Challenging the Teaching Convention in Geography Using Problem-Based Learning: The Role of Reflective Practice in Supporting Change

Abstract

The nature of higher education has changed considerably in recent years. The growing emphasis of student-centred learning requires a redefinition of the relationship between lecturer and student and a concomitant shift away from lecturer-focused teaching. Problem-based learning (PBL) is a student-centred learning strategy that promotes a greater responsibility and motivation for learning than conventional approaches in Geography. An introspective examination of the rationale, requirement and implementation of teaching and learning was conducted by several members of the Geography Division at the University of Salford. This reflective practice was instrumental in the identification of several pertinent difficulties that inspired the investigation and development of a framework in which to tackle some of them. In addition to the importance of student-centred learning in Geography, the PBL framework is believed to be useful for reaching a compromise between training and education and to ensure that fieldwork is integrated into the curriculum. An example of the implementation of this framework is provided here for a module for level 3 undergraduate students. A brief discussion of the institutional constraints on implementation is provided.

Introduction

“Schools teach you to imitate. If you don’t imitate what the teacher wants you get a bad grade. Here, in college, it was more sophisticated, of course; you were supposed to imitate the teacher in such a way as to convince the teacher you were not imitating.”

Pirsig (1974)

There are several ‘How to….’ books that provide useful advice on overcoming difficulties in teaching such as the ‘imitation subject’ (Ramsden, 1992) described above. However, much of this advice serves to resolve the symptom and not the cause of the problem, namely that conventional teaching is lecturer-focused and learning is not given its due consideration. This and other issues like it in Geography, e.g. training versus education and the role of fieldwork in teaching and learning etc. can be tackled using problem-based learning. The aim here is to: (1) describe the growing disillusion with the current convention of lecturer-focused teaching in Geography; (2) outline the use of reflective practice in identifying pertinent difficulties that inspired the investigation and development of a PBL framework to tackle some of these difficulties; (3) outline an implementation of the PBL framework in an undergraduate modular curriculum and its institutional constraints and limitations.

A growing disillusion?

The nature of higher education has changed considerably, not least because of the drive towards mass consumption. Average university class sizes in Geography have increased enormously and this has probably caused a redefinition of the relationship between lecturer and student (Mathews and Livingstone, 1996). There is said to be a growing emphasis on student-centred teaching strategies, active learning and learning as a deep rather than a surface process (Ramsden, 1992). However, Savin-Baden (1999) warned against self-directed learning, if it signalled less dialogue and collaboration amongst students. The development of more student-centred approaches may well coincide with recent understanding that student learning is more to do with what the student does and less to do with the lecturer (Shuell, 1986). The approach may hold the key to retaining fieldwork as an essential part of undergraduate Geography education (Kent et al., 1997) and to maintaining an intimacy in teaching and learning (Livingstone, 1996) under increasing pressures. With these changes in teaching strategies has come a reinterpretation of the role of the lecturer from “…authority figure, through interpreter and demonstrator to adviser and colleague” (Gold et al., 1991, p.3). Many institutions have responded more slowly to the current pressures on higher education than their lecturers. The teaching infrastructure (e.g. modular courses and lecture halls) in many Geography Departments or Schools reflect the mode of delivery by an ‘authority figure’ typical of 30 years ago. Assessment in some institutions has changed over the same period at an even slower rate than the infrastructure, perhaps because that convention is strongly entrenched (Holroyd, 2000). A student undertaking a degree in Geography in Departments with these characteristics is faced with a myriad of overt and latent messages from the lecturers, the institution and the context of learning. Students exposed to these situations are likely to be confused about how to organise and develop their learning because of the lack of curriculum (constructive) ‘alignment’ (Biggs, 1999). This confusion is likely to make students become increasingly strategic (Kneale, 1997) in their decision-making and tend toward a surface rather than a deep approach to learning.

