Paul Ruscher
Current: Science Dean, Lane Community College
Prev: Dept. of Meteorology, The Florida State University
What are the key issues related to the role of the affective domain in teaching geoscience that you would like to engage at the workshop?
Can computer simulations properly stimulate the affective domain as well as more tactile or field-based approaches to laboratory geoscience teaching?
What expertise or experience (in study of the affective domain or teaching of geoscience) will you bring to the workshop? How would you like to contribute to the workshop?
I have developed a new approach to teaching introductory meteorology laboratory for non-science majors at FSU (thanks in part to a summer 2005 Cutting Edge workshop) that incorporates a combination of simulation and tactile approaches to learning analysis strategies, for one thing. But I really don't know how effective these are; I'm interested in proper evaluation methods. I can contribute ideas based on my broad geoscience background and on my interest and dedication to teaching.
Essay: Teaching Isopleths
In 1996, I inherited the teaching and ultimately coordination of the introductory meteorology laboratory course for non-science majors at FSU from a retiring colleague. In that time, the class has grown to ten sections per semester, taught to over 500 students per academic year, taught primarily by first-year graduate students, some new to the field of meteorology (and teaching!). And it has been completely transformed by my predecessor's efforts as well as my own efforts, some of which have been adopted through fits and starts.
One of the most transforming moments for me as an educator came when I attended the Cutting Edge workshop for Geoscience Educators entitled Designing Effective and Innovative Courses in the Geosciences in the summer of 2004. I went into this workshop looking for ways to get students more interested and engaged in practical labs that would be more informative for them. The class is, after all, a liberal studies science elective designed to engage students in the process of scientific discovery. But we had been failing miserably at maintaining student interest and engagement through the two hour sessions. So I was looking forward to designing new experiences for the students that would help to maintain their interest.
A big struggle for me was the teaching of isopleth analysis, a fundamental right of passage for any geoscience major, and something which we forced our students to learn, by rule, over a grueling three week period. I've devised a strategy for accomplishing what I think might be a more reasoned approach, but I was challenged at the 2004 workshop (by either Heather M. or Barbara T., I think) to consider an option of not teaching isopleths at all! Heresy! I came back to Tallahassee and came up with an alternative that seems to make sense, and it is published in my lab manual (Ruscher and Stephens 2005) as Lab #10. The lab still takes two weeks to complete in its entirety, but takes far less intense instruction, thanks in large part to its reliance on an online simulation (Ackerman and Whitaker 1997). And students seem to be interested by the telling of the story of an evolving coastal snowstorm, which was a surprise to forecasters (January 2000). But I still wonder about the heretical suggestion and its potential consequences.
My own motivation for teaching isopleths lies in the expectation that students in meteorology (and across the geosciences) are faced with interpreting spatial patterns based on black and white line drawings or colorful images and visualizations full of isopleths and contours, the subtleties of which are often lost upon them. My hope is that we can teach students not only what the lines and colors mean, but we can also help them to understand some of the information content embedded behind them. As GIS and Google Map applications proliferate in our classrooms, are we sure that our students really understand what is being shown? Is the teaching of isopleth analysis necessary?
Ackerman, Steve, and Tom Whitaker, 1997: Contour Analysis. Online at http://itg1.meteor.wisc.edu/wxwise/contour/index.html (retrieved December 2006).
Ruscher, Paul H., and J. J. Stephens, 2005: Introductory Meteorology Laboratory Manual. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing, 187 pp., ISBN 0-536-97512-4.