Download - GEES Subject Centre Home

Issue three January 2002 

January 2002 

Edition Three 

Geography, Earth and 

Environmental Sciences 

Planet 

Supporting learning and 

teaching in Geography, Earth 

and Environmental Sciences 

In this issue: 

• Work-based learning in the 

geosciences 

• Problems with anonymous 

assessment 

• Special education needs and 

disabilities 

• Pedagogic research: the new frontier? 

• Durham University Online 

• Workshop-based teaching of 

research design 

• Sustainable development and the 

professionals 

• Using class quizzes for weekly review 

• Examining home learning 

environments


P L A N E T 

C O N T E N T S 

INTRODUCTION 

Guest Editorial 3 

John Carpenter, University of South Carolina, USA 

Profile on Helen King 4 

LTSN-GEES Manager 

FEATURE ARTICLES 

Linking the worlds of academia and work: 5 

work based learning in the geosciences 

Jennifer Jones, John Moores University 

Breaking the feedback loop: problems with 7 

anonymous assessment 

Drew Whitelegg, Anglia Polytechnic University 

Disabled Students and Fieldwork: Towards Inclusivity? 9 

Mick Healey, Carolyn Roberts, University of Gloucestershire 

Alan Jenkins and Jonathan Leach, Oxford Brookes University 

Pedagogic Research: The new frontier? 11 

Seraphim Alvanides et al., University of Newcastle 

Workshop-based teaching of research design 12 

David Simm and Carol David , St Mary’s College, Twickenham 

One Year’s Experience of duo 15 

(Durham University Online) 

Barbara Watson and Daniel Donoghue, University of Durham 

Sustainable development and the professions 17 

Steve Martin, Visiting Professor, Open University and 

Annie Hall, Environment Agency 

Using Class Quizzes for Weekly Review 19 

Martin Haigh, Oxford Brookes University 

Examining Home Learning Environments 23 

Greg Spellman, Ken Field and John Sinclair 

University College Northampton 

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS? 

Disability Update 25 

Educational Activities, Developments and Projects 28 

The GEES Guide .... to some e-resources 35 

Webbed Foot 37 

Diary Dates 38 

Crossword 39 

INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS 41 

What is PLANET? 

PLANET is the bi-annual publication of the LTSN Subject Centre 

for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences. 

Its aims are to: 

• Identify and disseminate good practice in learning and teaching 

across the three disciplines of Geography, Earth and 

Environmental Sciences and present examples and case 

studies in a “magazine” format. 

• Provide a forum for the discussion of ideas about learning 

and teaching in the three discipline communities. 

• Provide information for readers on Subject Centre activities 

and on related resources, conferences and educational 

developments. 

© 

Copyright for all published material in PLANET is held by the 

© Copyright 

LTSN Subject Centre, unless otherwise stated. Contributors 

are permitted to use their material elsewhere without prior 

permission. However, the following note should be included: 

“First published in PLANET (date, issue number)”. Permission 

is required for reproduction or amendment by a third party. 

The opinions expressed in this newsletter are not necessarily 

those of the LTSN Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and 

Environmental Sciences. Whilst every effort is made to ensure 

the accuracy of the content we cannot accept liability for errors 

or omissions. 

Editorial Board 

The University of Plymouth-based team 

Steve Gaskin 

Editor 

Subject Centre Dissemination Co-ordinator 

Brian Chalkley 

Subject Centre Director 

Mike Sanders 

Subject Centre C & IT Manager 

Helen King 

Subject Centre Manager 

The Centre’s National Advisory Team 

Mick Healey University of Gloucestershire 

Subject Centre Geography Senior Advisor 

Neil Thomas Kingston University 

Subject Centre Earth Sciences Senior Advisor 

Jennifer Blumhof University of Hertfordshire 

Subject Centre Environmental Sciences Senior Advisor 

Geoff Robinson University of Leicester 

Subject Centre C & IT Senior Advisor 

© 2002 • PLANET ISSN 1473-1835 

2


P L A N E T 

Guest Editorial 

Research into Learning and 

Teaching in Higher Education: 

A Viable Component of the 

HE Reward Structure? 

John Carpenter 

University of South Carolina, USA 

Recently, I was privileged to be invited to speak at the LTSN-GEES 

Pedagogic Research Workshop in Coventry. I was very pleased to learn 

of the embryonic stages of research into the value and effectiveness of 

GEES fieldwork in higher education. This is an area of critical importance 

to the teaching of the GEES disciplines worldwide. However, too often 

there are obstacles to doing such research, and I would like to focus on 

one of these obstacles, at least as it pertains to the US. 

Traditionally in the US, institutions of higher education are placed into a 

hierarchical “pecking order” based on their research efforts, including 

grants and contracts from external funding sources (National Science 

Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Carnegie Foundation, etc.) and 

publications in national and international refereed journals. The heavily 

endowed Ivy League universities and a few other privately and publicly 

funded institutions are placed in the top tier. A second-tier would be 

other, less well-endowed public and private institutions, one of whose 

goals is to achieve first-tier status. The University of South Carolina, 

where I spent 34 years as a faculty member in the Department of 

Geological Sciences, is an example of such an institution. Below these 

top two tiers come other higher educational establishments including 

small, private and public liberal arts institutions, community colleges, junior 

colleges and technical colleges. 

The “reward structure” for faculty members in higher education is generally 

based on three components – research, teaching and service. However, 

the weighting factors for research, teaching and service vary significantly 

with the type of institution. As a result, the “scholarly pursuits” of faculty 

members vary significantly at each type of institution. The weight placed 

on research dollars acquired and papers and books published is highest 

at the tier-one and tier-two universities, with less emphasis on researchbased 

“scholarly productivity” at the liberal arts, community, junior and 

technical colleges. 

Furthermore, there is an often-unspoken “pecking order” in the types of 

research that are conducted, especially in the second-tier institutions. 

For example, for geoscience faculty members in such institutions, the 

traditional science research areas of experimental mineralogy, seismology, 

geochemistry, oceanography, etc., are the most highly valued when it 

comes time for the faculty member to be considered for tenure, 

promotion and/or salary increments. Most faculty members assume 

(correctly) that research into less traditional areas, including what is 

commonly referred to as the “softer” areas, such as science education, 

will not be valued as highly as research into the more traditional areas. 

But, if we examine this policy, it really does not make much sense. Science 

education research is often assumed to be “soft” because the data are 

based on human attributes, and therefore are less reproducible. But this 

is too often not the real reason for denigrating science education research. 

I believe that the real reason that science education research is put down 

is that it is “different”, or that it is too much like the research that 

“educators” or “social scientists” do. And we do have a pecking order 

within many of our universities such that the “hard” or “physical” science 

faculty look down on virtually everyone else in the university, especially 

the “educators” and the “social scientists”! 

But anyone who has done both kinds of research – subject-based and 

educational – can and will tell you that it is just as difficult (or even more 

so) to become expert enough in education to conduct high-quality 

research as would be the case for the more traditional research areas. 

Education research requires high knowledge levels in statistics, the subject 

area in question, and, the theories of measurement of the effectiveness of 

teaching and learning in terms of gains in cognitive knowledge and affective 

attributes such as interest, enjoyment and perceived value. 

So, how do we convince our administrators that this should be a viable 

component of the reward structure for faculty members? Those of us 

who have been involved in education research know the inherent value 

of research into teaching and learning, but this is an argument that too 

often falls on deaf ears. However, we can do it with the acquisition of 

grant/contract dollars and published papers and books based on education 

research. It is still not an easy road to follow because it is “the road less 

taken”. Success will come when academic culture and values change, but 

change in academia is too often slow. There is not likely to be a “quick 

fix”. But we must persist, because it is important to do so. We need to 

adopt approaches to learning and teaching whose success and value are 

supported by real evidence, and this requires research. 

Is any of this personal reflection of US academic reality an accurate 

reflection of academic reality in the UK? 

John Carpenter 

Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Geological Sciences 

University of South Carolina, USA 

jpawleys@aol.com 

Editor’s Note 

Readers may be interested in another article on education research written 

by Alvanides et al. in the feature articles section of this edition of PLANET. 

This second article attempts to outline some of the pros and cons of 

conducting pedagogic research in the GEES disciplines. In addition, a 

short piece by Healey, in the ‘Have you seen this?’ section, provides an 

overview of a pedagogic research programme to enhance the educational 

effectiveness of fieldwork, being undertaken by LTSN-GEES. 

DOWNLOAD 

TO YOUR DESKTOP 

PLANET is also freely available to download as 

a .pdf file from the Subject Centre’s website 

at http://www.gees.ac.uk. The website 

also provides general Subject Centre 

information and specific links to other 

learning and teaching sites. 

Pay us a visit 

PLANET is available in a variety of different formats - 

if you would like any further information please contact 

the editor: sgaskin@plymouth.ac.uk • (01752) 233530 

3


P L A N E T 

Profile on...Helen King 

(LTSN-GEES Manager) 

– THE – 

P L A N E T 

S p e c i a l E d i t i o n s 

P R O F I L E 

What does she do? 

