Charlton perez pbl_met

Introducing Problem Based Learning
Approaches in Meteorology

Andrew Charlton-Perez
Dept. of Meteorology, Univ. of Reading

Submitted in partial fulﬁllment of the Postgraduate
Certiﬁcate in Academic Practice

January 2011

Abstract

Problem based learning, despite recent controversies about its effectiveness, is used
extensively as a teaching method throughout higher education in the UK and at the
University of Reading. In Meteorology, there has been little attempt to incorporate PBL
techniques into the curriculum. Motivated by a desire to enhance the reflective
engagement of students within a current field course module, this project describes the
implementation of two test PBL activities. By the end of a two-year program of design,
implementation, testing and reflection/reevaluation two robust, engaging activities have
been developed which provide an enhanced and diverse learning environment on the field
course. The results suggest that PBL techniques would be a useful addition to the
Meteorology curriculum and suggestions for courses and activities which may benefit from
this approach are included in the conclusions.

Contents

1. Introduction to the problem and existing course design
1.1. The problem - passive engagement of students
1.2. Test module - Atmospheric Science field course
1.3. Assessment of current course design
1.4. Potential approaches to the problem considered
2. Problem based learning
2.1.Broad advantages and disadvantages
2.2.Implementation in higher education
3. Proposed changes to module
3.1. Introducing two problem based learning elements
3.2. Ozonesonde launch
3.3. Climate monitoring station design
3.4. Revised course design
4. Methodology of implementation and assessment
4.1. Timetable of implementation and practical considerations
4.2. Assessment methods
5. Results from implementation in 2009
5.1. Raw survey results
5.2. Reflection on student experience
5.3. Informal consultation with colleagues
5.4. Consistency of evaluation using all three evaluation methods
5.5. Proposed changes to activities
6.1. Raw survey results
6.2. Reflection on student experience
6.3. Consistency of evaluation using all three evaluation methods
6.4. Informal consultation with colleagues
7. Summary and discussion of impacts
7.1. Module specific success of PBL activities
7.2. Wider implications for teaching of Meteorology
7.3. Potential areas in which small PBL projects would be beneficial
7.4. A proposal for an improved undergraduate final year project/dissertation
7.5. Reflections on course design in general

1. Introducing the problem
Problem based learning approaches in Meteorology

1. Introducing the problem and existing course design
This project will assess both the feasibility and usefulness of problem based learning
approaches in Meteorology teaching. Two new problem based learning activities will be
introduced to an existing fieldwork based Meteorology module. The activities are designed
in line with best practice guidelines for problem based learning but are designed to be
sufficiently different that conclusions about the overall suitability of problem based learning
for Meteorological teaching can be drawn. The success of the new activities will be
assessed using a combination of student feedback, peer observation, analysis of resulting
student outputs and personal reflection. Given the small number of students involved in
the activity designing a range of evaluation techniques is crucial to measuring itʼs success.
A control group of students will take part in both activities so that they can be compared.

1.1 The problem - passive engagement of students
Meteorology as a subject has a strong practical, experimental component. Teaching
students how to make effective measurements and how to use the data collected
appropriately is a key part of our undergraduate curriculum which also provides a strong
transferable skill. Although a large element of practical work is included in the University of
Readingʼs Meteorology and Climate BSc and MMet programs, in its current form much of
this teaching follows a relatively traditional model of several self-contained experiments
with well defined expected outcomes known prior to students conducting the experiments.
While this approach has definite value to students, it fails to allow students to address key
components of the most widely held view of experiential learning, the Kolb learning cycle
(Kolb, 1984). This model of experiential learning is reproduced below:

Concrete experience

Reflective observation
Active experimentation

Abstract conceptualization

Figure 1: Kolb learning cycle

1.2 Test module - Atmospheric Science field course
The module chosen to test the implementation of PBL approaches in Meteorology is
MT37H/MT4XH Atmospheric Science field course. This module is jointly taught with
colleagues from the University of Leeds. The course is residential and takes place over 8
days based at a field centre on the Isle of Arran. Typically there are around 35 students on
the course, split 50:50 between students from Reading and Leeds. The course is offered
at both level 6 and level 7. The background of students on the course is diverse, with a
wide range of mathematical skill in particular a major challenge. Activities on the course
are primarily field based and include an all day hike to the top of Goat Fell (~850m) taking
measurements on the way. The course is worth 10 credits and for students on the level 6
version all analysis and commentary on the results is completed in the field.

The traditional approach to practical experimental learning incorporates only the active
experimentation and concrete experience stages of the Kolb learning cycle. A continuing
challenge is to incorporate the aspects of more reflective observation of what has been

1


learned in the experiment and to then use that observation to form more general abstract
conclusions about how the atmosphere works.
To try to tackle this problem, in 2006 the atmospheric science field course was introduced
to the BSc program. I have been a member of staff on this course since its inception and
the co-convener of the module since 2008. On this field course, students have the
opportunity to participate in several different experiments at once, allowing them the
opportunity to try to piece abstract concepts about the atmosphere together. However, a
remaining problem on the course is that all the experiments have been designed by the
staff participating to have simple outcomes, known at the outset by both staff and students.
Therefore, the reflective observation link in the Kolb learning cycle chain is often opaque or
broken, making it difficult for the students to move to higher-level abstract
conceptualization. In addition, from 2008 the course has been offered at both the BSc and
MMet level, without adequate provision for students at the M-level to further enhance their
learning through more detailed abstract conceptualization.
The problem for the course, and by extension the BSc and MMet programs in general can
therefore be summarized as:
• There is not adequate opportunity for students to reflect upon the experimental choices
made in practical meteorology courses. This leads, through truncation of the Kolb learning
cycle, to little or no fundamental abstract learning about appropriate generic experimental
design, a key transferable skill.
• Additionally, there is currently no existing pathway for gifted and talented students,
generally registered on the MMet program, to progress their learning along these lines.
The lack of this pathway prevents the MMet from providing adequate training at the M-
level suitable for students who may progress to higher academic scholarship.

1.3 Assessment of current course design
To fully examine the current structure of the course and the way that itʼs current structure
maps to the Kolb learning cycle a course map (Conole, 2010) was completed. Mapping the
course in this way provides a concise summary of its current state and highlights the
issues discussed in the previous section. Since the test module is made up of a series of
discrete activities, it has also been possible to map these activities to the Kolb learning
cycle. As described above this identifies the lack of activities which both follow the learning
cycle model and those which miss crucial steps, particularly the opportunity for reflection.

A video diary describing the initial mapping of the course and the problem at hand can be
found at: http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/3813. By mapping the course in this way,
additional issues associated with the course are highlighted or emphasized:
• The lack of opportunity for reflection in the course is clear, only the weather forecasting
activity (blue dot) provides ways for students to examine their own work or put it in the
context of others work. As a consequence many of the activities ʻshort-circuitʼ the Kolb
learning cycle.
• Along with this lack of reflective elements, no opportunity is provided to the students for
formative feedback on their work. While the high staff-student ratio on the course does
allow staff to informally have a dialogue with students to improve their understanding,
there is no way for students to gain feedback on their written work, which is in some ways
a more concrete demonstration of their understanding.
• The Weather forecasting activity is clearly quite separate and distinct from the other
activities on the course and provides a good way of introducing a variety of teaching
styles. However, since many of the other activities are quite similar, an additional activity
which filled some of the gaps identified by this analysis would be beneficial in further
broadening the teaching of the module.

