Year: 1995
Author: Daniels, David, de Bruyn, Lisa Lobry, Reid, Nick
Type of paper: Abstract refereed
Abstract:
The paper describes the process of developing and implementing a series of interactive workshops on sustainable land management which were previously taught in the form of traditional lectures. Our learning objectives were to expose the students to the benefits of co-operative learning by using a variety of teaching strategies. We also sought to develop vocational skills such as teamwork, negotiating agreement, active listening and thinking, improved problem solving, creative insights, decision making, verbal and written communication, and lastly to affirm their own knowledge, and strengthen their self esteem.
Teaching strategies used included brainstorming in buzz groups, role-play in a Senate Inquiry into Landcare, thinking hats, concept mapping, and students as teachers. Concurrently the traditional examination paper was replaced by a series of assessable materials which we attempted to integrate with the workshop material.
Unfortunately because attendance at workshops was not compulsory there was a perceived lack of co-ordination between assessment, course material and practical components of the course by the students.
Feedback from students also suggested that workshop objectives were vague and needed to be more explicit, and measurable, and that levels of concentration could not be maintained beyond two hours. The students and ourselves identified these areas as requiring further evaluation. Time was also required for students to gain familiarity with the new techniques, and in some cases there was a degree of resistance to the new teaching methods. In addition we identified the need for more immediate feedback, and the lack of time for adequate debriefing and reflection in the workshops. The linkages between workshops needs to be strengthened and stated, not just implied. In general the interactive approach was welcomed by students for reasons such as a greater level of interaction with the lecturers, course content relevant and interesting, no end of semester exam and no mundane lectures. The course is now being further developed for both internal and external students so that there is a greater level of integration of aspects of the course, and objectives are clear.
Teaching strategies used included brainstorming in buzz groups, role-play in a Senate Inquiry into Landcare, thinking hats, concept mapping, and students as teachers. Concurrently the traditional examination paper was replaced by a series of assessable materials which we attempted to integrate with the workshop material.
Unfortunately because attendance at workshops was not compulsory there was a perceived lack of co-ordination between assessment, course material and practical components of the course by the students.
Feedback from students also suggested that workshop objectives were vague and needed to be more explicit, and measurable, and that levels of concentration could not be maintained beyond two hours. The students and ourselves identified these areas as requiring further evaluation. Time was also required for students to gain familiarity with the new techniques, and in some cases there was a degree of resistance to the new teaching methods. In addition we identified the need for more immediate feedback, and the lack of time for adequate debriefing and reflection in the workshops. The linkages between workshops needs to be strengthened and stated, not just implied. In general the interactive approach was welcomed by students for reasons such as a greater level of interaction with the lecturers, course content relevant and interesting, no end of semester exam and no mundane lectures. The course is now being further developed for both internal and external students so that there is a greater level of integration of aspects of the course, and objectives are clear.