Helen is responsible for the day to day running of the Subject 

Centre, including operational planning, progress monitoring, report 

writing and financial management. She is also able to engage with 

the specific activities of the Centre through running workshops, 

contributing to conferences, writing papers, representing the 

Centre on external committees and at events. Additional duties 

include ensuring that the Director’s supply of cream cakes is kept 

well stocked and that the Dissemination Co-ordinator and C&IT 

Officer have enough chocolate biscuits. 

Background 

Helen was born and brought up in Guernsey, she moved to 

England to study Physics & Geology at Manchester and stayed to 

complete a PhD in Geophysics & Geochemistry at Liverpool. In 

1996 she became the Project Manager of the FDTL-funded 

project on Earth Science Staff Development based at 

Southampton, during which time she was the secretary to the 

Earth Science and Environmental Science/Studies’ benchmarking 

panel. She is actively involved with the Staff & Educational 

Development Association (SEDA) and last year was awarded an 

Associate Fellowship. She is a member of the Earth Science 

Teachers’ Association and is currently the Deputy Editor of their 

journal, Teaching Earth Sciences. 

Embedding Careers Education in the 

Curricula of Geography, Earth and 

Environmental Sciences (GEES) 

Professional Interests 

Helen’s professional interests are mainly with staff and educational 

development and she is particularly keen on promoting and 

supporting continuing professional development (CPD) for those 

who teach and support learning. Despite moving away from 

discipline-based research, Helen is still an avid fan of the natural 

science disciplines and enjoys being able to maintain contact with 

them through LTSN-GEES. 

Personal Interests 

Helen plays inside-centre for Tavistock Ladies Rugby Club and 

tries to go running to keep fit (recently managing to complete 

the Great North Run). Since moving to the south-west she has 

become a keen surfer, though she seems to spend more time 

under the water than on it! 

Helen King 

LTSN-GEES 

hking@plymouth.ac.uk 

Case Studies in Problem-based Learning 

(PBL) from Geography, Earth and 

Environmental Sciences 

If you would like additional 

hard back copies of Planet then 

please contact the Subject 

Centre: info@gees.ac.uk 

4


P L A N E T 

FEATURE ARTICLES 

Linking the worlds of academia 

and work: work based learning 

in the geosciences 

Jennifer Jones 

Liverpool John Moores University 

Abstract 

A combination of government initiatives and the needs of undergraduates 

now requires higher education to form closer links with employers. Some 

geoscience departments have a history of offering sandwich placements, but 

these were invariably not accredited. Work based learning modules, based on 

short placements, can provide a means of enabling undergraduates to 

undertake accredited learning in the workplace. This paper reports on a 

model of work based learning in the geosciences that provides accredited 

workplace experiences that enable students to link theory to practice. 

Developments in higher education in the last decade have featured a 

growing recognition of the need to link higher education with the 

workplace. Some have suggested that the UK is ‘in the vanguard’ on the 

employability issue (Harvey, 1999). The National Committee of Inquiry 

into Higher Education (Dearing report) (1997) recommended that 

enhancing the employability of graduates is a key task for education. The 

following year the DfEE (1998) defined ‘employability’ as a state that 

encompasses traditional intellectual skills, key skills, personal attributes, 

and knowledge about how organisations work. Related to this, Harvey 

(1999) has argued that the primary goal of higher education is to “transform 

students by enhancing their knowledge, skills, attitudes and abilities while 

simultaneously empowering them as lifelong critical, reflective learners”. 

Learning in a relevant workplace enables students to be transformed by 

linking theories to real world contexts. This invariably motivates the students 

as they have a sense that their skills and knowledge are relevant and 

valued. Careful structuring of work based learning modules and the 

associated assessment activities can also empower the students by 

developing their skills as critical and reflective learners. Work based learning 

then has the potential and capacity to develop traditional intellectual and 

key skills whilst simultaneously enhancing personal attributes (confidence, 

maturity, initiative, resourcefulness). 

Work based learning in the geosciences at Liverpool JMU takes the form 

of two Level 3 modules. Work based Learning for Academic Credit 

operating in the School of Biological and Earth Sciences (BES) is available 

to students on degree programmes in Earth Sciences, Geology and Physical 

Geography. Work-Based Learning in the Centre for Social Science (CSOC) 

is available to students on BA/BSc programmes in Geography. The modules 

are offered as alternatives to the traditional research-based honours 

project/dissertation. Both modules have their origin in the Liverpool model 

of work based learning (Jackson, 1995), which was developed in the early 

1990s from a project sponsored by the then Employment Department. 

The purpose of the project was to develop a model whereby 

undergraduates could achieve some of their learning in the workplace 

and then include that learning for assessment and accreditation. The project 

developed from work carried out by a consortium of the University of 

Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Chester College. Their 

goal was to develop a framework that was both academically robust, and 

sufficiently flexible to allow its adaptation to different disciplines and 

structures. A key element of the model was that a common set of learning 

5 

outcomes was defined. These could be applied to all placements and 

so provide a structure for ensuring academic rigour across all disciplines. 

The outcomes stated that on completion of their placement students 

should be able to: 

· Demonstrate a knowledge of working practices in a selected 

employer site; 

· Assess how an organisation achieves its aims with reference to 

the structure of internal management and the definition of staff 

responsibilities; 

· Explain the economic/environmental context within which an 

organisation operates; 

· Demonstrate the basic skills required for the completion of workrelated 

tasks and activities; 

· Evaluate the experiential learning in the light of concepts relevant 

to the degree programme curriculum; 

· Reflect on and monitor their experience and identify personal 

development. 

The module was designed with an inherent flexibility to accommodate 

the varying needs of students and employers. Students are required 

to spend a minimum of 135 hours in the placement. Many students 

undertake their placement during the vacation between Levels 2 and 

3. Others undertake 10 full days in the placement prior to the start 

of their Level 3 study and continue to learn in the workplace on a 1 

day per week basis until the requisite hours are achieved. Yet others 

commence the placement early in semester 1 of Level 3 and visit 1-2 

days per week throughout the semester until 135 hours has been 

spent in the workplace. The work based learning process comprises 

several stages: 

· Acquisition of an appropriate placement; 

· Production of a learning agreement; 

· Completion of the placement; 

· Assessment of the evidence of learning. 

Acquisition of a placement 

The criterion used to identify a suitable placement is primarily that 

the learning that the student will achieve must relate to the aims and 

objectives of their degree programme. Types of placements undertaken 

by geoscience students have included Environment Agency, water 

companies, local authorities (environmental health or planning 

departments), oil and gas industry, consultancies etc. Most students 

find their own placements with guidance from the module leader, but 

the School has developed a database of placement providers that can 

serve as a starting point in their search for suitable placement 

opportunities. Once the module had operated for a few years, a 

cohort of employers accrued who expressed a willingness to offer 

placements annually: this enhances the number of placements available. 

Production of the learning agreement 

A learning agreement is pivotal to the process. It identifies explicitly 

the tasks that the student will undertake in the placement. It also 

serves to ensure comparability across the different placements. This 

process is underpinned by a Level 2 module, Scientific Project 

Management, in which those students who are committed to work 

based learning prepare a draft of their learning agreement. Guidelines 

on preparation of the learning agreement are available on the university 

intranet. The agreement used in BES is similar to that used in CSOC. 

It lists the learning outcomes, but Learning Outcome 4 (Demonstrate 

the higher skills and learning required for the completion of workrelated 

tasks and activities) is specific to each student’s placement.


P L A N E T 

This will comprise a list of the tasks to be completed using appropriate 

level descriptors. In addition, during the course of the placement, the 

student is required to reflect on “How will I learn?” and “How will I 

demonstrate what I have learnt?”. Thus, they are encouraged to perceive 

the complete process as a continuum of learning. 

Completion of the placement 

Management of the placement is achieved by the tripartite relationship 

of student-workplace mentor-university tutor. Liverpool JMU developed 

a Code of Practice for Work-based Learning that coincidentally embodies 

many of the precepts of the newly published QAA guidelines for 

placements (http://www.qaa.ac.uk/public/cop/COPplacementFinal/ 

letter.htm). The code identifies the respective roles of the student, mentor 

and tutor before, during and after the placement. Students meet regularly 

with their tutor to demonstrate their progress with the completion of 

the portfolio. The portfolio is submitted in semester 2 with the seminar 

presentations taking place one week later. 

Assessment of the learning 

Assessment is by submission of a portfolio of evidence of learning (worth 

85% module mark) and presentation of a seminar (worth 15% module 

mark). The nature of the material presented in the portfolios will be 

diverse according to the variety of placements. Invariably, it will include 

some reviewing of the scientific literature, data acquisition, handling, analysis 

and interpretation. Assessment of the seminar is based on the student’s 

ability to present relevant information professionally, employing audiovisual 

aids in an effective manner. 

