Historical Case Study Development for Teaching Geoscience Concepts

This is the grant proposal that provided the funding for the development of the Historical Case Studies

Applicant: Dr. Glenn Dolphin, Instructor & Tamaratt Chair, (Geoscience)

Co-applicant: Dr. Wendy Benoit, Instructor, (Chemistry & Natural Science Program)

Geoscience Case Study Development Project

The goal of this project is to develop four historic case studies of scientists and/or breakthroughs in geoscience understanding. These case studies will be used in SCIE 331, the required science content course for B.Ed. students at the University of Calgary. The focus of this class is to help pre-service elementary teachers build an understanding of core concepts in science and the Nature of Science NoS. The historic case studies developed through this project will fit directly with the goals of SCIE 331, creating a meaningful and engaging contextual framework. We will also conduct an evaluation of the case studies in regards to their effectiveness in student understanding of the course content and use the results to improve the product.

Why Case Studies?

Literature suggests that students continue to maintain concepts differing from scientific explanations even after formal instruction (Sibley, 2005). Case studies have been used successfully in business schools, medical schools and law schools (Williams, 1992). Recently, some (Allchin, 2011a; Herreid, 2007) have promoted using cases as a pedagogical tool for teaching science. Reports have been quite favorable toward a case-based approach to instruction; making science relevant to students (Dinan, 2005), enhancing critical thinking skills (Yadav & Beckerman, 2009), adding to instructors’ pedagogical repertoire (Hodges, 2005), promoting students’ active participation (Camill, 2006), and developing students’ nature of science (NoS) understandings (Stinner, McMillan, Metz, & Klassen, 2003).

Project Details

The project will entail the design, implementation, and evaluation of four case studies over two years. Two student researchers (per year) will research particular scientists or breakthroughs in geoscience understanding and develop a story around this focal point (Allchin, 2013) such that students engaged in the case study will encounter science knowledge in a contextualized fashion that will help them develop stronger and more enduring understandings (Herreid, 2007). Modification and enhancement of the case studies will take place based on the analysis of data collected throughout the implementation phase of this project.

Project Timeline, Methodology, and Student Guidance

Student researchers (RAs) will be hired each summer (2014 and 2015) to develop case studies through the fall terms. We will work collaboratively with the RAs to ensure they receive appropriate supervision and feedback. Under our supervision, they will follow the Allchin (2013) outline for case development.

Select a concept
Find high quality historical sources
Identify important NoS features
Contextualize the scientific problem
Contextualize the problem solving
Profile the solution’s historical reception
Highlight the specific facets of NoS
Enhance with cultural/contemporary context
Develop way to evaluate student learning

RAs will receive a book by Allchin (2013), entitled, Teaching the Nature of Science. This book outlines important facets of the nature of science as well as how to develop historical case studies in science within the context of these facets. Allchin has also shared with us a timeline that gives structure to student case building within a single semester (a copy of his schedule is available upon request). We will meet weekly as a group to discuss each chapter (read independently by each student researcher) and how the facets emphasized influence the development of the individual cases. The applicants will also be available on an individual basis, as needed for student guidance and support.

Evaluation of the cases will take place in each subsequent winter term in Dr. Benoit’s SCIE 331 class, where student researchers will participate in the cases and revisions can be made to enhance efficacy.

Building the Geoscience Case Study Library

We have extensive experience developing and using teaching strategies such as case studies. Dr. Dolphin has spent fifteen years enhancing his teaching by utilizing recent advancements in model-based learning and the history and philosophy of science (HPS). He has created HPS-rich curricula documenting the development of the theory of plate tectonics (Dolphin, 2009) and is now expanding this effort to develop new case studies to be utilized for teaching other geoscience concepts. Dr. Benoit has used case studies in her multidisciplinary science courses for the past seven years. She knows the value of contextual framework case studies, which have given her a strategy for illustrating discipline-specific scientific findings while also highlighting features common to scientific investigations across disciplines.

We see great potential for application of these case studies by other educators and in different courses, both locally and in the broader Geoscience community. Our student researchers will have the opportunity to publish the cases in journals such as The Journal of Geoscience Education, whereas Dr. Benoit and Dr. Dolphin will develop reports of implementation and student experiences to be submitted to such journals as Science Education, Science & Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, and Journal of Science Teacher Education.

