The following pages describe some examples of learning and teaching that we consider good practice. They are innovative exercises that involve a variety of learning and teaching methods and require active participation of students. A wide variety of transferable skills are also involved.

For more details contact Jane Francis or the staff member listed below.

• Level 2 Contaminated Land Studies: integrating business skills and science in consultancy
• Skills 3: Skills and emplyability challenge
• EARS3171 Volcanic Processes
• Advanced Engineering Geology for M.Sc.
• EARS3057 Case Studies in Environmental Geology
• EARS3 Global Geodynamics - poster project
• 2GS (Summer Project) tutorials
• EARS3080 Palaeoclimatology

1. Name of staff: Rob Raiswell

2. Module number and name: Level 2 Contaminated Land Studies: Integrating Business Skills and Science in Consultancy

3. Aims and objectives of the exercise/project/module:

To understand and cost the steps involved (business, personal and science) in preparing a consultant's report to assess the potential of a contaminated land site for development.

4. Student learning activities

Lectures and self study sessions. Module attempts to create a scenario where the student is in their first job, in a small (2 person) environmental consultancy, in terms of both scientific, business and personal skills. Emphasis on independence, taking responsibility for their own decisions etc and costing their time, whilst also acquiring (and using) the knowledge base needed for consultancy in the contaminated land area. Assessment is firstly via a desk study (25%) using documents on Nathan Bodington (relevant and marginally relevant). Students have to cost this exercise based on estimating their hourly rate (based on direct and indirect costs of a small business) and need to get this within an acceptable range. Students can seek help from staff and each other via a chat room. Consultations with staff outside the chat room will be charged at a senior consultant's rate, and this additional cost will be considered in relation to their own estimate. Second part of assessment is a more detailed Site Investigation Report, based on a filmed site visit. This report will have to integrate filmed observations with the desk study, assess the risks of chemical contamination from analytical data, and suggest remediation strategies.

5. Staff role

Course modified from one originally designed in Manchester Geology Dept. Staff operate in a conventional role initially, moving progressively towards more self-study and a senior-junior colleague type of relationship.

6. Time involved for staff

Difficult to estimate preparation time but with organising filming as well as course material would be around 60 hours. Once set up, preparation in future years will be minimal. Contact time is a max of 9 hours but maybe less depending on how they take to the self-study sessions. Not yet been through the course so assessment time unknown.

7. Your comments

Set up with funding help from Science Enterprise Challenge scheme.

NB This exercise is based on a MSc project by a student at Manchester University . For his MSc the student investigated the pollution caused by an old waste tip. He presented this research in the first part of his thesis. For the second part of his project he developed a training package for new environmental health officers based on his contaminated land site investigation. It is from this part that Rob et al have developed this undergraduate module. Why not try this in our MSc courses?

1. Name of staff: J. Neuberg, J.Cann

2. Module number and name: EARS 3171 Volcanic Processes

3. Aims and objectives of the exercise/project/module:

Most of the module is delivered in a traditional way, but we use the volcano eruption simulation exercise originally designed by Liz Parfitt to allow students to understand at first hand the stresses that you experience when you are a volcanologist on a volcano that is looking as though it will erupt. So the main aim is to give a realistic experience of something that they read about fairly extensively in the literature.

4. Student learning activities

The preparation for the exercised consists of a lecture on volcanic hazards, followed by the showing of a video on the Pinatubo eruption, shot at the time of the eruption, and demonstrating the sorts of complications and interactions that occur as you try to predict the behaviour of the volcano. There is a short session to introduce the exercise, followed by time for the students to organise their roles. The exercise itself is complete in three hours in the lab, and is located on a fictitious Caribbean island. During the exercise, students are divided into a number of groups: 1. The volcanologists, 2. The local politicians, 3. The local hotel owners, 4. The local inhabitants, 5. Journalists, 6. The local radio station . And there may be more depending on taste. These groups interact as the eruption proceeds. The volcanologists can get information on what the volcano is doing, and pass this on to the other groups, who respond. The radio station broadcasts interviews with key players and the journalists harass everyone. The class works as a series of episodes, between which they are told that, say, two weeks have passed, that this and that has happened on the volcano, and then are set going again. Usually the situation gets very complex indeed, with interactions very similar to those of actual eruptions. Because the exercise is compressed into a single morning, things happen fast, tensions rise, and mistakes are made. There is no product on paper; but there is a follow-up session in which the exercise is reviewed. The memory of what happened turns out to be very strongly imprinted in their minds. Assessment is through a compulsory question in the end-of-semester examination, which sets the scene of a different eruption and asks students to comment on different aspects of the geological and social interactions that happened or might have happened then.