2


Figure 2: Course map for Atmospheric Science Field Course as of December 2008
when the project began. Coloured dots in each panel correspond to the activities
identiﬁed in the top right of the ﬁgure.

Figure 3: Mapping of individual course elements onto Kolb learning cycle. Colours are
the same as those used in the course map.

3


1.4 Potential approaches to the problem considered
To address the problems identified in the previous sections and highlighted in the
Atmospheric Science Field Course by the course mapping exercise several possible
changes to the module were considered.

Modification Advantages Disadvantages

Pre-trip exercise: Ask • Engage students in • Difficult to implement
students to complete an practical before start of practically since course is
exercise on existing exercises. taught during vacation time
exercises before arriving • Little additional resource and across two institutions.
on site (Carnduff and Reid, cost. • Ensures participation in
2003). Ask students to • Some chance for exercise, but may not
reflect on their answers reflection and formative particularly inspire
once on site and feedback. students.
completing exercises. • Opportunity to add • Existing experiments are
exercises at both level 6 not well suited to major
and 7. modification by students,
hence limiting the chance
for reflection.

Peer assessment: Ask • Little additional resource • Little additional benefit for
students to assess work cost. student engagement.
from other group members • Some chance for • Hard to implement at
midway through the reflection and formative different levels for Masters
course. feedback from peers. students.
• Impractical, all students
have not participated in
every exercise by the
middle of the week and
would add additional time
pressure which may be
unhelpful.
• Hard to match prior
expectations of students
from two different
Universities.

4


Modification Advantages Disadvantages

Full problem based • Allows students great • Impractical, a much
learning approach: flexibility to explore higher staff to student ratio
Radically shift the focus of atmospheric measurement would be required to
the course by first setting and time for reflection. ensure equipment could be
students a problem to • Encourages student used both safely and
solve during their field motivation. effectively. Large additional
work and then providing • Ability to tailor activity to cost.
resources/staff time for ʻreal-worldʼ examples - • Unlikely, given the
them to design improved employability for timescales involved, that
experiments to solve the students. students would achieve
problems. meaningful results during
their time on Arran.
• Hard to determine the
level of the course and to
offer the activities at
different levels for Masters
students.
• May not deliver enough
core content for students.

Hybrid problem based • Allows students some • Maintains some activities
learning approach: flexibility to explore which do not fully complete
Maintain current course atmospheric measurement the Kolb learning cycle.
content, but introduce a and time for reflection. • Only limited opportunities
small number of more • Moderate additional for reflection and formative
flexible problem based resource cost. feedback.
learning elements. •Encourages student
motivation.
• Ability to tailor activity to
ʻreal-worldʼ examples -
improved employability for
students.

Of the options considered, it was clear that the hybrid problem based learning approach
represented a compromise between a desire to add more flexible, open-ended content
to the module which allowed appropriate opportunity for reflection and formative
feedback and practical considerations of how to deliver a broad and successful field
course in a remote location with students and staff from two different institutions. It is
also the case that a hybrid option has a comparably low risk profile compared to some
of the other options, since in the instance of complete failure of the exercise, the PBL
element can simply be removed from consideration when assessing students. By
adopting a cautious approach to the implementation of PBL elements, it will be possible
to rigorously test their success in comparison to the more traditional elements of the
course.

5



Problem based learning (PBL) is an approach to teaching and learning which forms part of
a broader spectrum of techniques known as enquiry based learning. Enquiry based
learning can be broadly defined to have the following characteristics (Kahn and OʼRouke,
2004)
• Engagement with a complex situation or scenario that is sufficiently open ended to allow
a variety of responses or solutions
• Students direct the lines of enquiry and the methods employed
• The enquiry requires students to draw on existing knowledge and to identify their
required learning needs
• Tasks stimulate curiosity in the students, encouraging them to actively explore and seek
out new evidence
• Responsibility falls to the student for analysing and presenting that evidence in
appropriate ways and in support of their own response to the problem.

PBL in particular involves students addressing a problem in a small group and defining the
further knowledge and investigation that they require to solve the problem. In many ways
PBL is as much about identifying the key unknowns in a problem and appropriate ways to
tackle these problems as it is about solving the problem at hand. The PBL approach to
learning does not require students to have mastered a body of knowledge before the
completion of a project (as in a typical undergraduate or masters dissertation) but allows
the understanding of the student and their ability to solve the problem to evolve together.

2.1 Broad advantages and disadvantages
Kahn and OʼRouke (2004) list a large number of potential advantages of PBL as a
teaching style particularly associated with student motivation and engagement and
employability. As they identify “...the modern “knowledge economy” places a premium on
the ability to create relevant knowledge that helps to solve specific problems...”

PBL provides a way of encouraging students to participate in constructive, experiential
learning, as in the Kolb learning cycle (Fig. 1). This happens by encouraging students to
engage in active experimentation to test their ideas and then using their experience of the
outcomes of their experimentation to reflect on their grasp of the knowledge at hand. This
reflective element is particularly important and can be enhanced in the PBL model by the
chance for students to contrast their own performance and knowledge with that of their
peers.

Despite these widely accepted benefits of PBL in the educational literature, there is current
controversy over the effectiveness of minimally guided techniques in general. This
controversy links to the paper of Kirschner, Sweller and Clark (2006, KSC06) who make
the case that minimally directed techniques are incompatible with our knowledge of human
cognitive architecture (in particular the Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) sensory memory–
working memory–long-term memory model). KSC06 argue that since the capacity of
working memory is limited, placing heavy demands on it by requiring problem-based
searching should be avoided. KSC06 argue that numerous studies have suggested that a
more directed learning approach, particularly incorporating numerous ʻworked-examplesʼ is
a more efficient use of novice and intermediate learners cognitive resources. Several
responses to KSC06 exist in the literature (Schmidt et al. (2007), Hmelo-Silver et al.
(2007), Kuhn (2007)) along with a commentary on these responses by the original authors
of KSC06 (Sweller et al. (2007)). Common to the discussion between most of the authors
is the idea that PBL techniques without any guidance are inferior to those with some
6


strong scaffolding provided by the course leader. They also agree that much more careful
research with properly controlled experiments is required to fully assess the advantages
and disadvantages of different educational techniques.

In practical terms, much of the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
minimally guided techniques is focussed on rather fundamentalist positions of fully guided
or fully unguided teaching. In reality, any implementation of PBL in Meteorology and in the
Arran field course in particular is likely to exist somewhere between these extremes with
some guidance provided by course tutors. It should also be recognised, however, that PBL
techniques may be more appropriate for intermediate and advanced learners and hence
for course at levels III and IV rather than levels I and II.

Despite the controversy about PBL techniques in the literature it seems appropriate to
investigate their usefulness in the Meteorological context, provided that this is within a
course with a range of different instructional techniques including directed learning. In this
way PBL techniques can be evaluated but at low potential detriment to students involved
in the course if they prove to be of limited value.