Currently, three libraries of science case studies contain only twenty earth science cases (out of a total of 600). This is a niche the applicants hope to begin to fill. This project will result in a concrete product of case studies that other instructors in the department, other departments and even at other universities, can utilize for teaching the geoscience and NoS concepts emphasized in each case; allowing for the continuation of the project even after funding has stopped.

Documentation of Student Researcher Experiences and Case Study Evaluation

We will structure our research project surrounding the development and refinement of the historical case studies utilizing Participatory Action Research (PAR) methodologies (MacDonald, 2012). Here, RAs have full participation within the study by helping to develop protocols, analyze data, and reflect critically on their own learning. Through the use of small focus groups, interviews, and personal logs of the RAs, we can develop understanding for the content and NoS learning that the RAs experience during their work with the project. We will operationalize NoS from Allchin’s (2013) table 1.3 “Summary of main areas of scientific understanding for functional scientific literacy”, and Allchin’s (2011b) table 2 “Dimensions of reliability in science”; the latter being used to inform NoS dimensions of the case studies.

We and available RAs will observe SCIE 311 students as they engage in the case studies, to gain understanding of the efficacy of each case and make appropriate changes, if needed. Evaluation of impact of the cases on student learning will utilize survey instruments, such as the Geoscience Concept Inventory (GCI) and Misconceptions-Oriented Standards-Based Assessment Resources for Teachers (MOSART), student work, and formative assessment practices. We will also document their experiences as they (1) guide the student researchers through the case-building process, (2) observe students engaged in the case study implementation, and (3) amend the cases in light of observed student conceptual development.

Disseminating the Results

We will ensure the final products are made available in science case study libraries that are accessible to the higher education science community. We will also utilize science department meetings, the Faculty of Science’s Science Teaching Forum, and other appropriate vehicles to communicate the availability of the cases. A report to the Teaching and Learning Grant Program will include the structure of the design and development phase of the case studies as well as description of case study implementation and amendment process phase.

References

Allchin, D. (2011a). The Minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, Published on-line http://www.springerlink.com/content/v42561276210585q/(accessed 1 March 2012), 1-19.
Allchin, D. (2011b). Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542.
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives & resources. Saint Paul, Minnesota: SHiPS Education Press.
Camill, P. (2006). Case Studies Add Value to a Diverse Teaching Portfolio in Science Courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(2), 31-37.
Dinan, F. J. (2005). Laboratory Based Case Studies: Closer to the Real World. Journal of College Science Teaching, 35(2), 27.
Dolphin, G. (2009). Evolution of the Theory of the Earth: A Contextualized Approach for Teaching the History of the Theory of Plate Tectonics to Ninth Grade Students. Science education, 18(3-4), 425.
Herreid, C. F. (2007). Start with a Story: The Case Study Method of Teaching College Science. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
Hodges, L. C. (2005). From problem-based learning to interrupted lecture: Using case-based teaching in different class formats. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 33(2), 101-104.
MacDonald, C. (2012). Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13(2), 34-50.
Sibley, D. F. (2005). Visual Abilities and Misconceptions About Plate Tectonics. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(4), 471-477.
Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jana M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12, 617-643.
Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Science, 2(4), 367-427.
Yadav, A., & Beckerman, J. L. (2009). Implementing Case Studies in a Plant Pathology Course: Impact on Student Learning and Engagement. Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, 38, 50-55.

2014 Teaching and Learning Grants Program

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Grant Interim Report

The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Stream involves formal inquiry projects undertaken for the primary purpose of better understanding student learning and how it can be improved, and sharing the results of that inquiry to benefit teaching and learning across University and disciplinary communities.

Project title: Developing historical case studies for teaching geoscience concepts
Principal investigator(s): Glenn Dolphin
Faculty/Department: Science/ Geoscience
Collaborator(s): Wendy Benoit
Faculty/Department: Science/ Chemistry

Project Abstract

Case studies have been a mainstay as an educational tool in business, law, and medical schools for decades. Curriculum developers, only recently, have begun to utilize such strategies in science education. Reports indicate that the use of cases for teaching science increases interest and engagement in students, and also augments teaching strategies of instructors using them. Currently there are only three major repositories for science-based case studies, internationally. Of the over 600 cases in these repositories, only about 20 are geoscience related, and none deal with plate tectonics - the theory of the earth. This presents a niche that that can be filled at the University of Calgary.

