Taking a close look Introduction "Geology is the central science from which all other sciences emanate". Well, this is what I tell my students on their first day in University College Cork. Together, we go on to discuss "what is geology?" and "where does geology meet, overlap and connect with the other science disciplines?". For the rest of the semester I 'teach geology' and leave the students to struggle with the connection making themselves - until now. My current research is looking at ways to help first year students develop their capacities to deepen, connect up and integrate their learning - capacities that should stay with them during 2nd, 3rd and 4th year studies and beyond. Barriers to Science learning In some first year science programmes the students study a series of discrete modules in parallel disciplines, with little communication between coordinators, except to say "students can't seem to transfer their knowledge and skills from one module to another". Indeed assessment practices lead students to believe that the courses are self-sufficient and separate. The residential field course, a traditional mode of teaching, is an endangered species. In the science area, only one such course remains - the geological field course. The argument that has sustained this course is that important student learning occurs. Claims abound that this is where the real learning occurs. However little evidence of this, except anecdotal, has been forthcoming. Student feedback suggests the field courses are enjoyable, but when asked to apply their learning, in the form of synthesis for example, students often cannot demonstrate understanding. The traditional field trip can be more akin to a lecture in the field, with students writing down whatever the lecturer says, rather than recording their own observations and interpretations. Students who can write quickly and neatly are rewarded when the note books are collected for assessment. There may be little opportunity for students on the course to practice being a scientist! Focus of this Investigation The first year residential geological field course could be a model of integrative learning in science, that is, an opportunity to help students develop capcities to connect up the science learning that has taken place during the year. The natural laboratory shows us that everything is connected, and students should see and feel that this is the case. This would motivate students, and promote positive attitudes to learning. My question became 'how can I use the first year residential field course to promote students integrative learning?' I wanted to find out which activities carried the most potential for connecting to other science disciplines, as well as to community, society and employment, allowing the relevance of the discipline to be debated? My investigation developed a series of sub-questions as the project matured, such as 'can I incorporate questions into the geological work to help students to be more aware of how they are learning (in tandem with the disciplinary detail they are learning) - without loosing the support of my colleagues?' In addition, I can recognise student attitude, but 'how can I reward attitude?' and 'how can I recognise and categorise levels of integrative learning on this course?' I found that as the course was enacted, and the evidence was collected, these additional questions became the focus of my attention. Selected Bibliography Coppola, B.P. Jacobs, D.C. 2002. Is the scholarship of Teaching and Learning new to Chemistry? In Huber, M.T. Morreale,S.P. (Eds). Disciplinary Styles in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. AAHE Filene,P. 2005. The Joy of Teaching. A practical guide for new college instructors. Chapel Hill. Gale, R.C. 2005. The Magic of learning from each other. CASTL/Carnegie Perspectives. Green, L. 2005. Towards a model of student questioning. Final report, June 2004, CASTL Greenfield, S. 2004.The Child. In 'Reconsidering Science Learning' edited by Scanlon, E, Murphy, P, Thomas, J, Whitelegg, E. Routledge Falmer and Open University. p. 41-57. Gronland, N.E. 2000. How to Write and Use Instructional Objectives. ISBN 0-13-886533-7 Huber, M T, Hutchings, P. 2004. Integrative learning: Mapping the Terrain. AACU Huber, M T, Hutchings, P. 2005. The Advancement of Learning: Building the Teaching Commons.ISBN-10: 0-7879-8115-X Hutchings, P. (Ed) 2000. Opening Lines: approaches to the scholarship of teaching and learning. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. ISBN 0-931050-68-5 Malone, L, 2002. Peer critical Learning. Final report. CASTL Perkins, D. 2000. The Eureka Effect: the art and logic of breakthrough thinking (p.9). Norton. Perkins, D 2003. King Arthur's round table. How collaborative conversations create smart organisations. (p.53). Wiley. Rictchart, R. 2002 Intellectual Character. Josey-Bass (p. 33-51) Schulman, L,S. 2005. Signature Pedagogies in the professions. Stone Wiske, M. Ed 1998. Teaching for Understanding: linking research with practice San Francisco, Josse-Bass.