5. Staff role

Liz Parfitt and Dave Peacock wrote the original material, made the maps of the island, and set up the situation. This took several days work. Each year there is the need for a fair amount of preparation, such as arranging for the microphone and loudspeaker for the radio station. The exercise works best when 3 or 4 members of staff are present to look after different aspects while it is running, principally to spur groups into action at critical moments. With less than 3 staff there it would be hard to run it successfully. Assessment is part of the marking of the examination paper.

6. Time involved for staff

Initial preparation took several days work, but the same fundamental material has been used for several years now. Each year needs (a) time to prepare the room for the class, (b) extra staff time to run the exercise. The preparatory class and the review of the exercise are part of the normal teaching time for the module. Assessment time is as for marking examination papers, though perhaps a bit longer because the question asks for more complicated responses than normal questions do.

7. Comments

The exercise runs very well indeed, and gives a very realistic and interesting experience. Naturally the quality of the role playing differs from year to year, but every year has its highlights. Students find it hard to draw directly on the experience of the exercise to write an examination answer, but clearly have taken it on board at a deeper level. Running the class takes several more hours of staff time than running a normal lecture/practical session, but it is enjoyable, and the quality of the student response makes the extra work well worth while.

1. Name of staff: Lucy Philip

2. Module number and name: Advanced Engineering Geology for M.Sc

3. Aims and objectives of the exercise/project

The objectives of the assignment (not necessarily in particular order) are:

( a) to build on team working skills.

( b) to develop other transferable skills such as time management, communication skills, computing skills, 3D visualisation skills, research skills and problem solving abilities.

( c) to learn new technical skills and increase knowledge base, building upon and revising knowledge acquired in other sessions. This will include flow-net analysis, use of instrumentation, data evaluation and provision of solutions to construction problems through formulation of simple designs.

( d) to help acquire engineering judgment and get a better 'feel' for problems in the field.

( e) to experience a 'real' problem a consultant may face in industry.

( f) to develop critical and reflective skills.

4. Student learning activities

Students work in teams and are presented with information relating to a leaking Victorian embankment dam. The info includes an initial presentation and slide show, a briefing note, two reports, monitoring data, papers, drain flows, historical data etc. The students have to use the information to decide where the leakage is coming from and the mechanism. They then have to do outline designs to correct the leak and detail any further investigatory work they would do and state any risks with their solutions. They have 10 timetabled practical hours spread over 3 weeks, and they are expected to work in their own time as well. There is also a presentation day. The deliverables are:

(a) Project report of the problem. To include: Identification of leak mechanism, justification and recommendations for remedial measures, selection of which may be based on cause of the leak, price, risk, buildability and environmental/health and safety issues. Details of any further investigative work that you may recommend prior to implementation of remedial measures.

(b) 15-20min oral presentation of results in practical session by one or more members of the project team. Teams should assume the audience has a basic knowledge of this embankment dam and embankment dam construction in general. The group should be prepared to take questions and discuss their findings.

(c) Group reflection comprising:

300-350 words on group reflection. This should accompany the form and should include comment on how the group worked as a team and on the technical content of the submission, having seen other presentations and listened to class discussion.

(d) Group/Peer assessment forms:

Assessment is as follows:

35% Presentation - assessed by tutor and other teams and marks averaged

55% Group Report - assessed by tutor

10% Reflection - assessed by tutor

In addition, each team and individuals within each team distribute the marks for each team (eg students may allocate less than or more than 100% to the other students within the group, so long as the overall mark adds up to 100%).

