options in the physical sciences offered by the department (Geology, Snow Science, Paleontology); a similar review process is in progress by our geographers for our Geography and GIS/Geographic Planning degree options. This revised curriculum is now in its second year of implementation, and we conducted a formative assessment designed to determine the degree to which departmental curricular goals are being met.
The Curricular Design Process
We undertook our curriculum design process following these principles:
- We used a "backward design" process (Wiggins and McTighe, 2005) to define the profile of an ideal graduate from our program, identifying what a student should know (concepts and content knowledge, scientific "habits of mind") and be able to do (geoscience technical skills and other professional skills);
- Design of learning progressions in key areas to ensure that students earn mastery of key concepts and skills through multiple exposures throughout the curriculum (the "Rule of 3's or 4's"—if something is worth learning students need at least three or four exposures to gain mastery: exposure, familiarization, competence, and ultimately mastery of the concept or skill); this also reflects the design of an integrated and coherent curriculum in which course content in a given course reflects on lessons learned in earlier courses and anticipates applications in more advanced courses;
- Application of Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognitive Skills (Bloom 1956; updated Anderson et al., 2000) to promote development of higher-order thinking skills throughout the curriculum: a) starting with early exposure to Earth Science topics to stimulate interest and motivation to learn, and to recruit majors to the discipline, and b) to emphasize more advanced interpretation, application, analytical and synthetic reasoning skills about the Earth system for majors across the curriculum;
- Adoption of an Earth system approach, emphasizing the connections between the solid earth, oceans, weather and climate, biota and humanity;
- Preparation of students for the workforce of the 21st Century (or graduate school), including disciplinary knowledge and skills, life-long professional skills, and scientific "habits of mind"; and
- Alignment of the curriculum with the department vision and mission statements, with institutional curricular requirements (e.g. our "Core 2.0" course requirements), and with the MSU Strategic Plan.
The revised curriculum developed by the Department of Earth Sciences is described and represented graphically in Part I of A Curriculum by Design.
The Programmatic Assessment Process
Our programmatic assessment is the result of an intensive self-study by the faculty of the department to document the topics and skills that are emphasized in different courses across the curriculum and at different instructional levels.
We used the Matrix Approach to Curriculum Design module (Savina and Macdonald), from the National Association of Geoscience Teachers Building Strong Geoscience Departments project. The approach was further described by Dallas Rhodes, Georgia Southern University (2011), and adapted and expanded for use by the Department of Earth Sciences to more specifically represent departmental priorities, resources, and staffing. The major student learning outcomes fall into four main categories: Discipline Knowledge (concepts and content), Discipline-Specific Skills (technical skills), Earth Science Habits of Mind, and Professional Skills (communication, quantitative, information, and interpersonal).
1. Discipline-Specific Knowledge: Graduates are expected to have in-depth knowledge of the following fundamental concepts in the Earth Sciences: the dynamics of the Earth system, including interactions among the solid Earth, Earth's surface, hydrosphere, biosphere, and with humanity. Students in the physical science degree options are expected to gain mastery of the concepts of geologic time, evolution life and history of the Earth system; the composition and architecture of Earth; and processes and phenomena observed on the surface of Earth (landscapes, weather and climate, biosphere). Students in the Geography degree option will gain mastery of the social, economic, cultural, and historical dimensions of humanity interacting with the Earth system.
2. Discipline-Specific Skills: All students in the Department of Earth Sciences will develop temporal (geologic and geographic history) and spatial reasoning skills (utilizing Geographic Information Science, and including other forms of 3- and 4-dimensional data representations). Students in the physical sciences will master skills required for professional development (e.g. field methods, computer modeling, experimental and analytical methods), and students in the social sciences will master the quantitative and qualitative methods typically used by professional geographers.
3. Earth Science "Habits of Mind": Students are expected to formulate questions; apply concepts, content knowledge, skills and tools; produce, critically evaluate, and appropriately represent data; interpret evidence and report results. Earth Science students must be able to draw inferences from observations or data that are incomplete, ambiguous and uncertain. Spatial reasoning, temporal reasoning, systems thinking and the ability to work in the field are all central to the professional development of Earth Scientists.
4. Professional Skills: a) Communication skills; Earth Science students are expected to present the results of their work in written, oral, and graphical formats; b) Quantitative skills; students are expected to apply mathematical formulations to represent physical and human dynamic systems; and c) Interpersonal skills; students are expected to work cooperatively and collaboratively to achieve common goals. Students should also be able to critically read the primary literature, and to have a fundamental knowledge of the theory, philosophy and intellectual history of the discipline.