Course Design In an effort to progress this vision the first-year residential field course in 2006 was transformed from essentially a 'series of lectures in the field' into 'seminars in the field'. Along the north Antrim Coast in Ireland, students carried out activities in groups of 8, with a leader to guide their work. In addition to traditional geological observation, recording and interpretation of evidence, opportunities for connection-making with other science disciplines were increased and made more explicit. These opportunities were referred to as 'wormholes' - in science fiction speak pathways to parallel universes (or in our case, other science disciplines). An example of a wormhole activity involved simply taking a soil pH test when a new bedrock type was encountered. Here we could connect the geology to work students had carried out in biology and chemistry, and potentially go on to discuss weathering, the carbon cycle, climate change and global warming, thus linking ancient rocks to present day issues of concern to society. Other examples of connection making included a shallow geophysical survey, where students had to connect to concepts they had encountered in physics. This led on to discussion of applied geology, the needs of the local community and potential employment opportunities - always of interest to students! Collecting Evidence To capture the complexity of student learning in the field setting a wide variety of evidence was collected, including student group research project written field observations and sketches in workbooks student-produced videotapes of field evidence, and digital audio recordings evening synthesis exercises and student discussion student questions, and student reflections subsequent student focus group my own observations and reflections, and those of 3 colleagues and 4 PG teaching assistants. According to Huber and Hutchings (2004) improved integrative learning requires more intentional teaching, and students to be more self-aware and intentional about their learning. With this in mind, a small group project related to the field area was assigned before the students went into the field, so that students brought with them prior knowledge of the field area, and crucially questions, which they could share with each other. In this way the students were 'primed' for the field course. Recording the process of carrying out a group project students wrote "the group members met up on 5 separate occasions to discuss and organise how the project was to be undertaken. The latter meetings featured progress reports heavily, as each member outlined their individual progression. These sessions were particularly useful as not only did it keep things focused on the overall project but they also allowed members to work as a team and suggest useful sources of reference for other members to pursue"; "During the trip we extracted bits of information that related further to our project....and amalgamated it with what we had already researched".Students concluded "In the end, it was an all round belief that having a particular angle to focus on in relation to County Antrim was both important and beneficial. Our field studies were helped immensely from this project and the acquired skills will aid us in the future. A lot was put into this project and we all got a lot out of it as well". Activities such as this, to raise student awareness of their own learning, and to provide evidence of learning for leaders, were woven into the scientific work throughout the field course. For example, in an attempt to look at how students come to understand things, I asked the students to record their 'ah-hah' moments at any time during the course, that is, when a light goes on, or when something clicks in the student's understanding. How did it come about? What became clear? The student answers were tremendously revealing. The data gave me insights into where students find difficulty connecting their learning, particularly on campus in lectures and practical classes. Students wrote: "Seeing the dyke intrusion on Cushendun Beach - makes a far better impact than seeing it in diagrams. It was great to see the size and scale of geology at work"; "when researching landslips I was having trouble understanding how rotational slips happened, but after seeing one, the 3D explained itself"; "Yesterday when we were looking at the Dalradian and Carboniferous rocks at Murlough Bay I found it hard to see how there was such an age gap between the two of them, then I thought of the fact there was a fault. That was an ah-hah moment"; "When we were at Portrush discussing whether or not igneous rocks were precipitated out of sea-water. A few of us were discussing what could have happened. We came up with the idea that magma was coming into marine environment mudstone and that with the heat it baked the mudstone into a fine grained splintery rock. It was an ah-hah moment because it turned out to be right!" Here the students have realised that they can think through a puzzle, discussing it with peers, and come up with a worthwhile conclusion. They are learning to be scientists. How do I know they engaged seriously? Students answered these questions in their own words, and no two answers were the same. This was a refreshing experience in this age of peer copying and plagiarism. Many of the ah-hah moments are what Perkins(2000) calls breakthrough thinking, when a student 'gets it' by struggling to make sense of messy data. The most challenging activity of the course gave many students their ah-hah moment. In White Rocks Bay students were told of 2 current theories for the formation and spatial relationships of the chalk and basalt. They had to examine the geological evidence for themselves, debate and defend their interpretations, and come to their own conclusions. "things became very clear due to in depth discussion on the two theories"; "this was my favourite activity". The student engagement showed that traditionally we are not challenging the students sufficiently. This came across in the subsequent focus group meeting, when the most physically and mentally demanding activities stood out as the most enjoyable. Questions in the workbook asked students "What did you learn from others in your group?"and "What did you learn from other groups?" The question is not directly asking the student to show their geological ability, but rather to describe the ability of a peer. In doing so the student demonstrates their own ability to explain scientific concepts and to integrate them with their own view. Some students reveal more than others about their learning. They become aware that their peers are making meaning of what they are seeing. When students see their peers viewing the world around them, and becoming engaged and vocal, they tend to want to join in. Students learned what it is to be a scientist, and that there is not always an easily identifiable right answer. Subsequent to this, students were asked simply "What questions remain?" The level of questions constructed revealed much about the student's attitude towards learning. Six levels of question were recognised, and concur with the findings of Laura Green, a former Carnegie Scholar (Green, 2004). An interesting point to make is that all of the students could have formulated the more complex questions. They all had the prior knowledge. It requires an attitude - a frame of mind - to push that little bit further, and to demonstrate commitment to resolving conflicts in knowledge. These 6 levels of questions could be mapped to 6 levels of attitude.