Outcomes 

Chalkley and Harwood (1998) caution that geography departments cannot 

afford to ignore the “re-orientation of higher education” and should 

recognise work based learning as a natural extension to the skills curriculum, 

by building on a concern for student employability. CHERI/HEFCE (2001) 

compared the employment of UK graduates with those in Europe and 

Japan and reported that UK graduates view their degrees as a less useful 

preparation for their current employment than their European 

counterparts. This study relates to the graduate cohort of 1994/95 and it 

could be argued that they would not have benefited fully from the recent 

developments in key skills agendas and enhancement of employability. 

Our experience is that work based learning provides geoscience 

undergraduates with the opportunity to undertake meaningful learning 

in a relevant work environment. It enables them to link the theory and 

practice of their discipline. A Level 2 module, Scientific Project Management, 

facilitates the development of a range of key skills that may then be applied 

in the workplace. Post placement questionnaires indicate that the students 

rate their work-based learning experiences highly. The comments listed 

below are indicative of responses elicited annually: 

· “ a thoroughly enjoyable module and very worthwhile” 

· “the placement has benefited a wide range of aspects of my degree” 

· “it should be a core module for all Level 3 students” 

· “a varied and enjoyable placement with a good mix of practical and 

more academic tasks” 

· “made subjects learnt through university easier to understand” 

· “different kind of module to any other; excellent way to gain experience” 

Any negative comments relate mainly to difficulties in obtaining a placement. 

It is noticeable that in the earlier years of the module students also 

commented on the need to develop their IT skills to cope with the 

demands of the workplace. These comments have not been made in the 

last 2-3 years which suggests that efforts made elsewhere within the 

School to improve the acquisition of these skills have been effective. 

Evaluation of their performance by employers indicates a high level of 

satisfaction with their key skills and ability. Frequently, the module 

encourages students to focus on their career development. They grow in 

confidence and develop a real sense of ownership of their learning. 

6 

This will comprise a list of the tasks to be completed using appropriate 

level descriptors. In addition, during the course of the placement, the 

Geoscience graduates today are likely to pursue careers in diverse areas. 

Exposure to any professional work environment in their discipline will 

provide them with the opportunity to apply their skills and knowledge to 

realistic problems. Work based learning can provide such an opportunity. 

A major impediment to widespread adoption of work based learning is 

likely to be the availability of appropriate placements. Approximately 20% 

BES students undertake work-based learning annually. This figure would 

be higher were there more suitable placements available. Dearing 

advocated dialogue with employers and urged them to be “less reluctant 

to provide placement opportunities”. It is to be hoped that employers 

will respond to this exhortation. 

References and Further Reading 

Brennan, J. and Little, B. (1996) A Review of Work Based Learning in Higher 

Education. Higher Education Quality and Employability/DfEE, London. 

Chalkely, B. and Harwood, J. (1998) Transferable Skills and Work-based 

Learning in Geography. Geography Discipline Network (GDN), Cheltenham 

and Gloucester College of Higher Education, Cheltenham. 

CHERI/HEFCE (2001) The employment of UK graduates: comparisons with 

Europe and Japan. Report 01/38, A report to the HEFCE by the Centre 

for Higher Education Research and Information. Available on 

www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/ [Accessed September 2001]. 

DfEE [Department for Education and Employment] (1998) Skills 

Development in Higher Education. DfEE, London 

Harvey, L. (1999) New Realities: the relationship between higher education 

and employment. Keynote presentation at the European Association of 

Institutional Research Forum, Lund, Sweden, August 1999. Available on 

www.uce.ac.uk/crq/publications/cp/eair99.html [Accessed September 

2001] 

Journal of Geography in Higher Education (1995), 19(2), pp. 177-249 

Symposium section includes papers addressing a range of issues relating 

to work based learning in the geosciences. 

National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education [NCIHE](1997) 

Higher Education in the Learning Society. HMSO, London 

Jennifer Jones 

School of Biological and Earth Sciences 

Liverpool John Moores University 

j.jones@livjm.ac.uk 

Got a Question or Query? 

The LTSN Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental 

Sciences (GEES) is developing a register of interest database. 

This enables us to efficiently and effectively put individuals who 

approach the Centre with a learning and teaching question, intouch 

with relevant experts in our disciplines. So, if you would 

like to know more about computer-based assessment, integrating 

C&IT in fieldwork, subject benchmarking, running overseas field 

trips etc., or if you have any other question or query, then please 

contact Judith Gill at the Subject Centre on: 01752 233530 or 

email: info@gees.ac.uk. We guarantee a response time of no 

more than 48 hours.


P L A N E T 

Breaking the feedback loop: 

problems with anonymous 

assessment 

Drew Whitelegg 

Anglia Polytechnic University 

Abstract 

This article explores the difficulties presented by anonymous assessment in 

terms of providing feedback to students. Focus groups with staff and students 

suggest that the best solution is to mark anonymously but to give feedback 

non-anonymously. The article will be of interest to all academics in the GEES 

disciplines in institutions where anonymous assessment is commonplace or is 

being proposed. 

Introduction 

Anonymous assessment has been recently introduced at numerous 

institutions in an attempt to remove perceived bias. This article discusses 

findings from pilot research which suggests that though the case for the 

removal of bias is persuasive in marking anonymously (Bradley 1984, 1993; 

Baird, 1998; Major, 2001 - though see Newstead and Dennis (1990) for a 

counter-argument), there are significant problems if anonymity is extended 

to feedback. This paper builds upon a debate carried out on the Improving 

Student Learning (ISL) mailbase in late 2000, and formed part of a portfolio 

assessment for a PGCE (PCE) course currently being undertaken (1). 

The emphasis here is upon written coursework, in which feedback usually 

plays a larger part than in examinations (whether this is desirable is a 

moot point). Anonymous marking has a longer association with exams, 

though issues of identification through handwriting and/or recognition of 

a particular student’s philosophical approach remain. Equally, difficulties 

obviously emerge when applying anonymous marking to oral presentations, 

vivas, seminar contributions and, to a certain extent, dissertations. Problems 

with the latter are partly assuaged by external marking, but anonymous 

assessment of oral work, without expensive technological assistance, 

remains virtually impossible. 

Methodology and practice 

The project was designed to improve my own practice through selfinterrogation, 

informed by observations obtained from separate focus 

groups with fellow staff and students. These groups risked being selfselecting, 

but the emphasis was on generating ideas, not on representative 

statistical samples (2). Students had to have had experience of both nonanonymous 

and anonymous marking in order to make comparisons. For 

my own part, I was initially hostile to the introduction of anonymous 

marking for fear of its disruption to the feedback loop. Feedback was, for 

me, one of the major anchors of the learning experience and of 

approachability, an important reassurance for students 

(Grayson, et al 1998). 

I marked anonymously for one semester at my institution. Circumventing 

the issue would have been easy through referring to Student Identification 

Numbers but I resisted the temptation until AFTER the work had been 

commented upon and graded. To my surprise, I found anonymous marking 

beneficial in that it cleared my head of any expectations of what level an 

individual student’s work should be. The fact that I could refer to marksheets 

after grading enabled me to provide oral feedback to students when I 

returned work. Since then, however, my institution decreed that work 

should be returned anonymously, thus disrupting the chain further. It was 

at this point that I decided to research the issue. 

Issues emerging from the focus groups - pros and cons of anonymous 

marking are summarised below: 

1) Advantages of anonymous marking 

a) Removal of bias, or perception of bias, according to race, class, gender 

or personal feelings. 

7 

This was generally undisputed among both staff and students, 

though it was felt that bias may not always be negative (for 

example, through the use of ipsative marking to reward a student’s 

improvement). 

b) Removal of pre-judged expectations of student performance. 

Even if lecturers claim not to be influenced by race or gender, 

few would claim not to have been swayed in marking through 

the knowledge of students’ previous work. For example: 

“You give a good student the benefit of the doubt and you take a 

weak student and you may say it’s garbled, it’s not clear”. 

Joan, senior lecturer (3). 

“It’s very hard to escape that rigid mindset of what you expect from 

students and even if they don’t do as well as you’d expect, you make 

allowances”. Peter, senior lecturer. 

c) Removal of perceived bias or favouritism in the eyes of future 

employers. 

This is no small point. There is much talk in the press these days 

about grade inflation and ‘dumbing down’ of degrees. Students 

registered a desire to remove potential suspicion that lecturers 

pass students because of who they are and not what they know. 

d) Onus is on students to get feedback. 

One could maintain, as one student did, that part of being at 

university, and an expectation of future employers, is that students 

take responsibility for their own progress. 

2) Disadvantages of anonymous marking 

a) Disruption of feedback loop 

Lecturers and students identified this is the most significant 

disadvantage. Lecturers felt unable to do their job properly unless 

they were writing comments for individual students; equally 

students suggested better response and reflection if they felt 

comments were directed at them as individuals. 

“I acknowledge that if I mark an essay by Joe Bloggs, a good student, 

and I know what his work is like then that may influence me in 

marking. But in feedback I need to be able to say yes, this maintains 

a high standard, or I think you slipped up on this”. John, senior 

lecturer. 