These general topics are further sub-divided according to themes that are central to learning in the Earth Sciences. The identification of these sub-themes (represented in columns on the accompanying spreadsheet) was based on
- An initial Gallery Walk done by faculty at a department retreat in which faculty identified key elements of their courses [e.g. strong field component, writing-intensive, etc.]
- National initiatives that support excellence in Earth Sciences education including
- The On the Cutting Edge program (NSF TUES Phase III),
- The InTeGrate-Interdisciplinary Teaching of Geoscience for a Sustainable Future program (NSF-STEP)
- The American Geosciences Institute's Geoscience Workforce Program,
- The Association of American Geographers, and
- The U.S. Department of Labor Geospatial Technology Competency Model.
The categories of SLOs used in this SLO Matrix Template (Excel 2007 (.xlsx) 122kB Jan16 14) address the learning goals that are specific to the Dept. of Earth Sciences, Montana State University (although guided by these other national programs). Other departments should feel free to modify this matrix to meet their own departmental vision, mission, faculty, student population and resources.
All faculty in the Department of Earth Sciences contributed to this self-study. The benefit of using self-assessment data is that the survey format allowed for easy and rapid responses from all faculty. Each faculty member was responsible for only a handful of courses, and individually, it did not take a major effort for faculty to complete their part of the matrix. However, there are known issues associated with self-reporting, particularly with respect to calibrating responses from different faculty that may result in some distortion of the reliability of these data (Teo, 2012; note that one faculty member's responses are clearly not valid). In some cases, the department head worked with individual faculty to reconsider the ratings they initially submitted as their perceived contributions were often reported as being too conservative compared to their faculty peers. Overall, most faculty made a good-faith effort in identifying areas of emphasis in their courses.
Faculty provided input about their contributions to student learning outcomes (represented in rows in the accompanying spread sheet) in the courses where they have primary instructional responsibility according to this rating scale: 3 (red)= this topic is central and essential to the course goals, and is strongly emphasized throughout the course; 2 (yellow)= this topic is considered in this course and supports course learning goals; 1 (blue) = this topic is introduced in the course but is not covered in depth; blank= topic not covered. The submitted course SLOs were then compiled by the department head into a single omnibus spreadsheet for the entire department. These color coded results in the matrix provide a rapid means to survey the curricular landscape of the Department of Earth Sciences.
This input was then re-sorted into a series of separate sheets for further programmatic analysis according to:
- Rubrics within the department (we have course listings under three categories: Earth Science, ERTH, Geography, GPHY, and Geology, GEO);
- Level of offering (100, 200, 300, 400)
- Undergraduate degree options (we offer 5 degree options under our BS in Earth Sciences degree: Geography, Geographic Information Science/Planning, Geology, Paleontology and Snow Science),
- Faculty contributions to the department's educational mission, and
- The graduate program.
These sortings provide the evidence for deeper analysis of curricular strengths and points of emphasis, individual faculty contributions to student learning outcomes, representations of the overall student experiences in our degree programs, and faculty expectations for learning in our undergraduate and graduate degree programs.
In aggregate, the matrices attached to this report provide a very interesting assessment of the overall current curricular structure of the Department of Earth Sciences:
- Areas of particular strength or emphasis are readily identified (red or yellow),
- This visualization provides a road map to guide future curricular revision and development, and
- This matrix can be used as a "gap analysis" to identify specific areas in need of further development. In some cases, we may simply ask that established courses change emphasis a bit to address missing components of the curriculum; in other cases we may need to develop new courses.
This matrix is not to be viewed as a representation of workload effort for each faculty member, as many courses are taught by multiple faculty in rotation, and other courses are offered in alternate years or on demand.
Analysis of Assessment Results
This assessment process has resulted in immediate benefits:
- The course matrix has provided an important baseline of the current breadth and scope of our instructional efforts across the Earth Sciences curriculum.
- The process has provided a forum for faculty to begin or continue conversations about the overall curriculum and how their courses contribute to the overall instructional mission.
- Many faculty gained a better sense of what is being taught in related parts of the curriculum, and efforts are underway to better align our identified SLOs with learning progressions in our course sequences; and
- Many faculty have independently commented on the personal value they derived from this assessment exercise, as they reflected deeply on their course goals, areas of emphasis, and overall contributions to the curriculum.
