Raising the bar at stage 1 - developing research and project management skills in first year undergraduates

John Maskall1and Stephen Cotterell2

1School of Earth, Ocean and Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth

2CETL in Experiential Learning in the Environmental and Natural Sciences, University of Plymouth

Session: Innovation

Introduction

The development of research skills is critical to the education of environmental science students. Many of the key graduate skills identified in the subject benchmark statement (QAA, 2007) are fundamental to the process of undertaking research and fall intothe intellectual, practical, communicative, personal and professional categories.This paper describes the implementation of a project-based, problem-driven approach for developing researchand project management skills in stage 1 environmental science students. In this case, the research skills are hypothesis generation, field observation and sample collection, laboratory analysis,data interpretation and reporting whilst the project management skills are planning, time management, group working and review.

There are a variety of approaches which can be adopted for teaching research skills. Which is most appropriate depends on a number of factors including the skills to be acquired, the discipline and learner characteristics.One of the most effective ways that students can learn practical field and laboratory skills is through ‘hands-on’ practice.However, it is the context of the ‘hands-on’activities that determines whether they are also ‘minds-on’. Adopting a project-based approach ensures that practical techniques become part of the means for hypothesis testing or problem solvingand this aligns with the model of experiential learning developed by Kolb (Healey and Jenkins, 2000).Moreover placing project work in a field context canenhance the experience of realityand thus provide a taste of ‘real research’ (Gold et al., 1991).

Spronken-Smith (2005) used a problem-based learning (PBL) approach to teach research methods to third year Geography undergraduates. She found that students benefitted through group work on authentic problems and being able to develop transferable skills. Other practitioners report that the use of PBL in field-based learning led to perceived enhancements in student ‘ownership’ of projects, better pre-field preparation,and improved attendance, participation and enjoyment (Bradbeer 1996; Perkins et al.,2001; Chappell, 2001). However, Pawson et al., (2006) identify significant risks associated with PBL including resource implications and loss of emphasis on content.

Rationale for change

The predominant role of the Environmental Techniques modules is to deliver training in field and laboratory skills at stage 1 of the BSc Environmental Science. In 2005, both modules were overhauled due to a staff perception that the term 2 module was not fulfilling its aims.Up to that time, the module comprised a non-residential, week-long field course and a series of ‘stand-alone’ field and laboratory days. The field course theme was the environmental impact of human activities with a focus on the perturbation of biogeochemical processes. Compression of field activitiesinto a week reduced opportunities for pre-field preparation and post-field data interpretationand ensured exclusive reliance on portable instrumentation. Student attendance at day sessions was patchy and strongly related to the assessment regime.

It was decided to adopt a project-based, problem-driven approach intended to challenge students to take more responsibilityfor project management, to create a stronger sense of project ‘ownership’ and to enhance motivation and participation. Some staff questioned whether this approach would be too demanding for stage 1 students. In response to these concerns, the module was structured to give staff opportunity to intervene with groups which were struggling. In addition, the term 1 Techniques ‘precursor’ module, which was run along more traditional lines, was modified to include training in key laboratory techniques.

Module and project design

The objectives of the redesigned term 2 module were for students to:

  • Work in groups to plan and undertake biogeochemical research projects to investigate the environmental impacts of human activities within a river catchment.
  • Present the results of a research project as a group-based oral presentation.
  • Reflect on their experience of the research project in relation to (a) their individual performance and (b) the overall management of the project and to identify ways of improving these.

Students were required to complete a series of three research projects each characterised by a ‘real world’ problem. All projects featured a fieldwork component and two required laboratory work to generate original data (Figure 1). To support students in these activities, a highly structured approach was adopted of timetabled sessions running over eleven consecutive Mondays. The module began with an introductory session to explain the aims and approach and incorporated a workshop on group work skills.

Students were allocated to a group of 4-5 members for the entireterm. Projects began with a planning session where groups were allocated a problem statement and given relevant site information and research literature. Planning required each group to complete a ‘Project Template’. This is a written description of the project aims and objectives, the proposed strategies for sampling and analysisand the anticipated final dataset. It also requiredstudents to predict their needs for field equipment and laboratory services and formulate an execution plan.The assessment type differed for each project and overall comprised an oral presentation, poster presentation and a written report. At the end of projects 1 and 2 student groups also undertook an assessed debriefing discussion intended to promote reflection and to identify areas for improvement.The module ended with a mini-conferencecomprising presentations from external speakers.

The research projects focus on the environmental impacts of human activities in the River Teign catchment in Devon, UK. Nine projects needed to be devised for each of the three activities investigated and each project needed to fulfil a number of criteriaas outlined in Table 1.