I propose to have students, in collaboration with geoscientists, and historians and philosophers of science, research influential characters or developments within the history of geoscience and develop historical case studies. In addition to telling the history, the case studies will also incorporate historically contextualized inquiry-based activities, allowing the students to experience "science in the making" while developing understandings in both geoscience content and the nature of science. This project represents an initial step of a larger goal that includes instructor professional development in the use of cases for teaching, careful evaluation of student experiences during the implementation of the case studies, and the development of a collection of historical case studies, within the domain of geoscience that is accessible to others in the university, across Canada, and internationally.

Your Formal Inquiry’s Research Question(s)

We really did not ask a question for researching, but if we did, it would have been something like this: Can we involve students in independent research and develop historical case studies that enhance the teaching of geoscience concepts and the nature of science?

Methods

We hired three undergraduate research assistants and with Wendy and myself, we met weekly through the fall and winter terms to discuss the development of each case, the pilot implementation of each case, and finally developing multiple presentations for disseminating our group’s work.

The meetings were audio recorded and transcribed, and RAs kept learning journals during most of the research period. We will analyze these transcripts for group experiences that could help inform future projects, and also help us to understand our own learning during the process.

We sat in multiple classrooms and took notes about instructor implementation and student experiences during the implementation of each case. These became discussion points at weekly meetings.

Finally, we sought external reviewers for the cases to verify the historical aspects, and maintain fidelity within the pedagogical implementation, and through other funding, were able to invite a visiting scholar to perform some professional development with regard to developing and implementing cases, teaching about the nature of science and then assessing such knowledge. The PD was held in late June 2014.

For Experiential Learning Stream Grants

We had a Scholarship for Teaching and Learning grant.

Project Findings

We have divided up his section into findings of the student researchers, the instructor, the researcher and the students who experienced the cases in class.