Reflective practice to support change

An introspective examination of the rationale, requirement and implementation of teaching and learning was conducted by several members of the Geography Division at the University of Salford (between February – May 2001). It was designed by the Educational Development Unit at the University as part of a Postgraduate Certificate in Teaching and Learning. Peer observation and feedback, unlike previous quality assurance assessment (QAA) frameworks, were used to promote reflection by each individual on their practice (Schön, 1983); a ‘critical friend’ (Biggs, 1999) was used to support the lecturer whilst challenging their own conventions on practice; learning journals (Moon, 1999) provided the intellectual space to reaffirm intuitions and increase personal awareness. This reflective process provided the support and confidence to tackle entrenched conventions on teaching and learning in the Division. Amongst the most important realisations of the process for teaching and learning in Geography at Salford were that:

• Difficulties with teaching and learning were caused by the convention (and infrastructure) of lectures and the belief that an authority figure was required to control the delivery of knowledge, and that knowledge must be acquired before it can be used.

• Students have individual requirements for their learning which depend on context (Marton and Sälsjö, 1984) which need to be accounted for in order to develop their self-motivated independence towards learning.

• Lecturers have considerable knowledge and experience that may be used to facilitate learning rather than deliver teaching.

• The alignment of the whole curriculum (learning outcomes, explicit criterion-referenced assessment etc.) is important for consistency in the context of learning and essential in maintaining deep approaches to learning (Ramsden, 1992; Biggs, 1999).

These realisations are not new, most are well-established in the literature and some of these difficulties with teaching and learning are probably prevalent in other institutions. The importance of the realisations is that they became pertinent because of the reflective practice and inspired the investigation and development of a framework to tackle some of the difficulties. The framework is problem-based learning (PBL) which is one of the best examples of student-centred learning which lends itself to constructive alignment of the curriculum.

Problem-Based Learning

Learning to learn, not learning to imitate

In problem-based learning (PBL) a problem or a series of problems form the curriculum and during the initial definition of the problem and (attempted) solution of the problem(s) is where the learning takes place. PBL challenges the conception that learning requires a pre-determined and finite body of knowledge, a series of meanings to be understood and a number of techniques to be acquired (Savin-Baden, 2000). In short, PBL is implemented in many diverse curricula in many other disciplines (Boud and Feletti, 1997) to “…help students to make sense for themselves. It is an approach to learning through which many students have been enabled to understand their own situations and frameworks so that they are able to perceive how they learn, and how they see themselves as future professionals.” (Savin-Baden, 2000).

PBL is challenging and demands of the learners a sound understanding of knowledge that has been researched and explored and an ability to evaluate and critique information. It is commonly seen as a method to integrate learning across subjects and disciplines and fosters high levels of self direction and considerable practice in team working (Boud, 1985). These multi-layered studies seem to assist the student in making cognitive connections between one topic and another, facilitating later retrieval (Reynolds, 1997). It offers considerable potential as a framework for teaching and learning within the inter-disciplinary nature of Geography and for developing problem-solving skills suitable for real world situations where problems do not fall naturally into academic disciplines. PBL avoids an over-reliance on training associated with skill development and the dominance of solely knowledge-based education; an issue discussed by Geographers (cf. Marantz and Warren, 1998) and people in other disciplines (e.g. Callery, 2000). It is also an example of teaching aligned for assessment, teaching and learning activities (TLA) and learning outcomes (Biggs, 1999) which should ensure that knowledge is being acquired and key skills are being achieved to satisfy external quality assurance (Dearing, 1997: 21).

A ‘growing web’ of belief?

The definition of problem-based learning is important to its implementation as an educational practice and how the role of problems in learning are used to design curricula. Barrows (1986) provided a classification of PBL which is contextualised for medical education. Margetson (1998, 2000) suggested that there are two fundamentally different forms of problembased learning (used in Medical Education) which have implications for curriculum design. One type stems from the conception that a problem is a ‘convenient peg’ on which acquired foundational knowledge is hung, ready to be taken off the peg later and applied in practice. Margetson (2000) suggests that this leads to “…atomistic curriculum design with learning thought of as the adding together of isolated and independent fragments”. It is highly suited to the bureaucratic expediency of modularisation which promotes individualism within staff and students; it is much easier for experts to give lectures on their speciality, leaving integration and application as the students’ problem to solve (Savin-Baden, 2000). The second type reflects a ‘growing web’ in which problems constitute knowledge, understanding and practice. This approach leads is believed to lead to holistic curriculum design with learning as an integration of knowledge, understanding and practice in increasingly larger and coherent wholes (Margetson, 2000). Savin-Baden (2000) offered a classification that is based on the way in which learners are enabled or disabled in constructing knowledge for themselves.