2.2 Implementation in higher education and in Meteorology
Various reviews of the implementation of problem based learning approaches in higher
education exist in the literature (e.g. Boud and Feletti, 1997, Savin-Baden 2000). Even a
cursory glance at these texts reveals three things about the implementation of PBL in
higher education:
• PBL has been used to refer to a broad range of educational activities from the design of
an individual element of a problem class to the design of a full three-year curriculum.
• The implementation of PBL varies greatly between different subjects in UK higher
education. Those with a strong element of practical problem solving (e.g. Medicine and
Law) have been by far the most enthusiastic adopters of PBL.
• A barrier to the implementation of PBL more widely is the lack of understanding amongst
academic staff on their role within a PBL exercise.

There has been little implementation of PBL techniques in Meteorology or in related Earth
and Environmental science fields. Some literature on the implementation of PBL in GEES
subjects is available in a special edition of Planet (http://www.gees.ac.uk/planet/
index.htm#PSE2). Of the articles in this issue, the most relevant is that which describes
the implementation of PBL on a field course module by Perkins et al. A particularly
interesting aspect of this article is the adoption of the ʻSeven-Jumpʼ Maastricht model for
PBL tutorials (Gijselaers, 1995). This provides a framework model for tutorial structure for
PBL activities which is adopted in the two new activities introduced in section 3 (with some
modification for activities which take place entirely on Arran). This model characterises
PBL learning as a series of seven ʻjumpsʼ:

7


Jump Activity Timing

1 Clarify terms and concepts not readily comprehensible Meeting 1

2 Define the problem

3 Analyse the problem and offer tentative explanations

4 Draw up an inventory of explanations

5 Formulate learning objectives

6 Collect further information through private study Between
Meetings

7 Synthesise new information and test it against original Meeting 2
problem. Reflect and consolidate learning

Perkins et al. report that PBL was had a generally positive impact on the field activities and
was equally at home in ʻhard-scienceʼ subjects (although as above, clear tutor guidance
was a key factor in its success). One major difference between our own field course and
that of Perkins et al. is the length of preparatory time which is long (16 hours) in the case
of Perkins et al. and relatively short in our case (1 hour).

2.3 PBL and work-related learning
Along with itʼs benefits for student engagement, motivation and reflection PBL also has the
advantage that it fits well within a work-related learning context. As identified by Moreland
(2005), work-related learning is rapidly becoming an important part of higher education,
particularly with the recent focus on ʻemployabilityʼ (Yorke, 2004). Yorke defines
employability as:
“a set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes – that makes
graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations,
which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy.”
Improving the employability of graduates from higher education is key to ensuring both that
our courses offer students value for their substantial investment in their future and in
maintaining the competitive position of the UK economy in the face of increased
international competition and change. Moreland identifies key areas of work-related
learning which can help contribute to graduate employability:
• Learning and practising skills and personal attributes of value in the world of work (Skillful
Practices);
• Experiencing the world of work (or facsimiles thereof) to provide insights and learning
into the world of work predominantly associated with the subjects of oneʼs higher
education studies (Understandings); and
• Experiencing and learning how to learn and manage oneself in a range of situations,
including (of course) those to be found at work (Metacognition).
The prime example of this work-related learning already present in the Atmospheric
Science Field Course is the Weather Forecasting activity which is designed to be a
facsimile of the real-world forecasting problem. PBL activities are an additional way to
introduce some of these elements into the Meteorology curriculum by providing a facsimile
of a real-world research or operational problem for students to address. In designing new
PBL elements for the course, it is important to remember the fit to these work-related
learning goals.
8


3.1 Introducing two problem based learning elements
With the key messages of the proceeding literature in mind, two similar but different PBL
approaches were introduced into the atmospheric science field course module. The first of
these PBL activities involves students on both the BSc and MMet programs and students
from our partner the University of Leeds. It focuses on trying to address issues of missing
stages in the Kolb learning cycle outlined above. The second activity involves only those
students on the MMet program and is completed over a longer period upon return to
Reading. The aim of this activity is to provide a second M-level route to obtaining
appropriate professional skills in environmental monitoring.

3.2 Ozonesonde launch
This activity involves the design of an experiment to launch an ozonesonde, a piece of
equipment attached to a weather balloon, designed to measure ozone concentrations
throughout the atmosphere. The experiment is a key integrative part of the field course
module since it combines many of the concepts of atmospheric chemistry and physics
dealt with in other parts of the course. Students are already be part of mixed University of
Reading/University of Leeds teams for other activities. The students are told that we only
have the resources to launch a single ozonesonde and that they should design an
experiment to maximize the benefit of observations from a single launch.
The activity proceeds as follows:
• The activity is introduced in a short lecture and through course documents. Some
information about ozone in the atmosphere is given along with some technical details
about the equipment available for use.
• Students break into teams to discuss how and when to launch the ozonesonde. They
have access both to staff (who act as facilitators) and forecast information about future
weather conditions which determines when an interesting time to launch would be. (This is
the initial abstract conceptualization phase).
• Students are asked to write a short ʻgrant proposalʼ for the launch. The proposals are
then be presented to a steering committee of staff who assess which of the proposals to
take forward. (This is the first part of the active experimentation phase).
• The ozonesonde is launched according to the instructions of the successful bid and data
provided to all of the groups to analyze. (This is the second part of the active
experimentation phase).
• Following the launch students analyze both the data produced by the experiment but
also the differences between the winning bid and their own. They comment on the
differences between their bid and the winning bid and identify any deficiency based on the
results of the experiment. This part is crucial since it requires the students to enter the
reflective phase, based on the experimental design and to build this reflection back into
their original abstract conceptualization.

A detailed description of the activity is attached to this document as appendix I.

3.3 Climate monitoring station design
This activity takes place following the return of students on the MMet program from Arran.
This is a relatively small group of students, but all members are common with activity 1
giving an opportunity to compare and contrast results. The problem given to the students
is to design a new climate monitoring station for Arran based both on their experience of
the field course location and meteorology and further original research from existing
literature. The activity is facilitated by the module convener and two members of
Meteorology research staff in three one-hour discussion sessions.

9


Students are asked to produce a 15 page design specification for the climate monitoring
station detailing equipment used, fit to national and international monitoring priorities and
operating procedure.

This activity is designed to be much more open-ended than activity I. The first task of the
students will be to decide on the priorities for the climate monitoring based on their own
analysis of the literature and discussion in group forum. In this sense the activity
specifically targets the reflective observation and abstract conceptualization elements of
the Kolb learning cycle, whilst using the observational experience gained on Arran as the
active experimentation and concrete experience phases. The final assessment of the
design specification emphasizes these aspects.

A detailed description of the activity is attached to this document as appendix II.

3.4 Revised course design
Figure 4 shows the revised course design incorporating the new PBL elements. Notice that
many of the gaps in the previous design, particularly the lack of reflective elements and
formative assessment have been filled by incorporating the new PBL elements. A key part
of this design is making the assessment of the initial research proposals formative rather
than summative since this allows for reflection on the part of the students in their
workbooks based on our assessment of their work. By making the reflective element part
of the summative assessment we ensure that students value and take part in the
reflection. A similar approach has been adopted for the observing system activity by
requiring students to actively criticise each others work in the tutorial sessions which
support the activity (although this reflective element is not included as part of the
assessment). PBL activities, by their nature, map well onto the Kolb learning cycle (Figure
5). The more open-ended questions that they pose mean that students have to refine their
understanding through testing, particularly while refining the approaches to tackle the
problem at hand.

10


Figure 4: Course map for Atmospheric Science Field Course as of December 2009
following the implementation of new activities described in section 3. Coloured diamonds
show new activities. Blue text shows additional contribution to course elements.