Student researcher findings
1. Emily Hurst (Death by the Numbers: The radium Dial Painter Tragedy) - What I got out of my research being presented in the classroom, was an appreciation of how relevant historical case studies are. In particular, the students were quick to draw comparisons to current day issues, which share common themes with the Radium Dial Worker Tragedy. Modern day concerns such as GMOs and chemicals in consumer products were highlighted and explored.
2. Simon Wiebe (The De-Mythologization of Alfred Wegener) - One of the things about this project I most enjoyed was the independence and self-directed line of inquiry I was able to pursue in researching my case. Being able to choose what was important to the story and having the opportunity to create something meaningful and coherent was stressful at first, but now I have achieved something I feel much more pride in than any other piece of writing I have created. Having more freedom to choose what to research was a refreshing change of pace from following a standard course curriculum. I found myself much more willing to put in the hours investigating material for this course than I was to study for my other courses at the time. As a result of this, I found myself with an overabundance of material, and I had to force myself to narrow my scope in order to get it done in a reasonable amount of time. This, too, was a valuable lesson. In short, having the freedom to choose what I would study and in turn teach through my case study helped invigorate my excitement for learning. I feel very grateful to have had the opportunity to work on this project, and am excited for the possibility of doing so again in the future.
3. Jessica Burylo (One of the Biggest Upheavals in Geology…That No One Ever Talks About) - I feel as though while working through my undergraduate experience, I can easily lose sight of the greater picture of what I am working towards. School becomes a monotonous rambling of doing whatever I can to get tasks done and stay above water. This project has shown me what it means to have work with a greater relevance to my life. For example, when I have to write something, it is a real proposal that goes to a real committee, and if I do well, they actually want me to travel somewhere to hear what I have to say. This makes me unbelievably excited to finish my undergraduate degree, not so I can finish doing school-related work, but so I can keep doing school-related work with a greater purpose.
Instructor findings
1. Wendy Benoit – The historical case studies built by the undergraduate research assistants provided rich groundwork for engaging students in my classroom in open discussions about science and the nature of science. These open discussions were a forum where I learned a great deal about how my students perceive science, how well they can articulate their ideas, and how well they can apply these principles to new situations. The flexible format of the case studies allowed for the development of activities where students would need to confront the key scientific issues; through these activities, they took strong ownership of the ideas and were insightful in how smoothly they could transfer one (historical) concept to give a modern example. The focus of our implementation efforts was in the classroom environment; however, it was also helpful when considering how out-of-class assignments and term projects could be connected and supported. For example, one major component of the students’ term projects is to explain how scientists have approached a particular question or problem. This is always a difficult aspect to target, as their past experiences often frame science as drawing on a body of set, known facts (with little thought given to what was actually done to determine these “facts”). Through the case study approach, students were immersed in examples of how scientific work was done by individuals, as well as how the life circumstances of these individuals impacted their work. More so than in previous course iterations, I was impressed with how well this group of students was able to describe or highlight (in class and in their term projects) how scientists figured things out.
2. Glenn Dolphin Even having just implemented one historical case study in my own course, several students commented in a positive way (in our teaching evaluation questionnaire) about its implementation. I have been teaching with history and case study-type lessons for a long time, but never in such a large venue (over 300 students in two sections). Though the class size is prohibitive of many of the hands-on activities, they did very much enjoy opportunities to discuss with their classmates on the types of issues brought up in the case. With the innovation and collaboration of the RAs, Wendy, and a colleague, Dr. Frank Stahnisch, in history of medicine, I also learned new strategies, such as possible role-play activities, using biographical sketches to generate discussion, and various other ways to get students engaged in their learning. I also learned how to modify many of these activities to use in settings of different class sizes. Most important, perhaps, this was my first time to supervise students in independent research. It has been, and actually, continues to be a very positive experience. Their writing has improved. Their understanding of how to distill the information down so that it maintains accuracy but is usable by students has also increased. They have presented to multiple groups of varying expertise in geology, teaching, history and philosophy of science, and have continued to improve that skill as well. It has been a tremendous privilege to mentor them and witness their development.
Students of SCIE 331 findings – Through the use of a brief questionnaire administered at the beginning of the course and then again at the end of the course, we are able to gain some insight to how students understand science prior to and then after administration of the case studies. The following summary will highlight understandings that seemed to follow through the course from beginning to end, some understandings that seemed to diminish and some that emerged along the way. We have not had a chance, yet, to assess content understanding of the students.
                In general students maintained that science (mainly having to do with “nature” the “environment” or “health”) was the result of observations, conducting experiments and collecting data. They often asserted that a characteristic of science was “better understanding” through processes that would “prove” or signify the “truth”. They often said that to come upon this ranking required carefully controlled and replicable experimentation. Also, where about one third of the students identified themselves as having “acted like a scientist” during a formal science class prior to taking SCIE 331, that number doubled after the course with the vast majority of those students attributing SCIE 331 as the place where they identified themselves as acting like a scientist.

                At the beginning of the course, many students identified themselves as acting like a scientist during activities such as baking or cooking. They cited activities such as “trial and error” “mixing ingredients” (like mixing chemicals) and “following directions”, and adhering to the “scientific method” as support for this characterization. They identified as scientists if they were working in a lab, or using “scientific tools” or wearing the clothes of a scientist (lab coat, etc.) Many also mentioned that it was scientific if it had some utility, bettered our lives or health. Expressions of these ideas, through prevalent at the start of the course, were greatly diminished or non-existent by the end.

                By the end of the course the emphasis from students about what constitutes science seemed to also include ideas such as the great deal of background research involved in developing scientific understandings. Their comments also place more emphasis on “measuring” aspects of the natural world as a way to gain better understanding of it. For the most part they saw good science as being “reliable” and allowed for “multiple perspectives”; the result of “asking questions”.

Critical Reflection

Through this first year of the project, I feel we have made good progress toward our goals. The co-development and implementation of historic case studies with a team of undergraduate students has enhanced the quality of learning environment I can provide in my classroom. The routine student input at all stages helped me feel more connected to students’ learning needs. This is one specific example of how student input can be woven throughout a course in a meaningful way. We (our team of 5, faculty + students) have already presented our work several times, within and beyond the Faculty of Science. We are currently using this term’s progress to refine each historical case study and prepare them for online (open access) publication. The intent is that the materials could be used broadly by others, and published in a way that showcases the flexibility of the cases (and how they could be tailored differently depending on a course’s specific learning objectives). Also, the literature supports the idea that when curricula are designed and then used by someone else, not involved in the design, that instructor does any combination of these three things with the new teaching tool: 1. Take it and use it as is, 2. Amend it and then use it, 3. Leave whole parts out (Brown, 2009). I got to see first-hand, how having the instructor involved prior to implementation can help the efficacy of implementation, but it also revealed to us that building in flexibility, and several possible tangents would give instructors more options to present to their particular classroom environment, according to their particular subjectivities.