- Overall, the faculty had never had the opportunity to see the totality of what we are covering our curriculum, and it has been a very positive thing for the department to see the depth and breadth of the scholarship that is being done in our department.
- For full disclosure, I need to note that not all faculty are happy with the new curriculum. To accommodate new degree requirements of a full year of GIS and Weather and Climate for all Earth Science majors, we have had to a) discontinue some courses that were deemed to be redundant, b) compress some courses into new hybrid courses, c) change the level of instruction of some courses, and d) move some formerly required courses into the "free elective" (not required) courses that are now offered on alternate years. Time will tell how this all plays out.
The course matrix provides the evidence that describes the degree to which we have met university (MSU) and department learning goals. (I used this as the basis of my annual program assessment report that was submitted to my administration)
1. The Department of Earth Sciences contributes to the MSU Core 2.0 Curriculum (see tab Sorted by Level, 100 Level Courses)
2. Earth Sciences courses increasingly employ an Earth Systems approach.
3. The Department of Earth Sciences has developed an integrated curriculum with learning sequences that emphasize the development of higher order thinking skills.
b. Higher order thinking skills are developed across the curriculum through use of case-based studies, problem-solving activities, acquisition and use of data, critical reading of the primary literature, and formulation and testing of hypotheses. Authentic questions and problems are commonly embedded into coursework at all levels as class projects, requiring students to acquire and integrate information from numerous sources to formulate a solution to the problem.
4. The Department of Earth Sciences prepares students a) to continue with graduate studies and/or b) to join the workforce in discipline.
- Understand geologic/geographic context, apply concepts and skills
- Ask the next question
- Know where to look for information
- Formulate a plan to address the problem
- Become critical producers and consumers of data
- Integrate multiple lines of evidence
- Communicate results; write a report, make a map, develop a GIS, and
- Be life-long learners.
Overall Results of This Assessment of Programmatic SLO's:
The Department of Earth Sciences offers robust degree programs that prepare students for the next steps in their professional development. Course content and technical skills are developed in all Earth Sciences courses to conform to professional standards and competencies. There is a strong emphasis across the curriculum on development of communication skills, quantitative reasoning, information technology skills, and interpersonal skills through cooperative and collaborative learning. Problem-solving has been reported as a highly valued skill in the geosciences, and class activities are routinely developed to simulate or replicate professional practices, and in some cases, to engage authentic research activities. Results of course work commonly make direct contributions to the body of scientific knowledge, and with applications to issues of societal interest.
Resources that Can Help Get You Started Creating the Student Learning Outcomes Matrix for Your Own Department
Dept. of Earth Sciences, Montana State University Template (Excel 2007 (.xlsx) 122kB Jan16 14); feel free to start with the Blank Template (Excel 2007 (.xlsx) 38kB Jan16 14) of SLO topics, or refer to the matrix completed by our faculty to see what a matrix for an entire degree program might look like. You will have a different array of courses, and the SLOs may be a bit different depending on your department's vision, mission, staffing, profile of students, geographic setting, departmental resources, etc.
Mary Savina and Heather Macdonald had the first description of using a matrix approach to curriculum development, posted at Building Strong Geoscience Departments. Access the Matrix Approach to Curriculum Design module.
Dallas Rhodes, Georgia Southern University, expanded on the matrix approach in his 2011 GSA poster Curriculum and Program Learning Outcomes Mapping to Enhance Program Assessment
I expanded Dallas' matrix following input from other sources:
At a faculty retreat, I used a Gallery Walk (from the Starting Point collection of teaching strategies) to get faculty involved with defining the concepts and skills they thought were most important for their courses. I used large flip chart sheets each with a teaching emphasis (e.g. technical skills like rock and mineral identification, map reading; communication skills; quantitative skills; field instruction; modeling; etc.). These were posted on walls around the room, and the faculty migrated from sheet to sheet and wrote what they did under each heading and in which classes. I also had a number of blank sheets so faculty could post methods, activities, etc. that were otherwise important to their courses. So, my preliminary matrix featured skills and concepts that were identified by the faculty.
I wanted to address expectations of employers for the modern workforce, so I referred to the AAC&U Survey of Employers (Acrobat (PDF) 146kB Jan16 14). I also used the outcomes of the InTeGrate Workforce Geoscience and the 21st Century Workforce: Considering Undergraduate Programs in the Context of Changing Employment Opportunities Workshop, and information from the the American Geosciences Institute's Geoscience Workforce Program.
