Active Learning in Introductory Geoscience courses

Introduction Most students in STEM disciplines have expressed concern about poor teaching specifically mentioning, dull courses, disengaged instructors, and unsupportive teaching strategies (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997; see also Tobias, 1990; Strenta and others, 1994). Seymour and Hewitt (1997) suggested that a thorough revision of teaching and learning in first year STEM courses would likely improve student retention rates (Seymour and Hewitt, 1997). This view was echoed by the National Science Board (2003, p. 20), which stated that greater retention in STEM disciplines ...will require modification of the educational environment, particularly better teaching and advising . . . More institutional resources must be directed to improving the quality of teaching, the nature of introductory classes, the design of facilities to support new teaching methods . . . Of the three directions highlighted by the National Science Board, design or redesign of facilities can be effective in improving learning (Beichner and others, 2007) but requires substantial institutional and financial commitments that may be beyond many STEM programs. Secondly, introductory classes at many institutions are often an integrated prerequisite for many other classes, which limits changes in the nature of the course or curriculum. As a result, improving the quality of teaching remains as the most cost effective, tangible, and timely improvement that STEM departments may impose to improve student engagement and retention. Despite recent articles that describe effective methods for improving learning in STEM courses (Ebert-May and others, 1997; Hake, 1998; Paulson, 1999; Crouch and Mazur, 2001; Wyckoff, 2001; Oliver-Hoyo and others,