In terms of the developing understandings of the SCIE 331 students within the context of nature of science (NOS), we see a trend toward better understanding, but the data also show were we could place more emphasis. We see students’ responses likening science to “cooking” or “baking” where they need to “follow directions” and “mix chemicals” during “highly controlled and replicable experiments” to be characteristic of much of their scientific experiences to date. Many stated such. Being a scientist was as much “looking like a scientist” (and using scientific tools in a scientific space) as actually performing the activities. Our hope with the case studies was to broaden students’ understanding of what it means to “do science” and “be a scientist” to include many more of the aspects that really are involved in the scientific process; imagination, creativity, multiple perspectives. We also seek to show that there are actually many “methods” to doing science, and that anyone can participate. We had a few students at the beginning of the term state that they would not ever picture themselves as a scientist. None made this comment after the course was over. We also wanted to emphasize, the very real political, social, and economic influences that hold sway over the direction of scientific endeavours. It seems we made some inroads here. However, students did continue to claim that science reveals some sort of ultimate truth, something that can be “proven true of false” and be the result of highly controlled methodologies and experimentation. This form of objectivism, or realism – the sense of a discovered Truth (big “T”) as opposed to a constructed truth (little “t”) will require further emphasis in the cases through more explicit and reflective practice.

Impact on Teaching Practice

Overall, involvement in this project has been meaningful to me on many levels, ranging from personal learning and growth as a teacher, dynamic interactions with undergraduate students (in my classroom and in research group meetings), and seeing the great potential working with a colleague (Glenn) who truly embraces the value of collaboratively created materials. The collaborative way we have developed these case studies, with 2 faculty members and 3 undergraduate research assistants, has been extremely helpful to me when thinking about framing the ideas for my classroom. Members of our team were often able to attend and observe when case study activities were taking place. This meant I could discuss the learning environment both before and after class with others who experienced it. It was invaluable to work alongside students throughout the design and implementation; they have learning insights and perspectives that are truly unique, and their enthusiasm for learning was contagious. Most of all, their perspectives made it easier to identify with what students in the classroom might experience, and having these thoughts in mind helped me foster collaborative, connected learning experiences for students in class. I have taught students about nature of science concepts for several years, but I feel this project has truly deepened my understanding (and thus helped me facilitate learning) in this area. Most of all, it has shown me the great power and satisfaction that grows from working with a truly open and collaborative team—I will seek ways to incorporate elements of historic case studies as well as co-create course materials with teams of colleagues and students wherever possible.

Dissemination of results

13 February The Science, Technology, Environment and Medicine Studies Colloquium – Teaching geology with historical case studies

6 March Invited presenter to History of Medicine Days, Foothills Campus. “Developing Historical Case Studies for Teaching Geology and the Nature of Science”

13 March Presentation of cases at FATS – The Development and Implementation of Historical Case Studies for Teaching Geology

2 April STF Presentation of historic case studies

16 April Geoscience Research Exchange (GeoRex) Three RAs present their individual posters

12-13 May Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning Conference on Post-Secondary Teaching and Learning

22-25 July – International history philosophy of science and science teaching group (IHPST) biennial conference – Four of us had papers accepted, only two student RAs will be able to go to Rio de Janeiro.

References

Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). New York, NY: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.

2015 Teaching and Learning Grants Program

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Grant Final Report

Project Title: Historical Case Study Development for Teaching Geoscience Concepts
Principal Grantholder: Glenn Dolphin
Department, Faculty
Glenn Dolphin – Geoscience, Science
Jessica Burylo (RA) – Anthropology, Science
Emily Hurst (RA) – Biology, Science
Simon Wiebe (RA) – Geoscience, Science
Wyatt Petryshen (RA) – Geoscience, Science

Project Abstract

Your Formal Inquiry’s Research Question(s)

How do students experience historically contextualized instruction, in terms of content knowledge and nature of science understanding?
How do instructors experience the implementation of historically contextualized curricula in the form of a case study?
What are the experiences of undergraduate research assistants (RAs) while they are researching and developing historical case studies for teaching geoscience concepts?