Criterion / Characteristics
Relevant / Relates to a ‘real world’ problem
Scientifically meaningful / Illustratesa scientific principle or process
Achievable / Suitable for a student group within the available timescale
Reproducible / Similar results produced on all occasions
Sustainable / Does not deplete site’s resources
Manageable / Adequate supervision achievable withstaff available
Equitable / All projects generate datasets of similar size
Practicable and safe / Field and laboratory risks are acceptable

Table 1: Requirements for a viable project

One set of projects addressed the current issuesof land contamination associated with historical lead mining.Data generated to address the problem statements for this theme serve to illustrate a range of biogeochemical processes which influence the impacts of heavy metal contamination on soils, waters, sediments and plants. An example of a problem statement for this theme is given below:

“The local farmer is concerned about the agricultural field located to the east of the spoil heap, particularly in the area next to the unvegetated waste. He wants to know if the soils and grass in this area contain metal levels above those expected in uncontaminated areas. He also wants to know if there could be risks to the health of his livestock which are grazing in the agricultural field.”

Evaluation strategy

Evaluation was undertaken using questionnaires and focus groups at the end of the module in March 2007. Staff and students were asked to respond to questions designed to explore key issues associated with the new approach. 59 completed questionnaires were received from a total of 84 students giving a response rate of 70%.Two focus groups were run to identify the positive and negative perceptions of students and staff respectively. The Nominal Group Technique was used whichencourages participation of all focus group members and results in a set of priorities, solutions or recommendations (O’Neill & Jackson, 1983).

Student response

In general students felt well prepared for fieldwork (Figure 2) which was mainly attributed to the opportunity offered by the planning sessions to formulate the work programme and finalise practical arrangements. Also cited as important was the support from staff once in the field.The level of involvement in the projects was perceived as high (Figure 3) which was related to the projects’ experiential nature and a sense of ownership at a group level. 90% of respondents felt that the level of responsibility given to project groups was acceptable. Students’ levels of interest in the projects were quite high (Figure 4)and was attributed to the problem-based, ‘real world’ nature of the projects and a sense of ownership within groups. However, some students felt that the module was repetitive due to lack of variety in their projects and that their results proved inconclusive. When asked if they had enjoyed the module, student response was predominantly positive (Figure 5).

Figure 2: “How well prepared were you when you got to the field?”

Figure 3: “How would you rate your level of involvement in the projects?”

Figure 4: “How interesting did you find the results of your projects?”

Students were asked how some of their particular skills and feelings had changed as a result of taking the module so respondents had to make a retrospective assessment of the status of their abilities of three months beforehand. Students perceivedsignificant increases (p<0.001) in their understanding of the research process (Figure 6) and their levels of confidence in undertaking an individual research project(Figure 7). These improvements were predominantly attributed to the opportunity for hands-on practice. Also cited were the value of applied, problem-based scenarios and the effect of undertaking several projects in sequence. Significant increases were also recorded for students’ perceptions of their ability to work in a group and their ability to reflect on their project work.

Figure 5: “To what extent did you enjoy this module?”

Figure 6: “How would you describe your understanding of the research process?”

Figure7: “If you were asked to undertake a research project on your own, how confident would you feel?”

Positive aspects / % of vote / Negative aspects / % of vote
Fieldwork was in a project context
Insight into the ‘real world’
Variety of assessment types
Variety of field locations
Social interaction
100% coursework
Constructive criticism in presentations
Staff availability
Peer assessment
Verbal feedback
Pub lunch / 22
16
12
11
10
9
8
4
4
2
2 / Group conflicts
Inequality in assessment deadlines
Planning sessions: lack of clarity
Laboratory scripts: inaccurate/vague
Planning sessions: duration and timing
Lack of diversity in projects
Limited time in the field
Inconsistency of staffing
Laboratory sessions: too far apart / 20
18
15
15
12
7
6
4
3

Table 2: Outcomes of student focus group (n=9)

The focus group confirmed the perceived value to students of the project-based approach, the variety of field locations and the mixture of assessment methods (Table 2). It also brought up positive and negative aspects of group working i.e. social interaction and group conflicts respectively. Planning sessions attracted some negative comments perhaps reflecting the inexperience of staff in delivering a problem-orientated format at that time.

Staff response

Staff felt that the module was ambitious in its aims but that on the whole students were rising to the challenge. Several respondents admitted that they had not expected the students to perform as well as they did but acknowledge that the highly structured approach contributed to this.Staff perceived student participation as high. Those staff (n=4) who had taught both on the modified module and its predecessor reported enhanced quality of oral presentations on the new version. Focus group results indicate the positive response to key aspects of the project-based approach (Table 3). Negative aspects include the loss of ‘immersion’ in the field environment associated with running field days consecutively. Some of the other negative aspects reflect the intensive nature of the module, both for staff and students.