The following section describes a framework for the implementation of PBL that is based on my experience and reflective practice and realisations in Geography at Salford. The form of PBL, in terms of knowledge construction, probably falls within Savin-Baden’s (2000) model of ‘transdisciplinary learning’. The framework below attempts to create a learning environment which is student-centred (e.g. no lectures, lecture halls etc.) and in which students’ define the problem/issue, design an approach to its solution and attempt the solution. It is ‘reiterative’ PBL (Barrows, 1986) in the sense that any of the stages may be repeated at any time in order to overcome difficulties or redefine/re-evaluate the problem; it is a ‘growing web’ of knowledge, skills, problem-solving and learning. Students’ initial definitions of the problem/issue are constrained by the topic of the module it is currently part of. This and other difficulties in the development of the PBL framework are outlined in the conclusion.

A Framework For Problem-Based Learning In Geography Model / concept-based learning

The PBL framework described here is the same for all levels in undergraduate courses and consequently could be readily modified to other institutions. Although structured around modules, each framework is implemented as if part of a single curriculum accounting for progression between levels. The level 1 framework is implemented for student preparation of problem-based learning; to develop the skills (e.g. team work, dialogue and critical thinking etc.) necessary to work within that context. Level 2 is implemented for exploration and to support, using the facilitator and team work the transition from ‘teach me’ to ‘help me learn’ and is designed to challenge conceptions of learning and issues in Geography. Implementation at level 3 is an attempt to promote independence and an increased emphasis is placed on team work and peer support.

Figure 1 shows the generic framework or template used for all levels. The product or outcome is the development of a model. The model or concept is expected (using learning outcomes) to be of increasing complexity at each level of study. The process of reaching the outcome is the most important aspect of the learning. In order to achieve the outcome students have to undertake all aspects of the framework (reconception, redefinition, reinvestigation and reflection) and by doing so are locked into a positive cycle of learning. These aspects are based on Kolb’s (1984) theory of experiential learning and are used as a framework in other disciplines (e.g. Stice, 1987; Healey and Jenkins, 2000). Explicit assessment criteria are provided at level 1, negotiated between the facilitator and teams at level 2 and designed solely by teams at level 3. Grading of assessed work is organised in a similar manner to develop students’ confidence in their own judgement and to ensure students become responsible for their learning. The students know exactly what is expected of them and how to reach their target and the reward they will receive upon reaching it. Thus, the framework is ‘constructively aligned’ (Biggs, 1999).

Figure 1 The reiterative process of model development that utilises Kolb’s (1984) stages of experiential learning (reconception, redefinition, reinvestigation and reflection).

An example of student-centred fieldwork

An example of an implementation of this framework is provided here by the level 3 module on Dryland Geomorphology (Figure 2). The aim of the module is to use a critical appreciation of empirical approaches to (fieldwork) research and develop an understanding of the role of modelling in dryland geomorphological research. The intended learning outcomes of knowledge and understanding are:

• To utilise prior experiences of aeolian geomorphology (level 1), dryland environments (level 2) and other modules and deepen an holistic perspective to research and fieldwork;

• To develop a critical awareness of the limitations of empirical approaches to fieldwork and research in spatial and temporal process domains;

• To develop and implement a conceptual and/or practical model to better tackle fieldwork/research in dryland geomorphology.

Figure 2 Students on a level 3 Dryland Geomorphology module.

The module requires students to develop a portfolio of materials derived from classroom activities in which there appears a concept map, a statement of the problem, rationale and material from individual-led seminars. These materials are all formatively assessed by peers and moderated by staff. An additional student-defined piece of work included in and based on the portfolio materials is summatively assessed by peers and moderated by staff. A reflective commentary on the process of model development is also expected (assessed by staff) and is based on a learning journal (not assessed) that is kept during the module. The syllabus has also been designed with only few assessments because there is evidence that students become more strategic and tend toward surface learning as stress is introduced (Ramsden, 1992; Biggs, 1999). An indicative outline of the syllabus is given overleaf:

• Introduction to the module (aims and objectives, learning outcomes, assessment criteria);

• Student investigation, enquiry and refocus (of individual roles);

• Student feedback/requirements and staff re-direction negotiation;

• Focus teams - concept mapping, planning and research;

• Student feedback/requirements and/or staff contribution; team/individual seminars;

• Focus teams - difficulties and solutions (learning journal and reflective commentary);

• Focus teams - fieldwork preparation;

• Fieldwork - testing model assumptions and/or conduct experiments to test the model;

• Focus teams - consolidation; inter-team discussions; conceptual misunderstandings;

• Focus teams - reflection and portfolio preparation.