Figure 5: Mapping of 2009 course to Kolb learning cycle. New elements are included as
cyan and brown arrows. Notice that these elements map a complete Kolb cycle.

11

4. Implementation and assessment

4. Method of implementation and assessment
4.1 Timetable of implementation and practical considerations
Design of the new PBL methods took place during academic year 2008/9 and was
introduced into the course in Autumn 2009. The experiment was then repeated with some
modification in autumn 2010. One practical difficulty in the implementation in the first year
was that I was on paternity leave at the time of implementation of the ozonesonde activity
and did not take part in this exercise. All equipment required for the ozonesonde activity
was tested before deployment and produced good results. One difficulty encountered in
designing the ozonesonde activity was the very broad background knowledge of the
students. Hence, it was thought likely that the background material provided in the course
handbook would need to be refined substantially after first implementation and that course
staff might be required to give more guidance than for a normal PBL activity in this first
instance.

4.2 Evaluation methods
With any new teaching and learning activity a crucial part of its successful introduction is a
robust evaluation (Fry, Ketteridge and Marshall, 2008). Project evaluation was conducted
using a range of techniques including student feedback, peer observation, analysis of
resulting student outputs and personal reflection.

Student feedback was obtained through a carefully designed diagnostic questionnaire
(Gibbs, Habeshaw and Habeshaw, 1988) which specifically explores the distinctions
between the PBL approach and more traditional approaches used for the majority of the
field course. A similar diagnostic questionnaire was applied to both activities and some
questions were added to the questionnaire for activity II to specifically explore the
differences between the two activities. In particular these questions explored if a more
open ended and longer activity was preferable for the control group of gifted and talented
students.

Peer observation from other staff was also easy to implement since both activities take
place within a staff intensive environment. Feedback was obtained broadly through a
separate diagnostic questionnaire and through an unstructured interview with colleagues.
Again the emphasis was on which aspects of the PBL approach work well within a
meteorological context.

The third stream of evaluation was through examination of student outputs for each activity
and personal reflection from this perspective. Since a set of clear goals for the
improvement of the teaching and learning experience has been drawn it should be
possible to qualitatively measure student outputs against them.

4.2.1 Student and staff questionnaires
For each of the activities, feedback was sought from both staff and students with a
carefully designed questionnaire. Example, blank questionnaires are shown in Appendix
III. The motivation behind each question is described in Appendix IV.

4.2.2 Unstructured interviews with colleagues
To gain further insight into staff impressions of the PBL activities I conducted short (30min)
interviews with experienced colleagues who participated in the two activities. The topics to
be covered were dependent upon answers to the staff and student questionnaires. The
interviews were used to check that answers to the questionnaires were truly diagnostic,
providing an independent check of the methodology. Since there was a strong correlation
between the answers given on the questionnaires and results from the interviews, I am
12

4. Implementation and assessment

confident that this is the case and do not provide a detailed breakdown of results from the
interviews.

4.2.3 Assessment of students work
Following submission of final work assessment was also made of students work on the
project. In general results were mixed, but generally consistent with performance in other
activities in the course and showed that students had actively engaged with the PBL
activities. I am comfortable that the reflective element of the activities was well
incorporated since all students provided some reflection on their own and others work.
Since results of this analysis are somewhat more qualitative than the diagnostic
questionnaire and broadly agree with its results they are mentioned only briefly below.

13

5. Results 2009

The two activities were first implemented as part of the course during academic year
2009/10. The course took place between 4th and 11th September on the Isle of Arran. I did
not attend the course since I was on paternity leave. 32 students took part in the course,
16 from Reading and 16 from Leeds. Of those students, 3 from Reading took the course at
the M-level and also participated in the observing system design activity during the autumn
term 2009/10. The average mark for the course overall was 63% with a standard deviation
of 5%. The ozonesonde activity had an average mark of 64% with a standard deviation of
10%. The observing system design activity had an average mark of 62% (no standard
deviation is recorded since only three students participated).

5.1 Raw survey results

2009 Assessment of PBL Meteorology activities
O3 O3 OBS. SYS. OBS. SYS
CRITERIA S.D. S.D. STUDENTS STAFF
STUDENTS STAFF

How well did students 3.2 1.2 3.5 2.1 6.0 3.5
understand the task?
How easily did groups 3.5 1.6 2.3 1.9 4.3 2.5
quickly focus on the key
questions required?
Was the activity a good 4.4 1.6 6.3 1.0 4.7 3.5
simulation of a ‘real-world’
case
Did you anticipate the 3.7 1.7 5.0 2.9 4.7 3.5
activity would improve your
specific subject
understanding?
engage with specific
reflective activity

Was all the information 3.9 2.2 5.3 2.1 7.7 1.5
required provided to you in
the project text?
How much were staff used 2.8 1.9 5.3 2.1 1.7 4.5
to give subject specific
information
to give generic skills
information

Did comparison with other 3.0 1.7 6.3 2.8 N/A 1.0
groups/students help
students to reflect on their
work?

14

5. Results 2009

CRITERIA S.D. S.D. STUDENTS STAFF
STUDENTS STAFF

Did reflection help students 5.3 3.0 4.7 1.5 N/A 6.0
improve their
understanding?
Did students agree with the 2.8 2.3 N/A N/A N/A
staff assessment?
Did the activity improve N/A 2.7 1.5 N/A 3.0
students generic skills?
Did the activity improve 3.7 1.5 3.3 1.5 N/A 2.0
students subject specific
skills?

Did you prefer the time N/A N/A 3.0 N/A
constraint in the O3 activity
to the open-ended Obs.
Sys. activity?
Did you prefer working on N/A N/A 5.0 N/A
your own in the Obs. Sys.
activity rather than in a
team in the O3 activity?
The Obs. Sys. Activity N/A N/A 4.0 N/A
improved my subject
specific knowledge more
than the O3 activity?
The Obs. Sys. Activity was N/A N/A 2.0 N/A
at a higher educational level

Table 1: Results of student survey of PBL activities following implementation in year 1
(2009). Marks are awarded by participants on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the highest
mark. N/A means a question was not asked to gain this information. Statistics are based
on 18 student surveys and 4 staff surveys for the ozonesonde activity and 3 student
surveys and 2 staff surveys for the observing system activity.

5.2 Reflection on student experience
In general both activities were well received by the students who assessed generally high
grades in most categories. The questions can be useful divided up into four broad
categories on which to assess the success of the PBL implementation. The first set of
questions assess how well the activity was structured and communicated to students.
Clearly the small group of students who took part in the observing system activity did not
fully understand their task and this may have reduced their motivation in taking part
(Action: Improving documentation and introduction of task for 2010). There is an
interesting discrepancy between the perception of the ozonesonde activity as a good
simulation of a real world task between the students (who generally thought it was) and the
staff (whoʼs reaction was more mixed). In many ways this is a positive outcome since it
suggests that the task was simpler than a complex real-world grant proposal but that this
did not detract from itʼs appeal to the students. In all activities both staff and students
judged the students to engage well with the reflective part of the activity which is a key part
of the Kolb cycle and crucial to this new activity which is positive. Interestingly, the extent

15

5. Results 2009

to which the students and staff believed that the reflection helped the students improve
their understanding was more mixed (Action: Reconsider the reflective part of the activity
to ensure it boosts student understanding).