“You do like teachers to write more personal comments - I still have 

trouble identifying where I go wrong but by the end of 3 years I hope 

to be able to do so. Especially coming straight from school, as I did, I 

feel like I need a more personal approach where lecturers get to 

know you as an individual. Teachers can help you more if they are 

thinking of you”. Linda, 2nd year undergraduate. 

A second issue is that of self-esteem and the potential damage 

done by objective, non-personal feedback. Obviously there is no 

place for comments that are mean, overboard, or sarcastic. But, 

as the groups suggested, different students react in different ways 

to the same comments (4). This is especially true for mature, or 

non-traditional students, at whom part of the expansion of higher 

education is aimed. Young (2000) has written of issues concerning 

the self-esteem of mature students and the focus groups suggested 

that anonymous marking could hinder the fostering of a welcoming 

and nurturing educational environment. 

“It would be far more difficult to target feedback blindly at a number. 

And there is also the issue of if you know somebody responds to a 

particular feedback approach”. Andrew, 2nd year student. 

“The irony is that anonymous marking could actually end up 

discriminating against the very people it is designed to protect - 

those who are more insecure and you will end up having those that 

do the best being the white, middle-class private school students. 

Anonymous marking has discriminated in a subtle way against other


P L A N E T 

groups, especially mature students, as the lecturer is no longer able to 

use their discretion”. John, 3rd year mature student 

b) Weaker students will not come for advice 

Both groups identified the need for students to be able to come 

to see their lecturers about work. Peter said he attached a note 

to returned assignments (sent ‘anonymously’) asking the student 

to come and discuss the work individually. However, other group 

members identified a problem in putting the onus on the student 

actively approaching the lecturer. A timid, shy or particularly weak 

student (or, most dangerously, all three) may refrain from doing 

so. 

“If [anonymous marking] is here to stay there should be more stress 

on getting students to come and see lecturers”. Linda, 2nd year 

student. 

“You should actually say to students that they have to come and 

discuss it”. John, 3rd year mature student. 

c) Anonymous marking leads to non-differentiation 

The student base is no longer the homogenous group it once 

was. Care must be taken to create a system that is open and 

equal for all, yet paradoxically this - as students suggested - may 

not be best furthered by a marking system that reduces each 

student to a number. 

“If you flip the coin the other way you end up discriminating against 

the very people you were intending to help”. Andrew, 2nd year 

student. 

d) Anonymous marking increases the distance between learner 

and teacher 

Students suggested that the close relationship developed between 

teachers and students through feedback was an extremely positive 

thing. 

“With essay work I think [anonymous marking] reduces you to a 

distance from the lecturer and you don’t form any kind of relationship 

where you are able to have feedback. With essays if you have had 

your mark and your feedback you feel as though there is a connection. 

With exams it is different”. Teresa, mature student. 

“It seems a very distanced thing. It seems to pull the poles further 

apart and make the marking system very disjointed”. 

Andrew, 2nd year student. 

Conclusion: Suggestions for better practice 

Feedback is not unproblematic. As Falchikov (1995) suggests, research 

has pinpointed numerous issues that militate against its efficiency. Clearly 

there are some ways in which feedback fails to have its intended effect. 

But the point is surely to improve the feedback. To that end, other forms of 

feedback are worth exploring. Heron (1988), Boud (1995), McMahon 

(1999), Reynolds and Trehan (2000) and Hughes (2001) have all 

persuasively argued for challenging the authoritarian nature of conventional 

marking through peer-, self- or negotiated assessment. The question of 

how anonymous marking could be squared with such innovations deserves 

some research. 

As far as anonymous marking of coursework goes, this paper concludes 

that the best form of implementation is to: a) mark anonymously; feedback 

non-anonymously and b) encourage as much student dialogue with the 

lecturer as possible regarding oral feedback. Obviously this has serious 

implications and practical difficulties for time-pressed staff, with RAE 

demands upon them, and teaching on ever-larger courses in which some 

students may be effectively nameless anyway. Again, how (and if) such 

difficulties could be overcome merits further research. 

Anonymous marking has been supported by student unions and the Quality 

Assurance Agency alike in the belief that it represents some form of Holy 

Grail of insurance against bias. Whether it actually corresponds to such a 

goal is open to doubt; whether it enhances the learning experience - 

unless there is a strict demarcation between marking and feedback - is 

even more questionable. It was unpopular with both staff and students 

who participated in this pilot project and there is clearly a need for more 

thought to be given to its role within the assessment process. 

Endnotes 

(1) While I readily acknowledge their contributions, individual participants 

to this debate will not be listed. The discussion can be found at 

isl@mailbase.ac.uk. The PGCE (PCE) course is for Higher and Further 

Education Teachers. 

(2) Some of the students were invited specifically as they were known to 

be keen on becoming teachers and I thought the discussion would be 

of benefit to them. 

(3) All names have been changed to prevent identification. 

(4) This point was brought home to me with a jolt recently when a student 

admitted that a comment I had put on his/her essay some time ago 

had caused so much distress that they were too afraid to approach 

me for further guidance. 

Acknowledgements 

Thanks to those staff and students who kindly gave up their time to take 

part in focus groups and especially to Maureen Fitzgerald, with whom 

many of these issues have been discussed. Thanks also to a very helpful 

anonymous referee of a first draft of this article. Finally, thanks to Tim 

McMahon and fellow students on the PGCE/MA programme, APU, 2000- 

2002. 

References 

Baird, J. (1998) What’s in a name? Experiments with blind marking in A- 

level examinations, Educational Research, 40 (2), pp. 191-202. 

Bradley, C. (1984) Sex bias in the evaluation of students, British Journal of 

Social Psychology, 23, pp. 147-153. 

Bradley, C. (1993) Sex bias in student assessment overlooked? Assessment 

and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18 (1), pp. 3-8. 

Falchikov, N. (1995)‘Improving feedback to and from students,’ in P. Knight 

(ed.) Assessment for Learning in Higher Education (London: Kogan Page), 

pp.157-166. 

Grayson, A., Clarke, D. and Miller, H. (1998) Help seeking among students: 

are lecturers seen as a potential source of help? Studies in Higher Education, 

23 (2), pp. 143-155. 

Heron, J. (1988)‘Assessment revisited,’ in D. Boud (ed.) Developing student 

autonomy in learning. Second Edition. (London: Kogan Page), pp. 77-90. 

Hughes, I. (2001) But isn’t this what you’re paid for? The pros and cons of 

peer and self-assessment, Planet, 2, pp. 20-23. 

McMahon, T. (1999) Using negotiation in summative assessment to 

encourage critical thinking. Teaching in Higher Education, 4 (4), pp. 549- 

554. 

Major, L. (2001) Royal boost for reform. The Guardian (Education), March 

27, p. 15. 

Newstead, S. and Dennis, I. (1990) Blind marking and sex bias in student 

assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15 (2), pp. 132- 

139. 

Sivan, A. (2000) The implementation of peer assessment: an action research 

approach, Assessment in Education, 7 (2), pp. 193-213. 

Young, P. (2000) ‘I might as well give up’: self-esteem and mature students’ 

feelings about feedbacks on assessments, Journal of Further and Higher 

Education, 24 (3), pp. 409-418. 

Drew Whitelegg 

Department of Geography 

Anglia Polytechnic University 

a.j.whitelegg@apu.ac.uk 

8


P L A N E T 

Disabled Students and Fieldwork: 

Towards Inclusivity? 

Mick Healey, Carolyn Roberts (University of 

Gloucestershire) 

Alan Jenkins and Jonathan Leach (Oxford Brookes University) 

Abstract 

Awareness of the need to develop inclusive practices which give equal 

opportunities to disabled students in HEIs has been stimulated by the Quality 

Assurance Agency’s (2000) Code of Practice - Students with Disabilities and 

the Special Education Needs and Disability Act (2001). This paper reviews 

some of the ways in which the barriers to their inclusion in fieldwork may be 

dismantled. Many of the modifications are of benefit to all students undertaking 

fieldwork. 

Introduction 

‘Institutions should ensure that, wherever possible, disabled students have access 

to academic and vocational placements including field trips and study abroad’ 

(QAA, 2000, Precept 11) 

‘Inclusive field trip design will envisage a variety of potential participants, and 

accommodate as many varied needs as possible without compromising the 

educational objectives’ 

(University of Strathclyde, 2000, p.2) 

Awareness of the need to develop inclusive practices, which provide equal 

opportunities for disabled students in various parts of their courses, is 

beginning to spread through Higher Education Institutions in the UK. This 

has been stimulated by the publication of the Quality Assurance Agency 

(QAA) (2000) Code of Practice - Students with Disabilities and the extension 

of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) to higher education through 

the Special Education Needs and Disability Act (2001). 

The Geography Discipline Network (GDN) has recently undertaken a 

project, funded by HEFCE, involving geographers, earth and environmental 

scientists and disability advisors, to help raise awareness of inclusivity issues. 