I was also interested in documenting where we were teaching "geoscience habits of the mind, and I relied on information from the Synthesis of Research on Thinking and Learning in the Geosciences project that emphasized spatial reasoning, temporal reasoning, systems thinking and field instruction. I also used information from the InTeGrate workshop on Teaching the Methods of Geoscience workshop.
I also used information from the Using Date in the Classroom portal.
The first step in this process was to review the courses we offered, and to align these into our new curriculum requirements. Our overall course sequence matrix and the steps we took to realign our curriculum are posted at this blogpost (A Curriculum by Design).
Now that we have created this matrix based on a) geoscience faculty input, and b) national reports and events that largely reflect the experience and insights of academics, I plan to have the following groups fill out the matrix to see what aspects of the curriculum they value most:
- Current students in our courses for majors: what is there perspective of what they value most in their pre-professional training?
- Alumni: it will be interesting to have recent (and distant past) alumni reflect on their training in our department to see what concepts and skills have best served them in their own career trajectories; and
- Recruiters from the industries that typically hire our students: it will be interesting to see if they value the same training (concepts, skills) that we emphasize in our curriculum. What will make our students more competitive in the workforce?
- Faculty from R1 institutions: You receive our students into your graduate programs. Are you recruiting students to your graduate programs who have the knowledge, skills (and perhaps attitudes, personal attributes) such that they will be able to step into your programs and immediately contribute to your research mission? Many R1 institutions were represented at the Summit on the Future of Undergraduate Geoscience Education held in January 2014 at UT-Austin (thank you Sharon Mosher and the organizing committee). If you do this exercise with your faculty, please send me the your departmental matrix and I'll compile the results.
The results of these new surveys should provide good evidence of what we should all be doing in our undergraduate programs to make sure that students have earned mastery of the concepts and skills that will ensure their success in graduate school or in the workforce.
Thanks to all for your interest. I look forward to your comments about how the assessment process works at your institutions.
I've recently been digging into the writings of George Mobus on the subject of "Sapience." Mobus begins by asking himself and his readers "If we are such a clever species, why is the world the way it is, and heading in such a bad direction?"
His answer is that most humans, even very intelligent and clever ones, have too little "sapience."
"Sapience" is Mobus' term for a human attribute that is a combination of judgement (based on life experiences), moral sense (primarily altruism, thinking about the welfare of the group as well as of yourself), taking a long view of the future (strategic perspective), and systems perspective. He thinks that sapience is present in all humans, but very unevenly distributed with a few people having a lot and most people having little. More
I've been thinking a lot recently about how scientists and students make meaning from data, spurred in part by the Earth Cube education end-users workshop. Among other things, I've been trying to understand what kinds of deeply foundational understandings might be constructed by young children through unstructured observation using the human senses, and then later re-purposed as they begin to work with data.
Here is one candidate: Future data users need to understand that:
- events in the world leave traces, and
- by looking the traces, we can make inferences about the events.
Carol Cleland (2001, 2002) has written eloquently about how geologists do their science by examining and interpreting the traces left by the events of the past. However, it seems to me that at some level many (or maybe even all) data sets can be viewed as traces of events. Many of our scientific observation techniques are attempts to generate artificial traces (aka "inscriptions") for phenomena which do not leave natural traces. Think of tracks of drifting oceanographic buoys, or sonograms of bird calls.
It seems to me that this understanding–that events leave traces, and by looking at the traces we can make inferences about the events–is very deep seated in humans, and begins to develop very young. As an example around which to build up my thinking on this topic, I've been considering the case of a spilled glass of milk.
- The glass used to be vertical, and the milk used to be inside the glass.
- Something knocked the glass from the side.
- The glass rotated from vertical to horizontal, and the milk exited from the glass and spread across the table.
This mental model actually has quite a few sophisticated features, features in common with adult scientific models.
First of all, there is the concept of the active agent, the "something" that knocked the glass from the side. This agent has certain known attributes but is nonetheless not precisely specified. The active agent was certainly moving. The agent was most likely alive (a cat, a child), but could possibly have been inanimate (a ball, a big gust of wind). The ability to populate a mental model with an agent that has some known attributes or behaviors, but that is not individually specified, seems to me like an important pre-science interpretive skill, which could underlie the ability to entertain multiple working hypotheses in science.