5. Staff role

Brought information with me from industry and designed the format of it. During the project I am available to tutor the groups during the timetabled hours. It works out about 80% time. When I first introduced project I evaluated it heavily and tweaked it around - now it just runs.

6. Time involved for staff

Prep time ~ 1.5hrs

Contact time ~ 8 hrs from 10 hrs plus 2.5 hrs presentation day

Assessment time - 4 projects plus collation and presentation of marks ~ 3 hrs?

TOTAL - 15 hrs

7. Comments

It works really well. The students usually comment to external that they really like it and it usually gets a very favourable mention in module review. The students always work well on it and produce work of high standard - it's a real life problem and it motivates them, although very occasionally they get frustrated by the realities of a real - life project (eg non-ideal data etc). The peer assessment within the groups I think motivates lazier students and it seems to work well - about 20-50% of groups do not distribute marks evenly. This year they had a few problems with time - lack of!

1. Name of staff: Rob Mortimer

2. Module number and name: EARS3057 Case Studies in Environmental Geology

3. Aims and objectives of the exercise/project/module:

The learning outcomes for the module are:

At the end of this module, all students will be able to (c= cognitive, a= attitudinal, s=skills):

• Describe the basic features of the planning system in England and Wales (c).
• Describe the role of consultants such as environmental geologists within the planning system (c).
• Explain the reasons for planning appeals, and the principal mechanisms by which they can be made (c, a).
• Provide detailed information on the key factors affecting planning consideration for open cast mining, including reference to the relevant legislation (c, a).
• Write a 'Proof of Evidence' for a public inquiry (c, s).
• Outline the procedures for a public inquiry (c).

In addition, students will have gained or further developed the following skills: (NB:* indicates that this applies only to certain teams or team members)

• Experience of being involved in a (mock) public inquiry (a, s).
• Teamwork skills, both within a team and liasing with other teams (s).
• Skills of constructing and arguing a case (s).
• Written presentation skills (reports, legal documents*, newspaper articles*) (s)
• Oral presentation (public inquiry presentations*, TV news reports*) OR précis skills* (s)

An objectives-content matrix is given below. The content is given in chronological order and represents the lectures (introduction to planning law, planning appeals), and then the individual and group work. There is a progression from learning knowledge towards using skills.

A table of specifications is given below. This highlights the relative importance of the learning outcomes. Outcome (d) is given the most weight because it is the basis for all the detailed discussion and negotiation, as well as the public inquiry and the inspector's reports (exercise 3).

4. Student learning activities

• Weeks 1-3: attend introductory lectures on the module and the planning system.
• For week 3: individual reports (assessed, 20% of module) on the issues likely to be raised in a planning application for an open cast mine.
• Week 4: divide up into groups of three to represent the different parties to be involved in a mock planning appeal (namely the mining company, the mineral planning authority, the local residents, an environmental group and the press). They are each given group-specific guidance notes and a document summarising the case of a proposed open pit that has been refused planning permission.
• Weeks 4-8: each group must build a case and write a legal document called a 'Proof of Evidence' that they will present at a mock public inquiry. They essentially act out the procedures that were outlined in the lectures. This involves work within their groups, and also requires meetings and negotiations between groups. They record their progress in 'casebooks' that are brought to the discussion/surgery classes in weeks 5 to 8 for marking (assessed: 10% of module). The students are only required to stay long enough to get their casebooks marked.
• Week 8: groups hand in their Proofs of Evidence (assessed: 15% of module) and then exchange copies with the other parties.
• Week 9: act out a formal public inquiry (assessed: 15% of module) into whether or not the planning appeal should be granted (chaired by a real Planning Inspector)
• For week 11: Produce individual inspector's reports (assessed: 40% of module) showing how they believe the appeal decision should be made.
• The Press group has a slightly different role. There are often two small press groups (pairs of students) and their task is to hound the other groups and find out information about the case so that they can write a newspaper article (normally one broadsheet and one tabloid) before the public inquiry (instead of a Proof of Evidence). They then combine into a TV news team for the inquiry, making notes during proceedings and then presenting a TV news report about the case after the enquiry (and following a short break for preparation).