The aim has been to identify and promote the principles and good practice 

of how to provide learning support for disabled students undertaking 

fieldwork and related activities. The advantage of focusing on fieldwork is 

that many of the issues faced by disabled students in HE are magnified in 

this form of teaching and learning. If the barriers to full participation by 

everyone can be reduced or overcome, it is likely that our awareness of 

the obstacles to their full participation in other learning activities will be 

heightened and the difficulties of overcoming the barriers will be lessened. 

The net outcome of the quality assurance and legislative changes is that 

HEIs will need to treat disability issues in a more structured and transparent 

way. In particular, we may expect to see a relative shift of emphasis from 

issues of recruitment and physical access to issues of parity of the learning 

experience that disabled students receive. The implication of this shift is 

that disability issues ‘cannot remain closed within a student services arena 

but must become part of the mainstream learning and teaching debate’ 

(Adams and Brown, 2000, p.8). But there is an opportunity here as well as 

a challenge. As we become more sensitive to the diversity of student 

needs, we can adjust how we teach and facilitate learning in ways which 

will benefit all our students. 

Fieldwork and disability 

The images of fieldwork presented in undergraduate prospectuses 

emphasise masculine, youthful, able-bodied people conquering difficult 

terrain (Hall, et al., 2001). Such images can deter those who do not share 

the displayed characteristics, and although Virtual Field Courses may 

provide new learning experiences for some disabled students, this sidesteps 

the main issue of access by disabled students to the full curriculum, including 

fieldwork. 

9 

The Disability and Discrimination Act (1995) defines a person’s disability 

as ‘a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term 

adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’. 

More than 4% of undergraduates in the UK (22,500) self-assessed 

themselves as having a disability in 1998/9; given that there is no obligation 

to divulge, the actual number may be closer to 10%. Less than 5% of 

those reporting were wheelchair users or had mobility difficulties, disabilities 

often regarded as providing the greatest challenges to would-be field 

class organisers. The most common category was unseen disabilities such 

as epilepsy, diabetes or asthma (39%), followed by dyslexia (26%). 

Remembering that there are many different types of disability is important 

in planning for inclusion because detailed needs differ for different groups 

and individuals, and a personal approach within an overarching strategy is 

required. It is easy to make erroneous assumptions about what students 

with particular impairments can or cannot do, when usually the best thing 

to do is simply to ask them. 

The reaction of many staff, when faced with the realisation of the wide 

variety of disabilities that students in their classes or on fieldwork may 

have, is one of lack of confidence. Mention of specific medical conditions 

may leave staff feeling concerned that they will be expected to develop 

medical expertise in order to support disabled students. This is where an 

understanding of different concepts or models of disability becomes 

important (Oliver, 1990). Medical models of disability tend to individualise 

the problems experienced by disabled people, and assume that they are 

subjects for treatment and cure. By comparison social models shift the 

focus from what is ‘wrong’ with an individual, to ‘society’s failure to accept 

disabled people for who they are and to provide adequate facilities for 

them’ (Kitchen, 2000, p.7). The emphasis thus moves from pity or sympathy, 

on to generic barriers to participation in mainstream activities which 

need to be identified and overcome through strategic planning. 

Dismantling the barriers to inclusion 

Steps, ramps and remote locations have traditionally been the focus of 

much consideration, but this represents an overly simplistic response to 

disabled students’ needs. In reality, there is a range of potential barriers to 

inclusion, certainly including physical barriers (such as print size, audibility, 

as well as building and site access) but embracing other types too. Barriers 

of personal attitudes (of staff, other students, the general public) and 

barriers of institutional and organisational systems (particular course 

requirements, time constraints, regulations), may well be more significant 

for individual students in the longer term. Moreover, the barriers faced 

may be complex. For example, mature students with mobility problems 

may feel that their presence on an excursion to an upland location may 

damage the experience of younger able-bodied people for whom the 

visit was initially conceived, even if appropriate transport was arranged. A 

student with severe dyslexia, faced with completing Health and Safety 

paperwork at short notice, may not be able to comply with the legislation 

involved in visiting a particular site, and may either exclude herself or 

expose the group to unnecessary risk. Lecturers aware of someone with 

mental health difficulties or an addiction may approach the university 

management assuming that the student’s behaviour on a residential class 

might compromise the achievements of other students, without having 

discussed this with him. A mix of attitudinal, organisational and physical 

barriers to participation is the norm, rather than the exception. And it is 

at this level that Departments need initially to plan, so that these situations 

do not arise. 

The Special Education Needs and Disability Act establishes that ‘an 

educational provider would discriminate against a disabled student if he 

failed to make reasonable adjustment to any arrangements, including 

physical features of premises, for services that place the disabled student 

at a substantial disadvantage in comparison to persons who are not 

disabled’ (DfEE, 2000). The key phrase ‘reasonable adjustment’ has yet to 

be tested in law, but the DfEE provide clear guidance that academic and 

other standards should not be compromised by the adjustments. They 

also suggest that ‘reasonableness’ is a function of practicality, cost,


P L A N E T 

effectiveness, disruption, the significance of the element of course or service 

being accessed and the needs of other students. However, field course 

providers should be aware that the social aspects of fieldwork, including 

domestic arrangements such as sleeping, eating, washing and recreation 

or relaxation, will also need accommodating. A code of practice on the 

implementation of the Act should be available early in 2002 from the 

Disability Rights Commission (http://www.drc-gb.org/drc/ 

InformationAndLegislation/InformationAndLegislationMenu.asp). 

Fortunately, disabled students and the HEIs in which they study have both 

gained from recent financial changes. Since 1990 disabled students have 

had access to an allowance to cover ‘disability-related costs’, such as 

personal assistance and adaptive technology. In 2000 these allowances 

were increased to up to £10k pa for full-time and part-time (50% or 

more of full-time course) undergraduates, and £5k for postgraduates. 

These allowances are no longer means-tested and can be used to help 

disabled students with the additional costs of participating in fieldwork. 

Since the academic year 2000/2001 HEIs have been eligible for mainstream 

funding for the first time to support their provision for disabled students. 

Some universities have used some of this money to establish departmental 

disability representatives. Departments running field courses may be able 

to make bids to their institutions under this funding for equipment that 

would be of benefit to particular groups of disabled students, such as 

modifications to minibuses to provide access to students in wheel chairs 

or the purchase of laptops to take on field trips to help dyslexic students. 

Some of the physical barriers can thus be readily overcome. 

Course planning, particularly careful consideration of the intended learning 

outcomes of particular activities, is the key to overcoming many institutional 

or organisational barriers. Fieldwork should be undertaken in particular 

locations for specific educational reasons linked to the course outcomes. 

These reasons are not usually connected with the participants’ abilities to 

climb mountains or tramp city streets, listen to shouted instructions in 

the teeth of a gale or over traffic noise, sustain concentrated physical 

effort over extended spans of time, or work in close proximity to other 

people in areas without ready access to toilet facilities. Consequently, the 

field course needs organising in a way which is appropriate for as many 

people as possible, and integrating into the programme in a manner which 

renders its intended outcomes very clear, in advance. Opportunities for 

prior negotiation with disabled participants should be included. Only 

students who achieve the course outcomes will be successful, and the 

provision of appropriate physical or personal aid will not compromise 

the academic standards expected. Figure 1 shows examples of the 

modifications which can assist disabled students to succeed in meeting 

the learning outcomes, emphasising the collateral benefits for others. The 

guides produced by the GDN give many examples of others. 

· Providing written details about the main features to be seen in 

the field and the activities and projects to be undertaken to 

benefit a deaf student also clarifies the learning to be 

experienced by all the students on the field trip. 

· Making a video of a classic geological site that is not accessible 

to a student in a wheel chair may also be used in other classes 

and as part of the pre-fieldwork introduction for students visiting 

the site in subsequent years. 

· Investigating an alternative local-non-residential field course 

venue for a student needing daily dialysis treatment, may lead 

to the alternative location also being offered to other students, 

particularly benefiting those with family responsibilities and those 

who cannot afford the cost of a residential field course. 

Figure 1: Some modifications and additions to fieldwork that are of 

benefit to many students 

Conclusion 

The curricula provided by individual departments vary in their starting 

positions on a spectrum from inclusive to exclusive (Figure 2). Some 

10 

departments have already embraced diversity and inclusivity as part of 

their course philosophy, and have built curricula, including fieldwork 

experiences, around this concept. Disabled students are encouraged to 

apply, can be reassured that their disabilities will not be an impediment to 

fulfilment of the course requirements, and that appropriate physical and 

organisational support is available. For other departments there may be a 

longer journey, which may begin by offering disabled students surrogate 

or different field experiences, or providing physical support to particular 

styles of activity, whilst considering more fundamental changes to fieldwork 

expectations over a period of time. Many of the adjustments to be made 

will nevertheless benefit all students undertaking fieldwork, not only 

disabled ones. 

Spectrum of Approaches 

(Adjusting Methods) 

Offering 

Adjusting Adjusting Modifying alternatives 

objectives/ fieldtrips/ practices surrogate/ 

outcomes destinations virtual trips 

Inclusive 

Exclusive 

Curriculum 

Curriculum 

Figure 2. The curricula provided by individual departments vary in 

their starting positions on a spectrum from inclusive to exclusive. 