Methods

To get at content learning in students, the PI observed and recorded a group of students in a Natural Science Program course during the implementation of a single case study. He used qualitative methods to analyze the transcripts of recorded conversations, field notes he took during the class, and student work produced during and as a result of the case study. In this same class, the instructor asked the students two questions – “The last time I acted like a scientist, I was doing…I felt like this because…” and “The last time I saw a news article about science, it was about…It was about science because…” – at both the beginning of the course and by the end of the course. Through grounded theory, the PI developed a set of themes form the responses and then looked at the number of times students presented these themes prior to the implementation of the cases compared to the number of times presented after the series of case studies.
The PI conducted a brief interview to probe the understanding of instructors after having presented a case or cases in her/his class. Instructors also wrote out their experiences for the PI.
The members of the case study team met on a weekly basis. The PI recorded each of these meetings during the first year of the project and had the recordings transcribed. The PI also had the RAs keep reflective journal entries during the first year of the project. All members of the case study team met weekly the second year to analyze the transcriptions and reflective journal entries in an attempt to understand their process of creation of the case studies.

For Experiential Learning Stream Grants

For students experiencing the historical case studies, the narratives of the case studies were punctuated with inquiry type activities (putting continental puzzles together, exploring elastic rebound with an “earthquake machine”, building stratigraphic cross sections, projecting the location of an impact crater, and drawing a topographic map of seafloor bathymetry data, to name a few). The case narrative set up the activities and then contextualized them when the narratives picked back up.

The RAs had the experience of working individually and in groups, doing research and creating the case study narrative. They also observed their case being implemented in one or more classes, during which they kept notes about case effectiveness for later editing. The RAs also had experience presenting their cases with many different audiences from within the university population all the way to an international conference in Brazil.

Project Findings

In terms of learning content, the cases engaged students greatly, facilitating many discussions about social issues that were informed by the content material. In places where learning of the content seemed to be hindered, the cause of that hindrance appears to be the use of metaphor. The scientific metaphor “plate” in tectonic plate holds a specific meaning for an expert, but something much different (and much more common – ceramic plate) to novices.

Student understandings of the nature of science starting out as very scientistic, and from an objectivist epistemological standpoint, seemed to soften a bit after the case experiences. For instance, students ideas that doing science is akin to following directions, like when baking, or requires the use of “scientific clothing” diminished and they began to realize that science is about answering questions, entertains multiple perspectives, and requires much research. Though, they did maintain that science was mainly about conducting experiments to “prove the truth” about something.

We found that the RAs developed a better understanding of the nature of science. We also found that they viewed case as different from a term paper because it was going to be used in a REAL audience. This put pressure of the RAs to produce quality work. Also, by working as a team, they became constructive critics of each other’s work. Where the PI played this role mainly in the beginning of the project, the RAs soon had the confidence to assert their own ideas in a constructive manner in response to their peers’ request. I think these last findings were probably the most important/reflected the most learning, or most useful learning for students.

Critical Reflection

We certainly achieved what we set out to achieve. When they are finished, reviewed and refined, we will have seven geology-focussed historical case studies. Many have already been used in some introductory classes. Once they are complete and published to the internet, we will direct others who teach secondary and post-secondary geology to use them and send us feedback on their efficacy. The structure set up in each of the cases engages students by placing them “in the history” of an idea and then asks them to use the information given to them to make decisions about new scientific understandings. We found that students readily associated many of the historical themes to their modern-day lives.

We also learned that when assignments for students are going to be used in the “real world”, as opposed to just being read by the instructor for a grade, they are more engaged with the assignment and place much more emphasis on the quality of the product. This could be used as a strategy by instructors (see “Impact on Teaching Practice” below).

Impact on Teaching Practice

I am currently developing a course that I will be teaching in Fall 2016. The course is our introductory Geology (service) course for non-science majors. I will be approaching the teaching of the course content from this historical perspective. Having these case studies will allow me to continue to implement and modify them over iterations of the course. The use of the cases has also impressed upon me the importance of small group discussion for the learning process. I’m hoping to be able to keep this aspect of the cases strong even though the class will have about 400 students in it.

Another course that I will be teaching (and will be new to the Department of Geosciences) will be a history and philosophy of geology course. Part of the assessment of the course will be students developing other historical case studies throughout the term. My experiences working with the RAs will help me to stay more organized and especially place emphasis on the schedule.