5. Staff role

• Design, in conjunction with Planning Inspectorate.
• 3 introductory lectures, then checking on progress during discussion/surgery classes and watching public inquiry at end.
• Assessment of student work (three written exercises, casebooks (during discussion/surgery classes) and public inquiry performance).
• Acting as a facilitator for student learning rather than a teacher.
• Collection and evaluation of feedback at end of module.

6. Time involved for staff

• Preparation time: several days to get the module ready to run initially. Once set up, minimal preparation required each year (just need to check updates to legislation).
• Contact time: Up to 11 hours, but usually less (c. 8.5). 3 hours lectures, up to 5 hours discussion/surgery sessions, 3 hour public inquiry.
• Assessment time: Approx. 7 hours. The nature of the module means that it is difficult to reduce this time.

7. Comments

• Worked really well. Excellent feedback from students (mean score across all aspects 4.7/5!).
• Standard of student work was good (final marks range 56-73%, mean 63%).
• Efficient use of staff time once module prepared.
• Only problem was clash of several out-of-class assessments with project write-ups. Module will move to Semester 2 next year, which makes more sense since it is supposed to be a climactic part of the course.
• Mock public inquiry was a real highlight, with superb effort and performances by all students. Planning Inspector was extremely impressed.

1. Name of staff:

Marge Wilson, Rob Butler, Greg Housman

2. Module number and name: EARS3 Global Geodynamics - poster project

3. Aims and objectives of the exercise/project/module:

Weeks 6-8 (Part 2) of the module focuses on the Geodynamic Evolution of the Central Tethyan Province .

Aim: To produce an integrated study of the geodynamic evolution of the Eastern Mediterranean - Red Sea-Dead Sea -East African Rift system, related to the closure of the Neo-Tethys Ocean .

Students are told that when they leave this department almost all future employers will expect them to be able to work as part of a team (often a multi-disciplinary one), to be able to evaluate observational data critically and to present the results of their work clearly and concisely. These are generic transferable skills. During the poster project they are given some instruction on the problems of working in teams and an opportunity to evaluate their own personal characteristics as a team player.

4. Student learning activities:

The class is divided into groups each containing 5-6 students. Each group is given a Project Pack containing copies of 6 key journal articles and appropriate instructions. Each group produces a poster summarising the work of the group on a particular topic. One member of the group gives a 5 minute oral presentation to the rest of the class about their work. All of the posters are displayed in Teaching Labs. 1 & 2 immediately after the submission deadline and there is a two hour, conference-style "poster session" during which students have the opportunity to talk to all of the "poster presenters" about their work. The posters are moved to the display boards in the foyer on Level 9 for at least a week. The work involved in producing the posters consolidates the ideas and concepts introduced in Part 1 of the course. The students are expected to study and make detailed notes on all of the posters and are expected to be able to answer examination questions on this material.

Assessment of group activities is based upon the poster presentation. Each group is required to submit an evaluation of the contribution of each group member to the project, including the preparation of the final poster. No contribution to the group work - no marks! (25% of total module mark)

5/6. Staff role

Preparation time: about 3 hours each staff member (x3)

Contact time: 3 academic staff (Wilson, Butler , Houseman) for 4 hours (2 hours each for consultation with Project Groups plus 2 hours each for Poster Session- plus 1 hour each for poster marking

7. Comments

Has worked well with students in the past. Good team building exercise - I split them in random groups this time - which the students said they preferred.

1. Name of staff: Geoffrey Lloyd

2. Module number and name : 2GS (Summer Project) tutorials

3. Aims and objectives of the exercise/project/module:

To prepare students for, and to teach the specific mapping & data collection skills involved in, their (structural-based) summer mapping projects via a web-based 'virtual field mapping class'.