Note 

The GDN has produced six guides and a survey report on ‘Providing 

learning support to disabled students undertaking fieldwork’. They are 

available at: (http://www.chelt.ac.uk/gdn/disabil/index.htm). The Subject 

Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences is committed 

to continue to promote effective practices in providing learning support 

for disabled students and to offer guidance on how this might be achieved. 

References and Further Reading 

Adams, M and Brown, P (2000)‘The times they are a changing’: Developing 

disability provision in UK Higher Education, paper presented to Pathways 

4 Conference, Canberra, Australia, December 6-8 

DfEE (Department for Education and Employment) (2000) Consultation 

Paper of Special Educational Needs and Disability Rights in Education Bill. 

London: DfEE 

Hall, T, Healey, M and Harrison, M (2001) Disabled students and fieldwork: 

from exclusion to inclusion, paper in submission 

Kitchen, R (2000) Geography and Disability, Geographical Association, 

Sheffield 

Oliver, M (1990) Politics of Disablement, Macmillan Educational, London 

QAA (Quality Assurance Agency) (2000) Code of Practice - students with 

disabilities, QAA, Gloucester 

University of Strathclyde (2000) Resource 7: Placements, study abroad, 

and field trips, in Teachability: Creating an accessible curriculum for students 

with disabilities, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow 

Mick Healey 

Carolyn Roberts 

School of the Environment School of the Environment 

University of Gloucestershire University of Gloucestershire 

mhealey@chelt.ac.uk 

crroberts@chelt.ac.uk 

Alan Jenkins 

Jonathan Leach 

Oxford Centre for Staff and Student Services 

Learning Development 

Oxford Brookes University 

Oxford Brookes University jleach@brookes.ac.uk 

alanjenkins@brookes.ac.uk 


Readers may also be interested in the two shorter disability articles (in 

the “have you seen this?”) section this edition of PLANET written by 

McCarthy and by Adams, on TechDis, and special education needs and 

disabilities respectively.


P L A N E T 

Pedagogic Research: 

The new frontier? 

Seraphim Alvanides 

Sarah Davis 

Sarah Gabbott 

Caroline Gallagher 

Frances Harris 

Peter North 

George Tuckwell 

Moyra Wilson 

Abstract 

(University of Newcastle) 

(University of Leicester) 

(University of Leicester) 

(Glasgow Caledonian University) 

(University of Kingston) 

(University of Wales, Swansea) 

(Keele University) 

(University of Durham) 

This article attempts to outline some of the pros and cons of conducting 

pedagogic research in our disciplines. Written by new academics who attended 

the Subject Centre’s annual workshop for recently appointed lecturers, the 

article will hopefully be of interest to other academics in the GEES disciplines 

with an interest in conducting research into learning and teaching. 

Introduction 

Teaching and research are the two principal activities undertaken by 

academic staff but all too often we fail to create much synergy between 

them. One route for developing stronger links is by explicitly and 

systematically using our research to enrich our teaching. Although many 

of us would argue that research can benefit teaching, few of us have clear 

strategies and mechanisms for achieving this. For this reason at Oxford 

Brookes University a project resourced by the Fund for the Development 

of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) is currently developing this approach 

and identifying examples of good practice (http://www.brookes.ac.uk/ 

LINK). 

Another way of drawing together the worlds of teaching and research is 

actually to conduct research into teaching (an area for which the Subject 

Centre has recently obtained some additional funding - see the ‘Have 

you seen this/’ section in this edition of PLANET). For most academics 

this is less familiar territory and yet it is an idea which is now gaining 

support. The principal aim is to improve the quality of students’ learning 

by encouraging staff to explore what works and what doesn’t work, 

particularly in the field of subject-based pedagogy. This is part of a wider 

campaign for ‘evidence-based teaching’. Unfortunately at present, many 

academics do not feel fully equipped to undertake educational research. 

And so, as part of its New Lecturers Conference at the University of 

Birmingham in May 2001, the LTSN-GEES Subject Centre arranged a 

workshop on this topic. The workshop was run by Alan Jenkins (Oxford 

Brookes) and Mick Healey (University of Gloucestershire) and aimed to 

raise awareness of pedagogic research as a growing field of enquiry. We, 

the delegates who attended the workshop, found it of particular interest 

and so we would like to share with PLANET readers some of the issues 

raised and some of our impressions. 

First, we must make it clear that although we all undertake research in 

the ‘content’ of our disciplines (Geography, Earth and Environmental 

Sciences) we have little or no experience of educational research. Indeed, 

some of us entered the workshop without fully realising what the subject 

was actually about! So, by reviewing the workshop for PLANET, we are 

sharing our very first impressions of what this field of enquiry is about 

and whether it looks enticing. What kinds of educational research might 

be undertaken and what are the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of getting involved in 

this emerging area? 

Activities and Opportunities 

From a quick review of some existing examples of published pedagogic 

research in our disciplines (provided at the workshop by Alan and Mick) 

there would seem to be four main categories of activity and opportunity: 

11 

1. Quite a few GEES academics have published articles describing and 

evaluating an example of curriculum development or learning and 

teaching innovation which they have led in their own department. 

This kind of work encourages self-reflection, disseminates new ideas 

and seems not too difficult to write up. The Journal of Geography in 

Higher Education (JGHE) and the Journal of Geoscience Education 

have published many examples of this kind of work on topics such as 

student field trails (Higgitt, 1996), self and peer assessment (Mowl 

and Pain, 1995), regional analysis in teaching stratigraphy and 

sedimentology (Garver, 1992) and the use of a personal journal in a 

geology field trip (Stanesco, 1991). However, to merit possible inclusion 

in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) this kind of ‘action research’ 

would need to get well beyond simply a descriptive account. It would 

have to be embedded in the relevant literature, to involve a significant 

piece of innovation and to adopt a rigorous approach to evaluation. 

2. A second category of research is involved with the review and 

assessment of policy. In this case the author might attempt to examine 

a particular government initiative in higher education and to assess its 

implications for their particular discipline. This would involve 

investigating the background to the policy and perhaps conducting a 

review of how departments in the discipline have responded or been 

affected by it. Healey’s work (1997) on the outcomes of the Geography 

Teaching Quality Assessment (TQA) exercise would be an example. 

The scale and depth of the analysis might determine whether the 

investigation has RAE potential. 

3. A third kind of approach is to examine a substantial theme or issue 

through the statistical analysis of large datasets (either existing or 

generated via an original survey). An example would be Chapman’s 

work (1994) on the proportion of good degrees produced by different 

UK geography departments. Clark & Higgitt’s ‘Where are they now?’ 

survey of former geography graduates would also come into this 

category (Clark & Higgitt, 1998). 

4. A very different approach, not dependent on large datasets, is to 

explore the potential of a particular conceptual framework, 

methodology or theoretical perspective. An example would be the 

work by Raghuram et al. (1998) on the implications of feminist research 

methodologies for the conduct of student projects. 

As part of the Birmingham workshop, Alan and Mick asked us to think 

about our attitudes to possibly getting involved in the kinds of research 

outlined above. The discussion which followed identified both some 

attractions and some deterrents. 

Advantages of Conducting Research into Learning & Teaching 

On the positive side, we were attracted by the prospect of using smallscale 

‘action research’ as a means of enhancing our teaching. We also felt 

that it would be intellectually satisfying to have a better grasp of what 

really works in learning and teaching and why. Small-scale research, 

particularly on one’s own teaching, can no doubt be personally and 

professionally rewarding. Moreover, in many institutions learning and 

teaching criteria are beginning to feature at least somewhat more 

prominently in the promotion stakes. Career prospects can therefore be 

improved by evidence of innovation in learning and teaching. A published 

piece of educational research, might help to persuade a promotions 

panel that one’s approach to teaching has been reflective, creative or 

even scholarly. 

Disadvantages of Conducting Research into Learning & Teaching 

However, for many of us the road to pedagogic research has a number of 

obstacles along the way. First of all, there are the ‘start up’ costs of needing 

to become familiar with new methodologies and a new body of literature. 

Where is the time coming from and will the investment really bring sufficient 

rewards, particularly as pedagogic research still enjoys a somewhat lowly 

status in the minds of many of our colleagues?


P L A N E T 

And then there is, of course, the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). 

Will this kind of work really be RAE returnable? The RAE 2001 exercise 

welcome pedagogic research as a ‘valid and valued form of research activity’ 

which is to be assessed by subject panels ‘on an equitable basis’ with other 

forms of research (HEFCE, 2000). But to be RAE returnable the work 

must include original investigation in order to gain knowledge and 

understanding. The development of teaching materials is explicitly excluded 

and small-scale accounts of local innovations are unlikely to carry much 

weight. Major surveys will be time consuming to undertake and winning 

grants in the area is a rather distant prospect given our lack of track 

record. 