The second set of questions deals with how students gained required information for the
task. This shows the expected split between the two activities with the ozonesonde activity
providing most of the required information in written form and the observing system activity
requiring students to do their own research and engage with staff. When assessing how
staff were used, students were generally more pessimistic about their own input and
claimed staff influenced both their subject specific and generic skills more than the staff
perceive. This is perhaps to be expected, but it is important for the success of the activity
that the students believe that it is their input and decisions which influenced the direction
of both projects. It is important that staff act as facilitators of the discussion since part of
the PBL learning process is shaping and refining the problem at hand (Action: Reiterate to
staff that their role should be advisory only and that they should allow groups to make their
own project decisions - even if this leads to a weaker project overall).

The third set of questions deals with the assessment of the activity post-facto by both
groups. As mentioned above, both staff and students were somewhat mixed in their
assessment of the utility of the reflective elements of the activities. Interestingly, students
believed that the comparison with other groups was a very helpful part of the ozonesonde
activity, whereas staff were more circumspect. In general the projects scored well amongst
all groups in their ability to improve both generic and specific skills.

Finally, the group of students who participated in both the ozonesonde and observing
system activities were asked to compare them. Interestingly for broader applications of
PBL in Meteorology there was a clear preference for the time-limited ozonesonde activity
and the focus that this brought to discussion. However in general the students believed the
observing system activity to be at a higher educational level, which again fits well with the
course design.

Participants were also asked to make specific and general comments on the activities.
Few comments were received, but some of the most interesting are shown below:

Student
“I didnʼt have much of an idea of what I was supposed to be doing or how to get a good
mark in this.”
“Good but should only be done sometimes.”
“Encourages time keeping.”
“Makes you think more for yourself which encourages learning.”
“I prefer more lecture based teaching, not a fan of large research projects stuff. It is
important it is more real-world, but 40% is still too heavy a weighting.”
“Initial knowledge of the area needs to be taught first to better be able to do these
activities, but it challenges you to think about stuff in a more realistic context which is
good.”
“It encourages you to think for yourself more. Although I didnʼt like it to begin with it has
taught me a lot.”

Staff
“Encourages vibrant interaction between staff/student so that ideas are created and
developed quickly. Allowed for quickly working through problems and assimilation of
scientific knowledge.”
16

5. Results 2009

“Good activity, although students found assessment of the speaking part a bit vague.”
“You cover a lot less content but it may be more effective and the student learns a lot more
from it by making mistakes and learning/developing things by himself. Combined with
traditional approaches to teach the basics I think it is highly useful.”

5.3 Informal consultation with colleagues
Informal consultation with colleagues revealed that both activities had been well received
in the first instance and had enabled students to be more actively engaged in their learning
and to explore different facets of both problems than they might otherwise have done. The
major discussion point for the ozonesonde activity was the lack of training of staff both for
the PBL process and in the specifics of the activity itself. There was particular concern
about the role that the reflective activity should play. The major discussion point for the
observing system activity was the lack of engagement between students and staff
members outside contact hours. Both staff members felt that the students were disinclined
to ask for help and expertise even though this was explicitly offered.

5.4 Consistency of evaluation using all three evaluation methods
A coherent picture of the successes and failures of the activities in their first
implementation arises from consideration of all three methods of evaluation. In general,
staff and students found the activity to be worthwhile and both in the questionnaire
evaluation and the informal interviews thought that the PBL approach promoted active
engagement amongst the students. Evaluation of student work, informal staff interviews
and the questionnaire responses highlighted the problems in the introduction of the
reflective elements, particularly in relation to the way in which staff participated in the
activity. There are however, some elements in which the different evaluation techniques
give different pictures of the activities. Although the survey results suggested students
didnʼt fully understand the purpose of the observing system activity the student outputs
(both in terms of a qualitative or quantitative evaluation) did not suggest that they
performed any better or worse than in the ozonesonde activity or in the course in general.
Staff interviews seemed to confirm the view that part of the dissatisfaction with the
observing system activity was dominated by the views of one student who set a very
confrontational tone from the beginning of the tutorials.

5.5 Proposed changes to activities
Identified actions to improve the activity for 2010 are:
• Improving documentation and introduction of observing system task for 2010.
The documentation of the activity was revised to the current version shown in Appendix II.
In addition, research staff who assisted in teaching the module were asked to give two
short presentations in the first tutorial to provide key information on observing techniques
to the students. These presentations were shared with the students via Blackboard.
• Re-consider the reflective part of the ozonesonde activity to ensure it boosts student
understanding.
• Re-iterate to staff that their role should be advisory only and that they should allow
groups to make their own project decisions - even if this leads to a weaker project overall.
These two changes were brought about by enhanced staff training prior to the exercise
and by communication of the staff assessment of the proposals to the students. All staff
were informally briefed on what was expected from the students and the purposes of the
reflective activity. Staff then ensured that the purpose of the activity was explained to
students when they asked questions about it. Staff were also encouraged to act as
facilitators of each groups thinking. Once the staff ʻsteering-committeeʼ had assessed the
proposals, in addition to communicating the result to students, 10 minutes was spent
explaining the reasons for this choice to them.
17

5. Results 2009

• Add informal contact periods (ʻofﬁce hoursʼ) to the observing system activity to encourage
informal contact between staff and students.
This was done, although it did not seem to encourage informal contact.

These actions were undertaken during academic year 2010 and modiﬁed activities were
introduced into the course in September 2010. The assessment of the activities is
repeated and described in the next chapter.

18

6. Results 2010

The second implementation of the two activities occurred as part of the course during
academic year 2010/11. The course took place between 5th and 12th September on the
Isle of Arran. 35 students took part in the course, 12 from Reading and 17 from Leeds. Of
those students, 5 from Reading took the course at the M-level and also participated in the
observing system design activity during the Autumn term 2010/11. The average mark for
the course overall was 61% with a standard deviation of 4%. The ozonesonde activity had
an average mark of 56% with a standard deviation of 4%. It should be noted that a
different academic colleague at Leeds was responsible for marking the ozonesonde
activity in each year of the course. While every effort is made to standardize marking,
experience in previous years shows that the lower mark in the 2010 implementation is
partly related to this change in marker. The observing system design activity had an
average mark of 65% with a standard deviation of 7%.

6.1 Raw survey results

2010 Assessment of PBL Meteorology activities
CRITERIA S.D. S.D.
STUDENTS STAFF STUDENTS STAFF

How well did students 3.2 2.1 4.0 n/a 3.2 3.0
understand the task?
How easily did groups 4.2 1.9 3.0 2.7 2.6 3.0
quickly focus on the key
questions required?
Was the activity a good 4.2 2.3 4.7 3.8 2.4 2.5
simulation of a ‘real-world’
case
Did you anticipate the 3.7 2.3 2.3 1.5 1.6 2.0
activity would improve your
specific subject
understanding?
engage with specific
reflective activity

Was all the information 3.5 1.7 3.5 3.5 2.8 2.5
required provided to you in
the project text?
to give subject specific
information
to give generic skills
information

19

6. Results 2010

CRITERIA S.D. S.D.
STUDENTS STAFF STUDENTS STAFF

Did comparison with other 2.3 1.1 2.5 0.7 N/A 2.5
groups/students help
students to reflect on their
work?