4. Student learning activities:

Students construct a geological map from relevant field data (e.g. rock type, dip/strike, fossils, structure, etc.) provided on a 'daily' (actually tutorial) basis, from which they evaluate the stratigraphy & structure of the 'area'. They then collect strain and microstructural data observed at specific localities, from which they derive a structural history for the 'area'. The 'field trip' runs throughout Semester 2. Each 'day' they add additional information to the map. The exercise is treated like a real field class and therefore forms part of a progressive learning curve teaching the students how to collect geological data in the field and to prepare a final map product, including incorporating 'mini-projects'.

5. Staff role:

Design of the 'field trip' & web authoring - the effort part. Once produced, the 'field-trip' is self-explanatory. Solutions to specific aspects are available via the web when appropriate. Work is assessed on a tutorial (fortnightly) time-table (i.e. each 'day' of the 'trip'). The concept will be evaluated by both the students involved (as an effective learning aid) and by staff colleagues, the latter with the eventual aim of making an 'active map' for the scheme.

6. Time involved for staff:

The virtual field trip concept formed part of the EARS2043 module in 1997/98 but was abandoned as impractical given the large class size and also lack of web-based facilities at the time. Consequently, it took about a day to modify the original idea into a web-based version (with the help of the School web master). Future development time is anticipated to be minor and spasmodic, using experience gained from running the tutorials (eventually, it is intended to be wholly web-based with an 'active' map). Contact time is based around the normal tutorial system, which will also involve general tutorial aspects. Assessment time will be slight (given the small tutorial class size) but it is eventually intended for assessment to be student-based, using solutions published on the web.

7. Comments:

The exercise ran for the first time as a pilot study during Semester 2 of the 2001/02 session, using 4 students who were to undertake structurally oriented mapping projects in N. Scotland . The students involved were very positive about the initial 'mapping' component (i.e. boundary/stratigraphy/cross-section construction) of the exercise but thought that, although useful, there was too much work involved in the (structural) 'mini-projects' component. However, they did suggest that the work involved could be reduced considerably by making it a (tutorial) group rather than individual exercise. They thought also that having an 'active map' on which individual 'locality outcrops' were linked to web pages containing specific information (e.g. lithologies, dips/strikes, illustrations, etc.), which could be used to construct their own 'field notebooks', would be a very useful development/improvement and more realistic than the 'hard copy' notebook provided for them. These suggestions/experiences have been taken on board and appropriate modifications will be made during semester 1 of the 2003/04 session in readiness for the semester 2 mapping tutorial system. In particular, the use of an 'active map' will allow the students to construct their own boundaries rather than the (over) reliance on the use of the structure contours concept that is currently a central theme of the exercise.

1. Name of staff: Jane Francis and Paul Wignall

2. Module number and name : EARS3080 Palaeoclimatology

3. Aims and objectives of the exercise/project/module:

T o understand the past history of the Earth's life, climate and palaeoenvironments, by examining the evidence in rocks and fossils, by analysing predictions from climate models, and by examining the processes which influenced Earth's terrestrial and marine environments and caused climate change.

4. Student learning activities

Produce summaries of palaeoclimate information for two case studies in earth history. Involves independent literature research, comprehension and summary of frontier scientific papers, and organisation of information to match chosen topic. Summaries produced in the format of two scientific papers for the journal called Geology. Allocated 65 hours of module time.

5. Staff role

Initial design and set-up of material for student-based work (compile reference list and ensure papers available, set topics, make handout, design mark sheet for feedback - done only once). Staff present 5 x 1hour lectures each which summarise main topics being researched for guidance. Assess 1 set of written work each, individual feedback given on detailed tick sheet.

6. Time involved for staff

Preparation time for student exercise one-off (approx 10 hours). Preparation of handouts for module and each lecture each year minimal. 5 hours contact time each staff. Assessment time (60 scripts x 2) approx. 15 hours per staff.

7. Comments

Works well. Student product is good quality, especially because producing work that resembles a scientific paper seems to encourage better work. Students learn to format references etc properly and are limited to 4 pages of text. Only 10 hours formal contact time is good. Marking is time-consuming but the bonus is that it is flexible (we are considering asking for 2 articles but only assessing one at random, although students like the feedback from the first so that they can improve in the second). Highlights - the quality of the student work is much higher than when we asked for standard essays, little staff contact time, and more flexible use of staff time.