Consider also the timing of the event. The child knows that the spilling event happened before he or she entered the room, because s/he doesn't remember seeing it happen. And s/he can infer that it didn't happen many days ago, because if that were so the milk would be dried up rather than fluid, and it would smell bad by now. Thus the timing of the event is bounded, but not specified. This is a common situation for geologists, who often can put upper and lower boundaries on an event in the geological record, but cannot pin it down to a specific date, as for example, when Bill Ryan and Walter Pitman were first trying to pin down the date when the Mediterranean waters spilled into the Black Sea.
In addition, this mental model involves some notion of normalcy, that it is normal for a glass to be vertical and for milk to be inside the glass. And some concept of fluids, to allow the notion that the milk used to be in a cylindrical shape but changed into a thin sheet when it was released from its confining container.
Further refinements are possible. The observer could infer the direction of motion of the active agent by the direction that the milk was spread out relative to the glass. And s/he could infer something about the vigor of the knock and the rotational velocity of the tipping glass by how elongate the spill was in the inferred direction of the impact.
Development of this ability could be researched by giving kids of various ages a drawing or photograph of the end state of a trace-producing event, asking them to draw a series of pictures showing how this scene got to be the way it is, and then explain their drawings to the experimenter. This same task could also be used as a learning activity, rather than a research task. I would speculate that younger kids would sketch just one working hypothesis, one sequence of events (for example, just the cat knocking over the glass) and would not allow for other possible working hypotheses. Eventually kids would get to an age were they could entertain multiple specific working hypotheses (maybe it was the cat, maybe it was younger brother), especially when questioned about whether there might be any other possibilities. Quite a bit later, I suppose, would come the ability to grasp and articulate the generalization that there was a knocking-over-agent with an unknown identity but certain knowable attributes.
- First, there was a blank sheet of paper.
- Then, someone drew the drawing.
- Then, someone ripped apart the paper.
Once again, we have the idea of an active agent, the one who drew the picture. It definitely was not the cat. It was probably a child, based on the character of the drawing. But we can't specify which child. Then an active agent ripped the paper. We can't tell if the ripping agent was the same or different from the drawing agent. The second agent could have been the cat. Or the drawing child. Or a different child. Again, we have the notion of active but unobserved agents, with some knowable attributes and other attributes that can be bounded but not pinpointed.
The mental model for the ripped paper also has a temporal constraint, but it is a different kind of temporal constraint from the bounding of time in the spilled milk case. In the case of the ripped paper, we know that the drawing was made before the paper was ripped, because the rip cuts across the drawing. This line of reasoning is identical to that which geologists use when they infer that a fault post-dates the deposition of strata which it offsets. There are also some more subtle sequencing inferences possible within the drawing: most likely the frame of the house was drawn before the chimney, doors and windows. But there are some temporal details that cannot be inferred from the trace: for example, we cannot infer whether the chimney was drawn before or after the door.
I don't think it is asking too much to expect that preschool aged children should be able to tackle these kinds of problems, either in a research setting or as learning activities. Gopnik and colleagues (Gopnik, 2012; Gopnik, et al. 2004) have shown that students in this age range have the ability to construct abstract, coherent, learned representations of causal relations among events and then use these representations to make causal predictions. I am asking whether students can make retro-dictions as well as pre-dictions.
- about events:
- Shipley, T. F. (2008). An Invitation to an Event. In T. F. Shipley & J. M. Zachs (Eds.), Understanding Events: From Perception to Action (pp. 3-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- about events leave traces:
- Cleland, C. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29, 987-990.
- Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69, 474-496.
- about kid's scientific thinking:
- Gopnik, A. (2012). Scientific thinking in young children, theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science, 337, 1623-1627.
- Gopnick, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D. M., Schulz, L. E., Kushnir, T., & Danks, D. (2004). A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets. Psychological Review, 111, 3.
The Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, recently implemented a top to bottom revision of its curriculum. We are a department that encompasses both geology and geography, and we have degree options in Geology, Geography (physical and human), GIS/Geographic Planning, Hydrology (currently on hold pending appointment of a new faculty line), Snow Science, and Paleontology. These latter two degree options are somewhat unique in the US for undergraduate degree programs, and have been hugely successful in recruiting students to the geosciences, particularly out of state students. We currently have a faculty of 11, about 270 majors, 60 graduate students (40 MS and 20 PhD), and provide a large instructional service to MSU, particularly for students from Education, Ecology, Land Resources, and the social sciences.