Did reflection help students 2.8 2.6 3.5 0.7 N/A 4.5
improve their
understanding?
Did students agree with the 3.6 2.6 N/A N/A N/A
staff assessment?
Did the activity improve N/A 3.0 1.7 N/A 3.5
students generic skills?
Did the activity improve 2.6 1.7 3.3 2.5 N/A 3.5
students subject specific
skills?

Did you prefer the time N/A N/A 6.8 N/A
constraint in the O3 activity
to the open-ended Obs.
Sys. activity?
Did you prefer working on N/A N/A 3.6 N/A
your own in the Obs. Sys.
activity rather than in a
team in the O3 activity?
The Obs. Sys. Activity N/A N/A 3.4 N/A
improved my subject
specific knowledge more
The Obs. Sys. Activity was N/A N/A 3.6 N/A
at a higher educational level

Table 2: Results of student survey of PBL activities following implementation in year 1
(2010). Marks are awarded by participants on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the highest
mark. N/A means a question was not asked to gain this information. Statistics are based
on 21 student surveys and 3 staff surveys for the ozonesonde activity and 5 student
surveys and 2 staff surveys for the observing system activity.

6.2 Reflection on improvement to PBL activities in second year of implementation
In summary, results from the evaluation of the PBL activity in the second year of
implementation are extremely positive. In most cases where the evaluation of the 2009
module revealed that the activity had been successful this positive result was maintained.
In the areas where the 2009 evaluation identified improvements could be made the
changes made to the PBL procedure have generally improved both student and staff
evaluation, specifically:

• The improved documentation and introductory lectures incorporated into the observing
system activity significantly improved scores in the first part of the survey, particularly for
20

6. Results 2010

students showing that they understood the task better, were able to quickly focus on the
task at hand, that they felt that the task was a reasonable simulation of a real-world activity
and that they engaged strongly with the reflective activity.
• The improved oral description and staff training for the reflective part of the ozonesonde
activity significantly improved the scores of both staff and students in this part of the
survey. Particularly pleasing is the gain in the mark for subject specific skills for both staff
and students.

Another interesting result of the second evaluation, perhaps related to the small sample
size and variation between student groups is the lack of preference for the time
constrained, ozonesonde activity in the 2010 cohort. While there was a strong preference
for this activity in the 2009 cohort, the 2010 was enthusiastic about the observing system
activity, but expressed no clear preference for this PBL style as opposed to the more
limited, focussed ozonesonde activity.

The 2010 control cohort which participated in both PBL activities also produced a number
of interesting comments and suggestions on PBL in general:

“...applying what you learn to a 'real-lifeʼ situation focuses oneʼs mind and gives the
learning/research , etc., a full purpose...”
“I thought it was a very good way to go, in that we got the benefit of people which much
more expertise. Also it was done in a relaxed way which was good.”

They also had some interesting thoughts on how PBL might be applied more generally in
their degree program:
“In Meteorology, it would be good to have more of this form of teaching...”
“...to do it justice, it should come at a time where other deadlines are not imminent.”
“Maybe with the final project a little more.”

Staff comments highlighted that this approach was only really successful with outgoing
and able students (a comparison between the two cohorts participating in the observing
system activity was quite revealing). The 2009 cohort which was socially dominated by
one student of quite low background ability did not engage fully with the exercise and as a
result the cohort had a worse impression overall of the exercise and performed more
poorly. The second cohort, which was generally of higher background ability engaged fully
with the exercise and were more content with itʼs learning objectives and had overall better
performance.

6.3 Consistency of evaluation using all three evaluation methods
As in the assessment of 2009 results, there is broad consistency between the three
methods of evaluation of the activity (questionnaire, staff interviews, student outputs). In
particular the improvements to the reflective part of the activity were echoed through all
methods of evaluation. This lends confidence to the overall evaluation of the PBL elements
described above. Although the student output mark for the ozonesonde activity is lower
than in the 2009 implementation and low compared to the overall course mark, more
detailed qualitative comparison of student outputs suggests that there was not a decline in
quality between the two cohorts. The change in mark is likely related to the change in the
marker as noted above.

6.4 Continue implementation of PBL in field course?
The two test implementations of PBL to the field course have generally been a success as
shown by the generally positive evaluation of the activity by students and staff alike. The
21

6. Results 2010

improvements to the activities implemented for the 2010 version appear to have produced
a robust methodology for both approaches which can and should be continued. For further
development, as suggested by a colleague from Leeds in informal interview, it would be
beneﬁcial to modify the ozonesonde activity so that more outcomes of the experiment are
possible. This would increase the diversity of student proposals and lead to a more fruitful
reﬂective portion of the activity. One suggestion would be to replace the ozonesonde in the
proposal with a standard additional radiosonde. For technical reasons, there are more
chances that this would lead to interesting and provocative observations, giving greater
scope for student creativity in the activity.

22

7. Conclusions

7. Conclusions and discussion
7.1 Overall reflection on the use of PBL in this module
In conclusion the experiments with a PBL approach in Meteorology have proved to be very
successful and have provided useful new content for an existing course in an innovative
style unfamiliar to students. In general students enjoyed the freedom given to them by this
approach and felt that it was a reasonably faithful simulation of a real-world activity thereby
improving their motivation for the task in question.

We plan to continue the experiment in future years and to seek to refine the methodology
used to improve its implementation. One idea for the ozonesonde activity would be to
switch the science experiment in question to one with more potential outcomes and
experimental strategies to improve the diversity of student responses and observed
features. Nonetheless, clearly the PBL methodology has an important part to play in the
module, coupled with other teaching approaches.

7.2 PBL in Meteorology more generally
More generally, I certainly see a role for PBL teaching within Meteorology as a
complement to our existing teaching styles. Teaching in our department is already highly
diverse and well regarded and PBL should be considered as simply ʻanother tool in the
boxʼ to help refresh and revise our teaching. I would not however advocate moving our
whole curriculum to a PBL or EBL style as is done in some disciplines and institutions
(particularly in the medical sciences). Since Meteorology represents somewhat of a
departure for some students from their previous background knowledge and general
approach to learning, a full PBL curriculum would not be able to provide the required
breadth and depth of material that students require, particularly in their first two years of
higher education.

If I were to discuss with a colleague the ways in which PBL might be useful for them I
would emphasise the real-world simulation aspect and its affect on student motivation. To
successfully implement a PBL activity they would need to think carefully about the kind of
activity they could introduce, if the students had significant training and maturity to deal
with this kind of learning and carefully design resources which provided adequate but not
too comprehensive background material for the students. As was evident from staff
responses, there is also a clear need to educate staff involved in the activity about the
limits and purpose of their role in the activity and the module convener should consider
how best to do this in conjunction with designing the activity.

7.3 Potential areas in which small PBL projects would be beneficial
As mentioned above, there are some clear benefits to a limited amount of PBL teaching in
module which could be incorporated into other parts of our Meteorology curriculum. Having
considered our program in general, there are a few obvious candidates for small tests of
PBL to see if the lessons learnt in this project transfer to other modules. All of these
modules are ʻadvancedʼ modules i.e. they would be taken in the final year of the students
three or four year degree program

Practical classes
Meteorology, as a large department, benefits significantly from a large number of well
qualified laboratory support staff who construct and run experiments either in our fluid
dynamics laboratory or on our field site. Since the equipment used is complex, the typical
model of a class is for the convener to design the experiment, for the support staff to
execute its construction and for the student to vary the parameters of the apparatus or to
process the output. This model is adopted for convenience but tends to leave the student
23

7. Conclusions

with little feel for how to design an experiment or the challenges of executing it. A PBL
approach whereby the student is set a problem and seeks to design and execute it with
the assistance of laboratory support staff could be an interesting variation on standard
practice.