Positive aspects / % of vote / Negative aspects / % of vote
Whole project approach
Combination and integration of skills
Project ownership
Interdisciplinarity
Encourages active learning
Puts practical work into context
Opportunity for students to make mistakes
Intense tuition from close supervision
Underpinning of stage 2 modules
Get to know students
Progression through the term / 30
18
16
12
8
5
4
3
2
1
1 / Loss of field week focus
Module tries to achieve too much
Students arrive with poor lab skills
Shortest project is rushed
Disengagement with students
Time intensive for staff
Poor student attendance
Students do not learn from feedback
Health and safety responsibilities
Incorrect reporting of findings
Lack of connection between different sessions
Module design ‘deceives’ students
Student group conflicts / 16
13
12
9
8
8
8
6
5
4
4
4
3

Table 3: Outcomes of stafffocus group (n=7)

Student performance

The new module structure did not result in a detectable change in student performance indicators (Table 4). However, as the assessment criteriabecame more stringent in 2005/06, students’ performance is considered to have been enhanced from this time.

Academic year / Module design / Mean mark (%) / Pass rate (%) / n
2003/04 / Old / 59 / 90 / 101
2004/05 / Old / 57 / 86 / 85
2005/06 / New / 56 / 90 / 112
2006/07 / New / 56 / 85 / 84
2007/08 / New / 60 / 90 / 123

Table 4: Student performance data

Discussion

Designing effective projects is shown to be a key element in providing a stimulating student experience and a meaningful context for skills development.The project-based approach is welcomed by staff who ranked it as the most important positive attribute of the teaching experience. The focus onbiogeochemistry in this module requireslaboratory analysis of field samples to reveal the invisibleprocesses operating in the environment.The project problem statements needed to be framed so that they could be addressed predominantly, but not exclusively, through data generation.This approach does not fall neatly into the definitions of either ‘project-based’ or ‘problem based’ learninggiven by Savin-Baden Howell Major (2004) but features characteristics of both and is described here as ‘project-based’ and ‘problem-driven’.In common with PBL, it is the problem statement that defines what is to be learnt, and student groups should decide what knowledge and data they need to address it. However in this case, it is arguable as to whether the problems are ‘open-ended’. In the mind of the tutor there is likely to be a ‘preset’ sampling and analytical strategy that will generate the optimum dataset over the available timescale.This aligns more with project-based learning where the task is highly structured and the student is a member of a project team who are developing a solution or strategy. In this module, the role of the tutor is key; a hands-off facilitator will engender a more problem-based approach and is likely to welcome novel ideas from students;a more interventionistsupervisor will be more prescriptive and thus increase the project-based character.Knowing when to intervene in PBL has previously been identified as a source of anxiety for staff (Spronken-Smith, 2005). Informal staff feedback indicated here that the teaching style adopted by tutors varies according to the capability and experience of the student group.This flexibility is important in a stage 1 module where students are being introduced to the research process and are experiencing for the first time the responsibility of undertaking a research project from ‘cradle to grave’.Development of appropriate projects required considerable effort and resources which is acharacteristic of problem-led approaches (Pawson et al., 2006). For this module, projects were located at established field sites which in some cases had been the subject of intensive prior research.

Overall, students respondedwell to the new module design and their perceptions of high levels of participation, enjoyment and project ‘ownership’concur withthe outcomes of relatedinnovations(Bradbeer 1996; Perkins et al., 2001; Chappell, 2001).A good level of student preparedness for fieldwork was associated with the planning sessionswhich confirms previous research in this area (Orion & Hofstein, 1994). A strong theme within student feedback was the value of directly experiencing practical research projects; enhanced confidence of research was attributed to repeatedly undertaking small projects and reflecting on their experiences after each one. Students often referred to the benefits of collaborative learning particularly its affect on participation and the support gained through shared responsibility. On the other hand, failures in group dynamics were ranked as the most common negative feature of the module, which is a well documented problem of group work (Pawson et al., 2006). In this module, groups used a peer assessment mechanism to penalise students who did not contribute sufficiently.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that it is possible to implementa project-based, problem-driven approach to introduce stage 1 students to research and project management skills without a decline in student performance. Perceived benefits relate to students’ participation, interest,enjoyment, sense of project ‘ownership’, confidence and understanding of research. Key design elements are the module’s highly structured nature, the use of hands-on projects linked to ‘real world’ problem scenarios, the flexibility of approach allowed to tutors and having a precursor skills module run along more traditional lines. Such an approach requires considerable resources, particularly for development of effective projects.