Our curricular changes were necessitated by both philosophical and practical considerations. Philosophically we were guided by a number of principles:
- We used the "Understanding by Design" approach advocated by Wiggins and McTighe (2005). Using "backward design", we started by determining the profile of a student who successfully completed our degree programs—what should they know, what should they be able to do? In part, this speaks to the students' professional development as they prepare for the workforce or graduate school; but also, these students are the best ambassadors of our department to industry and the community and represent the ultimate quality of our program.
- The new curriculum is better aligned with the changing nature of geoscience research and understanding. The most important shift is towards an Earth System approach, moving away from the traditional "silo-ed" disciplinary course structure.
- The "cornerstones" of our curriculum (Figure 1) remain a strong background in cognate sciences (chemistry, physics, biology and math), application of the scientific method (and we understand this to mean "geologic habits of mind" )", an emphasis on geologic processes and the process of doing geologic work, and a strong grounding in field instruction.
- In addition to the "core" of geoscience concepts, knowledge and skills, we are also addressing ancillary learning goals such as development of quantitative skills, communication skills (verbal, written, graphical), use of data in the classroom and modeling, systems thinking, research and research-like experiences, applications to societal issues, and interpersonal skills (cooperative and collaborative learning); these are all part of the department's assessment plan that we have prepared for institutional accreditation.
The practical drivers for this redesign of the curriculum are quite simple:
- We simply had to make more efficient use of faculty teaching efforts and teaching assistant assignments. Some courses were largely redundant (Intro Physical Geology and Intro Physical Geography covered about 80% of the same material, and have now been merged into a new Earth System Science course); other courses did not draw sufficient students to be offered (minimum of 10 undergraduates, 5 graduate students); some courses were on the books only for historical reasons, and other new courses have been introduced to address emerging new lines of research (e.g. Geomicrobiology). So we started with a clean slate.
At the introductory level, we offer a diverse suite of courses to introduce students to the range of topics covered in the Earth Sciences. The new Introduction to Earth System Science, course is required of all majors, is also required of other disciplines (Education, Ecology, Land Resources) and is available to non-majors seeking "Core Curriculum" credits. A wide array of other introductory courses are offered to stimulate interest among students including: Dinosaurs!, Planetary Geology, Oceanography, Environmental Geology, Human Geography, World Regional Geography, and a special course on Yellowstone: A Natural Scientific Laboratory. These courses are essential to recruiting students to our majors, and we highly value excellence in instruction in these courses (our faculty have earned numerous college and university teaching awards).
We have also developed a new series of one credit "mini-courses" on Topics in the Earth Sciences (following the established model developed at the University of Michigan). In combining our Intro Physical Geology and Geography courses, we had to look for a mechanism to maintain our student credit hour generation., and these mini-courses provided the opportunity for faculty to teach courses in areas of particular interest to them without requiring a great deal of class preparation. These courses give students the opportunity to explore a given topic in some depth, as opposed to standard survey courses that are "a wile wide and an inch deep". We will offer 16 different topics in a two-year cycle (4/semester), and students can take any three to satisfy university "Core" requirements in Contemporary Issues in Science. Topics we have covered this past year include: Himalayan Geology (following David Lageson's expedition to Mt. Everest), Geology and Human Health, Military Geology, Extraterrestrial Impacts, Great Extinctions, Coral Reefs in Earth History, the Montana "Oil Boom", and Megafires. These courses have already proven to be hugely popular (all sections filled to their caps), and we will be monitoring students' progress to see if this early exposure to the Earth Sciences in these courses results in recruitment of majors.
Our second year of instruction for majors is our "Foundations" set of courses. For all geology (and hydrology, snow science, paleontology) majors, we expect that they will take Historical Geology, Earth Materials, and our sequence of two GIS courses. Earth Materials has a focus on hand sample identification of rocks and minerals, a knowledge of their occurrences in Earth, and significance in terms of interpreting Earth processes and uses in society. All our majors should be able to identify rocks and minerals and understand their contexts in the Earth system (but don't necessarily need to master topics such as crystallography and crystal chemistry emphasized in Mineralogy). We require two semesters of GIS because this is arguably the most marketable skill that students need for future graduate studies or to enter the workforce (based on feedback from recruiters). GIS applications then become possible in upper division courses such as Geomorphology, and for independent research projects. We also expect students to complete a year of inorganic chemistry, physics, and calculus by the end of their second year.