Climate Change
At both BSc and MSc level students are taught the science of climate change in a
standard lecture based format. A module on similar material but at lower mathematical
level is also offered more generally to Reading students. In all these contexts, an
application of PBL could be tested. This subject is particularly suitable for a PBL approach
since a large number of high quality resources, particularly the reports by the
intergovernmental panel on climate change, exist which provide scientists new to the area
with a comprehensive but easy to access introduction to current scientific understanding.
A potential theme for a PBL activity would be for students to be asked to produce a
synopsis of the science for a government or a large corporation, a task that many of them
may be required to do if employed as climate change consultants or by government post-
degree.

7.4 A proposal for an improved undergraduate final year project/dissertation
As mentioned above, I think in UK taught degree programs which are typically highly
compressed in time and content the scope for broad implementation of PBL is limited.
Certainly, in Meteorology if a pure PBL approach to all learning was adopted then too little
core content could be delivered. That said, there is certainly scope for a broader
application of the tools and techniques of PBL to current programs to encourage students
to engage more fully with them and reflect on their own and other peoples work. In
Meteorology, along with the two examples above, the best example of this is the current
final year project which forms a significant percentage of the final mark. The current
structure of the project is:

• Student selects a project during summer term offered by research staff
• Student works on project during autumn term
• Short presentation on project to other staff (staff assessment and feedback)
• Student works on project during spring term, the majority of time being spent on
preparing a long (~30 page) document describing the project
• Project supervisor reads and comments on first draft
• Student submits project document (staff assessment)
• Student prepares and presents a poster (peer and staff assessment)

Although the current structure has some scope for reflection through staff comments on
work there is little else to offer feedback to the student or to allow them to reflect on their
own and other students work till the end of the project - by which time they are unable to
modify their own performance. To enhance the project, I propose to use some of the ideas
from PBL to make the activity more like a real-world case and allow students much greater
freedom to explore an area of science and provide feedback on each others work. A
proposed alternative structure for the project is:

• Week 5, summer term, student selects a staff member to work with based on their
research interests and list of staff research interests.
• Before vacation, meets with staff member to discuss some research ideas.
• Week 1, autumn term, student submits one-page research proposal to research
committee consisting of one staff member and two student members.

24

7. Conclusions

• Committee reads and assess proposal (10% of final mark) and provides feedback to
student by start Week 2.
• Student works on project with supervisor through autumn term.
• Week 1, spring term, student submits six page ʻresearch-paperʼ to student research
journal. Continues to work on project.
• Research paper is reviewed by two anonymous student reviewers. Staff member acts as
editor and communicates essential and nonessential corrections to student by Week 5.
The quality of the student review is assessed by the staff member (20% of final mark).
• Student submits revised six-page research paper to journal by end of week 8. Staff
member assess research work (50% of final mark).
• Student prepares poster for final poster conference. Assessed by both peer and staff
assessment (20% of final mark).
• All final research papers are bound into a final volume which is archived in departmental
library.

This system would move the project closer toward the modern, real-world practice of
meteorological science. Students would still be expected to perform an in-depth research
project but they would have ownership of the process at all stages. They would also learn
to participate in the process of constructive peer review and understand the complexities
of a peer-review system in which opinions on work are often different and sometimes
wrong. Finally, by producing a short, final document they would learn to communicate key
scientific messages and move away from simply adding all their results to a single
document. At the end of the project, an attractive and accessible record of research
performed by them and their peers would be available.

No doubt, implementing such a major change to current practice would be challenging and
would require staff members to reconsider the aims and objectives of the project. I feel
however, that it would also much better prepare our students for the world of work or
further study.

7.5 Reflections on course design in general
As mentioned in my first video diary (http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/3813) the process
of formally redesigning the Atmospheric Science Field course has been very informative
for the course design process in general. It has been interesting to be exposed to more of
the formal course design procedures adopted by other disciplines/universities. It is my
experience thus far in my academic career that this formal course design process is very
rarely adopted in my department or subject area. The typical process of course design in
Meteorology begins with course content and produces a course design which fits around
this content. There is little consideration at the outset of how the overall course might be
structured or how different teaching and learning techniques might be used to improve the
overall quality of provision. Most course design is similar to the project described here, in
that the course convener will adapt a previous module and make small changes to
improve or enhance that module. The course mapping tool is particularly useful in this
context, since it allows a ʻbirds-eye viewʼ of the course to be developed before making
changes. It is also useful to force oneself to consider the course from this perspective. I
hope to continue to develop courses in this fashion in future.

25

8. References

References

Atkinson, R., & Shiffrin, R., 1968, Human memory: A proposed system and its control
processes. In K. Spence & J. Spence (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation
(Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New York:Academic.

Carnduff J. & Reid N., 2003, Enhancing Undergraduate Chemistry Laboratories, Royal
Society of Chemistry, London.

Conole G., 2010, http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2971

Boud D. and Feletti G. (eds.), 1997, The Challenge of Problem-Based learning, London:
Kogan Page

Fry H., Ketteridge S. & Marshall S. (eds.), 2008, A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, New York: Routledge

Gibbs G., Habeshaw S. & Habeshaw T., 1988, 53 Interesting Ways to Appraise your
Teaching, Bristol: Technical and Education Services

Gijselaers, W, 1995, Perspectives on problem-based learning; pp 39-52 in
Gijselaers, W, Tempelaar, D, Keizer, P, Blommaert, J, Bernard, E & Kapser, H (eds)
Educational Innovation in Economics and Business Administration: The Case of
Problem-Based Learning. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Hmelo-Silver C., Golan-Duncan R. and Chinn C. A., 2007, Scaffolding and Achievement in
Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller and Clark,
Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107

Kahn P. and K. Oʼ Rouke, 2004, Guide to Curriculum Design: Enquiry Based Learning,
Higher Education Academy

Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E., 2006, Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based,
experiential, and inquiry based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86.

Kolb, D.A., 1984, Experiential Learning, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

Kuhn, D., 2007, Is direct instruction the answer to the right question? Educational
Psychologist, 42, 109–113.

Moreland N., 2005, Work-related learning in Higher Education, Higher Education Academy
Learning and Employability series.

Perkins C., Evans M., Gavin H., Johns J. & Moore J., Fieldwork and Problem based
Learning, Special edition of PLANET, http://www.gees.ac.uk/planet/index.htm#PSE2

Savin-Baden, 2000, Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stores, Open
University Press

26

8. References

Schmidt H. G., Loyens S. M. M., van Gog T. and Paas F., 2007, Problem-Based Learning
is Compatible with Human Cognitive Architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller and
Clark (2006), Educational Psychologist, 42, 91-97

Sweller J., Kirschner P. A. and Clark R. E., 2007, Why Minimally Guided Teaching
Techniques Do Not Work: A Reply to Commentaries, Educational Psychologist, 42,
115-121

Yorke M., 2004, Employability in Higher Education: What it is and what it is not, HIgher
Education Academy Learning and Employability Series.