The syllabus is based loosely on a weekly schedule which provides guidance for students but which may be be conducted (with the exception of fieldwork in a semi-arid region) in any order or even ignored depending on the student team’s approach and learning styles. It is supported by a member of staff and postgraduate assistants who (at this level) are trained to facilitate teams of students working towards collective goals. Whilst the syllabus may appear to be conventional it should be noted that there is no definition of subjects or topics and these are constrained only by the module title. These are developed by the students in response to a prompt or ‘trigger’. These initial triggers might be a thought-provoking image that encapsulates a variety of issues that can be tackled from several perspectives, or a scientific paper that challenges the received wisdom. The essential ingredient of a PBL approach is that the students define their own problem and develop their solution etc. and reiterate until either they are satisfied with the solution or the facilitator provides a helpful ‘nudge’.

This example combines theoretical, practical and field work and tackles some of the difficulties for conducting fieldwork described in the literature (Kent et al., 1997). It shows how students may prepare more adequately for fieldwork to avoid squandering precious time (Haigh and Gold, 1993) and improve its effectiveness (Bradbeer, 1996). Fieldwork provides the arena for the integration of theoretical and practical concepts (e.g. Lonergan and Anderson, 1988) but it is also required to have an explicit and well-defined function. In the example, fieldwork is used to validate model assumptions and/or obtain data for specific model testing. The significance of fieldwork is not limited to these attributes because students are likely to return from fieldwork with a better understanding of reality and undergo reflection as a catalyst for reconception and definition of the model. This is only likely to be achieved if investigation is student-centred with the lecturers role being that of a facilitator rather than supplying facts for students. The PBL outlined above is consistent with these fieldwork requirements (Kent et al., 1997) and should encourage responsible, independent motivation to promote deep learning of the student’s own choosing or style.

Conclusion

The problems are challenging the convention!

The lecturer as ‘authority figure’ seeks to control, under the guise of the convention, the performance during the ‘show’ and learning may be upstaged. The transition from lecturer to facilitator requires a separate philosophy, one in which the benefits to students of the loss of power and control are appreciated: “…the facilitator is one who assists in the student’s learning, even to the extent of providing or creating the environment in which that learning may occur, but (s)he is never one who dictates the outcome of the experience.” (Jarvis, 1995, p.113 in Savin-Baden, 1999). There are fundamental problems with the conventional approach to teaching and learning and the evidence appears damning: “…the widespread use of surface approaches to learning and the related fact that students may successfully complete their courses while never gaining an understanding of fundamental ideas which the teachers of those courses themselves desire their students to gain….” (Ramsden, 1992; p. 182). It is no longer acceptable to excuse lectures as efficient methods for the mass transfer of information. The most important issue is student learning and not conventional teaching. Learning might be conceived better as a growing web dependent on student experience and learning style. Learning is a difficult process and disjunction (Savin-Baden, 1999) in its various forms requires careful professional handling and the creation of an environment of trust in which students and staff may make mistakes.

The successful implementation of PBL requires a curriculum change and considerable support for staff and students. There are many papers in the literature describing the difficulties and pitfalls of the transition undertaken by faculties/schools in different disciplines (e.g. Boud and Feletti, 1997). Most transitions are deemed to be worthwhile by those who have gone through them (Toohey, 1999). It is likely that the (increased?) disharmony amongst staff and students caused by the concurrent operation within a curriculum of the conventional lecturer-focussed teaching and a studentcentred problem-based learning approach is worse than that of the upheaval during transition. A fundamental change in the philosophy of teaching and learning appears to be making slow progress, but the problems are challenging the convention.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank those staff of the Geography Division, Salford University who contributed to the teaching observations and reflective practice for their incisive and thought-provoking discussions of many of the issues described, in particular A. Thomas for his enthusiastic support. I am grateful to the team of the EDU, Salford University, especially B. Lisewski for encouraging the reflective practice and for supporting the challenge to existing conventions in teaching and learning. Thanks are extended to A. Warren and I. Livingstone for their comments on a draft of the manuscript.