From the initial analysis of the RA meetings transcript data, one of the major themes is that when a student project has a purpose beyond just the grade (like these cases would be used by REAL instructors for REAL students), the students put much more effort and reflection into the project. Developing this kind of “real world” application for assignments in other classes may also lead to this same enhanced engagement. That is what I would look to add to the extent possible, in my classes.

Dissemination of results

The following is a list of formal conference presentations and posters given since the beginning of the project. I want to also acknowledge that we gave a number of other campus presentations at the Science Teaching Forum (STF – for faculty of science), Friday Afternoon Talk Series (FATS – for geoscience department), and Science, Technology, Environmental, and Medicine (STEMs) Colloquium, located at the U of C.

Braiding History, Inquiry and Model-based Learning: Highlighting Creativity in Science and Science Learning through the use of Historical Case Studies. (Dolphin, G., Hurst, E., Pertyshen, W., Wiebe, S.). 2016 University of Calgary Conference on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching. 10-11 May 2016.
The Piltdown man. (poster) (Buryo, J.). 25^th Anniversary History of Medicine Days. 11 March 2016.
What killed the Dinosaurs?: A geological quest. (poster) (Hurst, E.). 25^th Anniversary History of Medicine Days. 11 March 2016.
…like hovering in a balloon high above an unknown land, which is hidden by clouds: Early to mid-20th century explorations of the sea floor. (poster) (Weibe, S.). 25^th Anniversary History of Medicine Days. 11 March 2016.
On the Path of Discovery: The Controversy and Science Behind Chicxulub Crater (poster) (Petryshen, W.). 25^th Anniversary History of Medicine Days. 11 March 2016.
Historical Case Studies for Teaching Geoscience: Braiding History, Inquiry, and Model-Based Learning ( Dolphin, G, Benoit, W., Burylo, J., Hurst, E., Wiebe, S.) Association for Science Teacher Educators International Conference, Reno, NV. 8-10 January, 2016.
Developing historical case studies for teaching geoscience concepts. ( Dolphin, G., Burylo, J., Hurst, E., Petryshen, W., Wiebe, S.) 114^th Conference Science Teachers of New York State, Rochester, NY, October 2015.
Images in the Dark: The Changing Perception of Radiation in the Social Realm ( Dolphin, G. & Hurst, E.) GSA Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD, October 2015.
The Demythologization of Wegener (Poster) (Weibe, S., Dolphin, G., Benoit, W.) 13^th International History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching Conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 22-25 July 2015.
The Geologic Upheaval of the 1830s that No One Ever Talks About. (Poster)(Burylo, J., Dolphin, G.). 13^th International History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching Conference. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 22-25 July 2015.
The demythologization of Alfred Wegener (poster) (Simon Wiebe). University of Calgary Department of Geoscience, Geoscience Research Exchange (GeoREx), Alberta, 16 April 2015.
The geological upheaval of the 1830s (that nobody ever talks about). (poster) (Jessica Burylo). University of Calgary Department of Geoscience, Geoscience Research Exchange (GeoREx), Alberta, 16 April 2015.
Radium dial workers: Radium as a useful tool and a deadly metal during the early 1920s. (Emily Hurst). University of Calgary Department of Geoscience, Geoscience Research Exchange (GeoREx), Alberta, 16 April 2015.
Developing Historic Case Studies for Classroom Use: A Collaborative Journey Between Students and Faculty Members. (Benoit, W., Dolphin, G., Burylo, J., Hurst, E., Wiebe, S.) University of Calgary Conference on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching, Calgary, Alberta 12-13 May, 2015.
Braiding history, philosophy and model-based learning in science teaching and education (Invited feature session). (Dolphin, G., Hurst, E., Wiebe, S. Burylo, J.). 24^th History of Medicine Days. 6 March 2015.
Using History as a Modern Tool for Teaching Geology. GSA Annual Meeting, Vancouver British Columbia, 18-22 October 2014.
Earthquakes and Mountain Building – A Demonstration Class. 10 ^th International Conference on History of Science & Science Education. Minneapolis, MN. July 2014.
Developing Historical Case Studies for Teaching Geoscience Concepts. 39 ^th International History of Geology Symposium (INHIGEO). Pacific Grove, CA. July 2014.