Taking a closer look

Attitudes to learning? Attitude was rewarded, based on levels of participation (Gronland,2000). The marks awarded were plotted against final student marks for this course, and for an earlier campus-based geology course. The graphs show a broad correlation between attitude and final mark. This is perhaps not surprising, but what is interesting is that when a 'best-fit' line is drawn through this data, the students who plot above the line could be thought of as demonstrating 'intellectual' connections or integration, and those below the line are demonstrating a leaning towards 'emotional' connections. This concept (seeded by Huber and Hutchings, 2004) helped to bring clarity to the understanding of the individual student behaviors and performances. Both types of integrative learners can be valued, and both have a role in their college learning communities. The students perform at three broad levels of integration: connections the students make themselves, connections that leaders (or others) provoked, and connections that leaders(or others) pointed out. The evidence shows that students do not belong to one category alone, but depending on the complexity of the connection, and their attitude, motivation or inclination at any one time, they move between categories. However some students will be in the first category more often than others. It is not usually a lack of ability that prevents students making connections. It has more to do with attitude, motivation and inclination. What did the leaders learn about teaching and student learning? We must turn the tables and consider what the teachers are learning. Unless leaders are making connections and are more self-aware it is unlikely that they will help students to develop these capacities. On this course teaching staff were learning to give up something "to gift the learning to the learner" as said by Larry Malone, a former Carnegie scholar (Malone, 2002). They had to stand back and let the students take over some of the activities. For some leaders this was very difficult. This residential field course arrangement allowed leaders to have multiple conversations about what worked and what didn't work. For example we saw that making the purpose of the activity clear to the students encourages the struggle needed to connect up pieces of learning. Also, while student video and audio clips were a great source of evidence, and useful during synthesis activities, the recording of student learning processes sometimes inhibited the dynamic of the group. These conversations, which don't tend to happen on campus, are invaluable for bringing colleagues on board with changes. Everyone can see the results. Plans for the next academic year are already underway, with postgraduate teaching assistants enthused to design practical laboratory activities that promote integrative learning. My instinct, my feeling, is that great learning went on. The engagement of students was far greater. The voice of the students was heard. The faces of the students were brighter. The work handed in by the students was of a higher quality. The evidence collected indicated: The student voice was now being heard This field course was about student learning, much less about lecturer performance. Students will do the learning if there is a purpose In some activities the student engagement and insight exceeded my expectations The students favourite activities were the most challenging ones Student attitude should be rewarded. This can help to change attitudes to learning. There are levels of integration - demonstrated as performances of integration In science we need to give students more chance to reflect Bring colleagues along with you - involve them in the course. If we don't make connections beyond our own area of interest - the students are unlikely to be encouraged to do it. We have to allow the students time to make connections Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the first year CK404 students of 2005/2006 for willingly taking part in this project. I hope they go on to do great things. My thanks are also due to my teaching colleagues on this field course, and in particular to the postgradute teaching assistants John Savage, Meg Ennis, Marie Gardiner, and Rory O'Donnell, who showed us what positive attitude really is! I have appreciated the many lively conversations with my Carnegie colleagues and friends, as well as those in University College Cork. Long may they continue. The support of the Carnegie Foundation and UCC are much appreciated. student perceptions of learning showing results of the 2 groups Student ah-hah moments Plotting attitude against final student mark Report June 2006

Taking time out