The third year of our geology major is really the "core" of geoscience professional training: Mineralogy, Sedimentary Geology and Stratigraphy, Structural Geology, and Geomorphology. Paleontologists have a similar core, including Invertebrate Paleontology, Vertebrate Paleontology, and Comparative Anatomy. Because students have already had hand sample identification in the Earth Materials course, Mineralogy now focuses more on analytical methods (petrographic microscope, XRD, SEM/EDS), and analysis of earth materials, structures, landforms and the attendant geologic processes is emphasized in the other core geology courses. All these courses have a strong field component (we are blessed with a great geologic setting so we can readily get into the field in afternoon labs and on weekends). We also believe that ALL Earth Science majors should have a fundamental understanding of Weather and Climate, so this is now a required course.
Our fourth year courses are largely a series of "enrichment" courses (commonly joint listed as a graduate course, with extra requirements for graduate students). These generally follow instructors' research interests in topics such as Tectonics, Volcanology, Igneous Petrology, Metamorphic Petrology, Sedimentary Geology, Geophysics, Taphonomy, Macroevolution, Snow Dynamics and Accumulation. Common approaches for these upper division courses include: critical reading and review of the literature; use of modern software; in-depth class projects (field and lab); use of real-time, archived, or student-generated data; and written or oral student presentations. The geology curriculum also requires the Field Camp class as a "capstone" course, which also provides an opportunity for "end of degree" assessment of student learning outcomes. In general, these courses provide authentic geologic experiences for our undergraduates that serve to prepare them for next steps in their professional development.
We are in the first year of implementation of this new curriculum. Initially there was some resistance from some of the faculty who had adopted a stance of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" as we already had a pretty solid undergraduate curriculum. But the redundancies in some course work, gaps in other areas, and need to optimize teaching staff efforts won the argument. Downstream benefits are realized as course pre-requisite requirements are uniformly applied, and students are better prepared to enter our upper division courses. Foundational skill sets are uniformly developed in lower division courses and faculty can expect to build on this early work in the upper division classes as well. Teaching assistants that were once assigned to redundant introductory courses are now available to help teach labs in many of the upper division courses for the first time. Early reviews from students are largely favorable as they realize that these changes will position them well for future opportunities. To prepare students for these changes, and to explain the underlying need and reasoning, I gave the first departmental colloquium of the year on the "State of the Geosciences, State of the Department"; it was very helpful for the students to have the trajectory of their coursework explained in the context of our evolving Science and expectations for the workforce of the future. We are working out a few wrinkles as some students are a bit challenged to reconcile the old and new degree requirements, but we are working through this in our advising efforts. Faculty seem to be happier in the alignment of courses, because it has actually reduced teaching loads to a degree, and has given us flexibility to provide TA support in some courses at the upper division which we were not previously able to provide. The curriculum is in better alignment with the university's Strategic Plan, and we think it also is in better alignment with the changing nature of the geosciences as a discipline. The proof of success of this new plan will ultimately be reflected by the success of our students as they enter the workforce or grad school. I'll keep you posted!
Downloadable version of this essay: An Earth Science Curriculum By Design (Acrobat (PDF) 339kB Apr14 13). This essay is also posted at the website for the InTeGrate workshop on Geoscience and the 21st Century Workforce: Considering Undergraduate Programs in the Context of Changing Employment Opportunities. Download the Earth Science Course Matrix (Acrobat (PDF) 64kB Jan13 14) shown above on this page.
I have a long-standing interest in the use of data in education, so I've been reading with interest several articles and a book concerned with the so-called "Fourth Paradigm" of science, in which insights are wrested from vast troves of existing data. The Fourth Paradigm is envisioned as a new method of pushing forward the frontiers of knowledge, enabled by new technologies for gathering, manipulating, analyzing and displaying data. The term seems to have originated with Jim Gray, a Technical Fellow and visionary at Microsoft's eScience group, who was lost at sea in 2007. The first three paradigms, in this view, would be empirical observation and experimentation, analytical or theoretical approaches, and computational science or simulation. Earth and Environmental Sciences are well represented in the book, with essays on data-rich ecological science, ocean science, and space science.
I am finding these readings very stimulating and worthwhile. But I question whether this way of making meaning from the complexity of nature is really so new. More