Possible Ways Forward 

During the workshop discussion these issues and obstacles were openly 

and frankly debated. Possible solutions included working in partnership 

with academics who already have an educational track record and a grasp 

of the literature, and obtaining support/guidance from the institutional 

educational development unit or even perhaps from colleagues in areas 

such as educational psychology. In addition, the Subject Centre is keen to 

promote pedagogic research and is funding projects on fieldwork and 

also making available small grants for research in other areas of learning 

and teaching. The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has an 

educational research budget running into millions of pounds but this would 

require ‘breaking into the bigtime’, not a realistic strategy for the new 

lecturers assembled at Birmingham. 

Conclusion 

In the past, pedagogic research in our three disciplines (as in most others) 

has been a minority interest and of possibly rather variable quality. There 

are, however, clear signs that it is emerging from the shadows. There will 

certainly be increasing opportunities and rewards for this kind of work 

and the RAE is now treating this area more positively than in the past. As 

new lecturers, we shall each need to decide whether and how far to get 

involved. Indeed, as the area of pedagogic research grows in importance 

and recognition, many more established lecturers will also perhaps be 

asking the same question. Is this all a dangerous diversion, a potentially 

interesting sideline or could it be a rewarding route towards a significant 

and new research frontier? 

References 

Chapman, K. (1994) Variability of Degree Results in Geography in United 

Kingdom Universities 1973-90: preliminary results and policy implications, 

Studies in Higher Education, 19 (1), pp. 89-101. 

Clark, G. and Higgitt, M. (1997) Geography and Lifelong Learning: a report 

on a survey of geography graduates, Journal of Geography in Higher Education 

21 (2), pp. 199-213. 

Garver, J. I. (1992) A field-based course in stratigraphy and sedimentology, 

Journal of Geological Education, 40(2), pp. 119-124 . 

Healey, M. (1997) Geography and education: perspectives on quality in 

UK higher education, Progress in Human Geography, 21, pp. 97-108. 

HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) (2000) Review 

of Research 00/37 (HEFCE, London). 

Higgitt, D. (1996) The Effectiveness of Student-Authored Field Trails as a 

Means of Enhancing Geomorphological Interpretation, Journal of Geography 

in Higher Education, 20 (1), pp. 35-44. 

Mowl, P. and Pain, R. (1995) Using Self and Peer Assessment to Improve 

Students’ Essay Writing: a case study from geography, Innovations in Education 

and Training International, 32 (4), pp. 324-335. 

Raghuram, P., Skelton, T. and Madge, C. (1998) Feminist Research 

Methodologies and Student Projects in Geography, Journal of Geography in 

Higher Education, 22 (1), pp.35-48 

Stanseco, J. D. (1991) The personal journal as learning and evaluation tool 

in geology field trip courses, Journal of Geological Education, 39(3), pp. 204- 

205. 

12 

Seraphim Alvanides 

University of Newcastle 

s.alvanides@newcastle.ac.uk 

Sarah Gabbott 

University of Leicester 

sg21@le.ac.uk 

Frances Harris 

University of Kingston 

ku16763@kingston.ac.uk 

George Tuckwell 

Keele University 

g.w.tuckwell@esci.keele.ac.uk 

Sarah Davis 

University of Leicester 

sjd27@le.ac.uk 

Caroline Gallagher 

Glasgow Caledonian University 

c.e.gallagher@gcal.ac.uk 

Peter North 

University of Wales, Swansea 

p.r.j.north@swan.ac.uk 

Moyra Wilson 

University of Durham 

moyra.wilson@durham.ac.uk 

Acknowledgement 

We are grateful to Brian Chalkley (LTSN-GEES Subject Centre Director) 

for his support in the preparation of this article. 


If any PLANET readers have views about the ideas set out in this article or 

about educational research in general, we would be pleased to hear from you. 

Workshop-based teaching of 

research design 

David Simm and Carol David 

St Mary’s College, Twickenham 

Abstract 

A workshop-based, problem-orientated approach to the teaching of research 

design in physical geography is introduced. With carefully staged guidance by 

tutors, students devise and execute a research project. Students are empowered 

by means of group discussions and decision-making and, aided by critical selfappraisal, 

students acquire research experience and develop key transferable 

skills. This approach encourages team-work and initiative, and inspires selfconfidence. 

This strategy, although challenging and demanding for students, 

can be an effective form of teaching. Such an approach is particularly relevant 

today because of subject benchmarking skills and developing the transferable 

skills, such as initiative and team-work, valued by employers, and also primarily 

as preparation for subsequent field and dissertation work. 

Introduction 

The teaching of research methodology in preparation for subsequent 

independent project work is an important part of the training of a 

Geography undergraduate. A workshop-based, problem-orientated 

approach to the teaching of research design, with a foundation on Kolb’s 

experiential learning cycle (Healey and Jenkins, 2000) and adapted from 

models presented by Gardiner and Hughes (2000), is presented. The 

sessions form part of a geographical research methods and techniques 

course taught as a second-year course at St Mary’s College, Twickenham. 

The physical geography component of the course involves a series of six 

workshops of up to 2 hours, supplemented by a single field day, with two 

tutors present at each session containing about 30 students. 

The Learning and Teaching Approach 

The course aims to teach good research practice and new field techniques 

(Table 1). Focusing on the study of the effectiveness of a local river 

restoration scheme, students are empowered with their learning by means 

of group discussions and decision-making. With carefully staged guidance 

by tutors, students devise research questions and execute their project, 

analysing data collected on a field day.


P L A N E T 

Aims 

· To provide a grounding in the theory and practice of research 

in physical geography; 

· To build on transferable and subject-specific skills introduced 

in the foundation year, and develop new ones; 

· To use a problem-solving framework to investigate a realistic 

research situation; 

· To develop intellectual and discipline-specific skills; 

· To examine different approaches to studying physical 

geography and the major research methods and techniques 

employed. 

Learning Outcomes 

· To have acquired techniques/skills appropriate to different 

aspects of geographical enquiry; 

· To have developed problem-solving skills; 

· To be able to suggest and apply methodologies appropriate 

to geographical research; 

· To have improved team-work, time-management and 

communication skills; 

· To have an increased knowledge and understanding of the 

nature of geographical problems; 

· To be able to present a well-structured and well-presented 

report; 

· To have gained the confidence, through experiential learning, 

to tackle future research work. 

Table 1 Aims and Learning Outcomes of the Course 

The course enables students to go through the research design process 

on their own, with limited guidance from a tutor. The course is not a selfdirected 

one, but rather adopts a student-centred approach. Aided by 

critical self-appraisal of their performance, students acquire research 

experience and develop key skills, such as visualisation of problems, planning, 

increasing awareness of experience, and capacity for logical thought 

(Healey and Jenkins, 2000). The open-ended approach encourages teamwork 

and initiative, and inspires self-confidence in approaching geographical 

research, and forms sound preparation for subsequent project and 

fieldwork, in particular dissertation projects. 

In order to share ideas, experience and the practical work, small-groups 

of students were set up. Small-group work promotes situations in which 

students will work together to maximise their own and each other’s 

learning. Students become actively involved in the learning process, it 

encourages creativity and initiative, more discussion and sharing of ideas, 

there is a beneficial sense of belonging and mutual support; and it 

introduces a wide range of transferable skills (Healey et al. 1996; Hindle, 

1993). Possible disadvantages, such as students “hiding” within a group or 

from difficult tasks, need to be carefully monitored. A problem-solving 

framework is adopted in which students are presented with realistic 

research situations. Experiential learning takes place through active 

participation in the research process (Tinsley, 1996), visualisation and 

reflection (Healey and Jenkins, 2000). This encourages the use of previous 

knowledge, helps students to acquire and apply knowledge to new 

scenarios, and develops logical and critical thought (Bradbeer, 1996). 

Teaching was undertaken through student-oriented workshops. Basic 

starter questions for discussion are set, and worksheets containing 

questions and prompts helped to structure each workshop (Table 2). 

Sessions 1 and 2 - Problem-solving – the process 

1. Summarise your ideas on the geographical problem or issue 

presented in the accompanying photographs. 

2. Make notes on how you might go about investigating this 

phenomenon. 

3. State the research question you wish to answer and/or 

formulate a hypothesis you would like to test. 

4. What kind of data do you need to collect? 

5. Design a research strategy for gathering this data. 

6. Which other aspects of fieldwork, data collection and analysis 

need to be considered? 

7. List the equipment you will need. 

8. Make notes on any health and safety issues which need to be 

considered/addressed. 

Session 3 – Fieldwork 

Session 4 – Fieldwork Debriefing 

9. Identify the positive and negative aspects of the fieldwork. 

What problems/difficulties did you encounter and why? 

10. How did you respond to these difficulties/problems? 

11. Do you think you were well prepared for the fieldwork? What 

could you have done differently? 

12. Was your research question/hypothesis a realistic one? If not, 

how would you change it? 

13. Was your research design appropriate to the question being 

asked? In hindsight, what modification would you make to 

the methodology if you were to do the research again? 

14. Do you think your group worked well together as a team? 

What was the most difficult aspect of working in a group? 

Did members find it a positive or negative experience? 