27

8. Appendices

Appendix I
Documentation of Ozonesonde Activity

28

8. Appendices

Appendix II
Documentation for Observing System Activity
Introduction
During your time in Arran you had a chance to observe many different measurement
techniques and to see how they were used in an experimental setting. In this extended
essay you will now have the opportunity to use the skills you learnt in practice to
produce a design for a new climate monitoring station on Arran. You will spend this term
thinking about the design and reading around the subject before submitting a design brief
on Monday week 8.

Aims and design brief
The UK government wants to establish a new climate monitoring station at Loch Ranza.
You have been asked to submit a design specification for the station. Your design
specification should include:

1. A section outlining important parameters of the climate system that should be
monitored and why.
2. A section listing the equipment that would be required to measure these parameters.
You should include a rough estimate of the costs of purchasing and maintaining the
equipment you require.
3. A section describing the particular challenges of monitoring the climate on Arran.
4. A section describing how your monitoring station would contribute to overall
monitoring of UK and global climate, considering other land and satellite based
instrumentation.
5. An outline of the operational procedure at the station and how data should be analysed
once collected.

While on Arran you should think about the particular challenges involved in monitoring
the climate and the equipment and techniques used to solve these challenges. You should
also take the opportunity to talk to the lecturers from Reading and Leeds who are
involved in the course about their particular expertise in Atmospheric monitoring. If you
find some of the analysis you complete on Arran particularly relevant to this problem
you should take a copy of the analysis, figures or data with you for later processing in
Reading.

Your design specification should be no longer than 15 pages and can include diagrams
and tables where necessary. References should be included in standard format at the end
of the document. You should make use of the range of resources (including other
academic and research staff) available to you in Reading.

Helpful content
Some ideas for helpful content are as follows.
Textbooks in the Meteorology library
An excellent basic resource is:
Measuring the atmosphere, Strangeways, 551.63
Other additional background
Mountain meteorology, Whiteman, 551.69143

29

8. Appendices

The Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Science
There is also a large section on remote sensing under catalogue number 551.653

Web-based resources
The webpage of the global climate observing system organisation (GCOS) which
contains many useful reports and technical documents:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/
Met Office climate monitoring page
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/
General information and introduction to space-based monitoring from NASA
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
General information and introduction to space-based monitoring from ESA
http://earth.esa.int/applications/data_util/CLIMATE/

Journals with interesting content
More cutting edge information on methods for atmospheric measurement is presented in
the journals The Review of Scientific Instruments and Journal of Atmospheric and
Oceanic Technology. Articles are available free of charge from campus machines.

It is worth also searching other journals for more specific areas of interested, but be
careful to avoid a too broad search.

Tutorials
In order to help you with the project, during the Autumn term we will hold three, one-
hour tutorials. Please check your timetable for the time and location of these sessions.
At each tutorial you should bring along the work you have already completed and share
this with the rest of the group. We will also ask other research staff to attend and
participate in the tutorials to give you some additional ideas about what you might want
to include in your design specification. The project is deliberately open-ended and we
hope will allow you to be creative in the way that you work and in the resources you use
to plan your monitoring station.

Deadline
The deadline for submission of the report is Monday November 29th (week 8 of autumn
term) and should be submitted in pdf format to the Blackboard drop box. You should
expect results by Monday 17th January 2011 (week 2 of spring term).

30

8. Appendices

Appendix III
Blank questionnaires

31

8. Appendices

Appendix IV
Design of questionnaire
Activity 1: Ozonesonde launches on Arran
Student questionnaire
The student questionnaire is made up of 14 questions, 12 with numerical answers (and
space for additional comments) and 2 more open ended questions. The motivation for
each question is as follows.
1. Did the students have a clear sense of the problem before beginning the task. Some
styles of PBL allow students to define ʻthe taskʼ themselves. In this activity this is not the
intention so if instructions are not clear this could lead to valuable lost time and should
be improved in future.
2. Did the group format work well. An important component of PBL is the additional
benefits gained from this teaching style. One of these is enhanced group working. A key
part of this is the ability of the group to work efficiently on the task in hand. If this is not
the case then additional help should be given to focus group efforts early on in the task.
3. Did the students feel that the activity was realistic. Another important benefit of PBL is
that it should simulate practitioner activities as closely as possible. It is important that
the students feel the task is a realistic one in order for this benefit to be realised.
4. Did the activity also fulfill a core educational purpose. Besides the generic skills gained
in the activity did the students also gain subject specific knowledge. If this is not the
case is PBL the best approach here?
5. An important part of the motivation is encouraging students to participate in reflective
observation. The aim of the oral presentations is to do this by comparing their own and
other students work. Did the activity achieve this?
6. & 7. These questions explore how students formed their knowledge base to produce the
proposal. Our aim is that not all the information is contained within the text and that the
students will use other resources including staff to complete the task.
8. Staff should act as facilitators for each group rather than driving the discussion. Did the
students feel this was the case?
9. This question also assess the ability of the activity to encourage reflective observation in
the students. Did they feel that the comparison with other students work, required for the
assessment was worthwhile?
10. Having done some reflective observation can the students now link their thoughts back
to the beginning of the Kolb learning cycle and have a different abstract
conceptualization of how to approach the task?
11. Did the activity overall improve the students knowledge of atmospheric chemistry or
not?
12. Since there will always be multiple approaches to measuring the atmosphere, if the
students are genuinely linking their reflective observation back to more abstract
conceptualization I would expect them to disagree with this statement. If a majority
agree, then the activity would require additional elements to encourage this link.
13. Are the students aware of the approach to teaching they experience? This may
influence how they react to the teaching method. It may be useful to make the approach
clear at the start of the activity.
14. This question encourages the students to give more general comments about the PBL
approach which may identify issues not consider in the rest of the questionnaire.

Staff questionnaire
Almost all the questions in the staff questionnaire replicate questions in the student
questionnaire. The aim of the staff questionnaire is to assess if the impressions of students
matched those of the staff. The only difference is in questions 11 & 12. Here in the staff

32

8. Appendices

questionnaire the aim is to determine which sets of skills staff believe the activity
promoted, subject specific, general scientific or both.

Activity 2: A design specification for a new climate observing station
Student questionnaire
1.-8. The first part of the questionnaire repeats the questions from activity one. The aim is
to be able to compare students impressions of the two activities.
9. Did students feel that the longer more considered approach adopted in activity 2
benefited their learning or were the time-constraints imposed in activity 1 beneficial?
10.Did the team working aspect in activity 1 enhance the PBL approach or not?
11. As in activity 1, did the PBL approach also contribute to enhanced subject specific
understanding.
12. For this activity in particular, did the students feel that it extended their knowledge and
was at the higher, masters-level in comparison to the activities in the rest of the field
course. It is useful to assess if the PBL aspect here is important.
13. & 14. The students who will take both courses will be able to give a broad impression
of their feel for PBL within Meteorology and suggest how widely it might be used.

Staff questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to be very similar to the staff questionnaire for activity 1.
The aim of the evaluation here is to compare and contrast the impressions of staff
assisting with each activity to determine the positive and negative aspects of the two
methods of PBL introduced into the course.

33

Charlton perez pbl_met

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (14)

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à Charlton perez pbl_met

Similaire à Charlton perez pbl_met (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Charlton perez pbl_met