15. Consider how you will analyse and present your data. 

Session 5 – Data Analysis 

16. Consider how you will present your findings. 

17. Make notes on how to analyse your findings. 

18. Make notes on explaining your findings. 

19. Have you collected the right quantity and quality of data to 

satisfy your analysis? 

Session 6 – Report-writing 

20. Make notes on: 

(i) How to structure a scientific report; 

(ii) Correct bibliographic citation; 

(iii) Correct scientific writing style; 

(iv) Cartographic presentation. 

Table 2 Sample Questions on Work Sheets 

The tutor acted as facilitator rather than an instructor, interceding when 

necessary to direct the discussions and to suggest new avenues. A 

combination of class and group discussions, involving students reporting 

their ideas, insights or findings, was adopted. Students were also referred 

to a collection of library and intranet web resources which had been 

carefully selected. These resources included background information on 

the river catchment (for instance, local Environment Agency plans), 

supplementary data (for instance, water quality data collected by a local 

sewage works) and information sheets outlining the procedures for the 

most common field methods and techniques. 

13


P L A N E T 

The first workshop familiarised students with the project and the study 

area. Students were presented with a series of photographs showing 

different physical aspects of a recent river restoration scheme along a 

local urban watercourse, and asked to deconstruct the environment and 

possible processes, and to identify a hydrological, geomorphological or 

ecological problem or aspect to study. In carefully paced stages, students 

were prompted to devise their own research questions and, ultimately, to 

devise a research proposal. 

Subsequent workshops developed the research procedure, involving 

identifying a hypothesis, selecting and justifying choice of sites and field 

methods, and health and safety aspects of field research. Students worked 

through the worksheets, devised a research proposal and planned their 

fieldwork and analysis. A representative from each group regularly 

reported to their class in order to focus their thoughts and to disseminate 

ideas and experience. Tasks were issued at the end of each session to be 

prepared for the next workshop. This ensured that background reading 

and preparation was undertaken, and also promoted self-reflection on 

the learning experience. At appropriate stages field and laboratory 

techniques were introduced by tutors and field training was subsequently 

provided. 

Prior to undertaking fieldwork, scheduled in the middle of the series of 

workshops, each student group was required to present their research 

proposal, justify their sampling strategy and methods to the tutor. This 

provided an opportunity to address any flaws in the projects, and to 

ensure that each group were fully aware of the health and safety aspects. 

Under close supervision but limited direction, each student group carried 

out fieldwork. Students were prompted to record their experience. 

Following fieldwork, students were encouraged to reflect on their fieldwork 

experience, and to evaluate whether their planning and preparation was 

appropriate and sufficient. The final two workshops were more structured, 

involving discussions on the stages of data analysis, cartographic and data 

presentation skills, and report-writing. Students were encouraged to draw 

on their knowledge of introductory statistics attained at first-year level. 

Students were required to submit individual scientific reports, and were 

asked to include an element of self-evaluation in their discussion section 

based on their personal experience of the learning process. 

Course Evaluation 

Course evaluations suggest that students respond positively to this 

approach to learning. Many students found the course challenging, but 

the majority thought it was a good way to learn and particularly enjoyed 

the field and practical work and team-work aspects. They also appreciated 

the opportunity to reflect on their fieldwork. However, a significant number 

of students found the open-ended nature of the project challenging, 

preferring more traditional methods of learning. Tutor support was only 

deemed ‘satisfactory’. Students would appreciate more tutor support, 

particularly on data collection and analysis, and more structured sessions. 

However, there were high levels of student interest and commitment, 

and attendance was exceptionally good. The worksheets proved useful 

tools for pacing and directing discussions and ensuring that students have 

a record of the stages of research procedures. They also are a mechanism 

for ensuring that students have achieved the desired threshold of 

experience, knowledge and understanding. The report then offers the 

opportunity to demonstrate both the academic and transferable skills. 

Conclusions and Future Considerations 

Often students need encouragement to gain the confidence to develop 

their initiative and independent thinking and, in particular, in the application 

of statistics. The open-ended and interactive format of the sessions, in 

which students are responsible for how the course develops, promotes 

both self-expression and self-confidence. However, striking the right 

balance between independent thought by students and tutor guidance is 

quite difficult, and such an innovative course may take one or two years 

to “bed in”. For instance, in future student-groups will not be self-selecting 

14 

but could be based on a simple psychological test in order to promote 

team-work dynamics. However, students attain knowledge, understanding 

and experience of the research process and, through constructive selfevaluation, 

“learn by their mistakes” in preparation for subsequent project 

and fieldwork, in particular dissertation projects. Adopting a learning and 

teaching strategy of student-centred workshops, although challenging and 

demanding for students, can be an effective format for learning and training 

in research design in physical geography. However, it requires careful 

guidance and monitoring by tutors. Kolb’s experiential learning cycle can 

be readily applied to other sub-disciplines and scenarios (cf. Healey and 

Jenkins, 2000) by engaging students in discussion of the research process, 

by encouraging critique of existing practices, and encouraging self-reflection 

of student performance. 

References 

Bradbeer, J. (1996) Problem-based learning and fieldwork: a better method 

of preparation? Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20(1), pp. 11-18. 

Gardiner, V. and Hughes, K. (2000) Improving Students’ Problem-solving and 

Thinking Skills, Geography Discipline Network (Cheltenham & Gloucester 

College of Higher Education). 

Healey, M. and Jenkins, A. (2000) Learning cycles and learning styles: the 

application of Kolb’s experiential learning model in higher education, Journal 

of Geography, 99, pp. 185-195. 

Healey, M., Matthews, H., Livingston, I. and Foster, I. (1996) Learning in 

small groups in university geography courses: designing a core module 

around group projects, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20(2), pp. 

167-180. 

Hindle, B.P. (1993) The “project”: putting student-controlled, small group 

work and transferable skills at the core of a geography course, Journal of 

Geography in Higher Education, 17(1), pp. 11-20. 

Tinsley, H.M. (1996) Training undergraduates for self-directed research 

projects in physical geography: problems and possible solutions, Journal of 

Geography in Higher Education, 20(1), pp. 55-64. 

Carol David and David Simm 

Geography Section 

St Mary’s College, Twickenham 

simmdj@smuc.ac.uk 

Got a Question or Query? 

The LTSN Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental 

Sciences (GEES) is developing a register of interest database. 

This enables us to efficiently and effectively put individuals who 

approach the Centre with a learning and teaching question, intouch 

with relevant experts in our disciplines. So, if you would 

like to know more about computer-based assessment, integrating 

C&IT in fieldwork, subject benchmarking, running overseas field 

trips etc., or if you have any other question or query, then please 

contact Judith Gill at the Subject Centre on: 01752 233530 or 

email: info@gees.ac.uk. We guarantee a response time of no 

more than 48 hours.


P L A N E T 

One Year’s Experience of duo 

(Durham University Online) 

Barbara Watson and Daniel Donoghue 


Abstract 

The Department of Geography at the University of Durham was one of 

three departments to pilot duo (Durham University Online) in October 

2000. duo is the University’s web-based learning environment. (http:// 

duo.dur.ac.uk/), which uses the commercial product Blackboard (http:// 

www.blackboard.com/). Evaluations of the use of duo were undertaken 

within the Department of Geography at the beginning of the academic 

year in 2000 and across the whole University in April/May 2001. The 

success of duo with first-year undergraduates and with staff in the 

Geography Department has resulted in its use being extended to all 

second-year modules. This has also encouraged other departments to 

embed duo within their teaching. The article will hopefully be of interest 

to other GEES departments who might be considering delivering their 

curricula through an electronic learning environment. 

Introduction 

duo, Durham University Online, is the University of Durham’s web-based 

learning environment. duo, was launched in October 2000 by the Learning 

Technologies Team (LTT - http://www.dur.ac.uk/ITS/ltteam/). The LTT, 

based within the IT Service, supports the use of C&IT throughout the 

University. In July 2000 the LTT purchased the software, Blackboard 

Level 1, and the necessary hardware to run duo. The initial implementation 

target was to pilot duo in 3 departments and have 200 students on 

courses in duo by Christmas 2000. The Department of Geography was 

one of the pilot departments and it decided to introduce duo for firstyear 

modules, in the academic year beginning October 2000. 

Electronic learning environments 

An electronic learning environment is an integrated solution to manage 

online learning and enhance student learning. Electronic learning 

environments offer not only facilities to structure learning content, but 

also provide student management, communication and assessment tools, 

and a range of other useful functions. A learning environment usually 

consists of module details and objectives, and resources such as lecture 

notes, PowerPoint presentations, images, audio and video. Blackboard is 

one such electronic learning environment, and enables communication 

through email, discussion groups and chat. It also provides online 

assessment with a variety of question types that can be used to provide 

formal assessment, interactive feedback and questionnaires such as student 

course-evaluation surveys (Boardman, 2001). Tutors can give different 

levels of feedback for their assessments and the software can be configured 

to allow students to monitor their own progress. Course statistics show 

course usage and activity and it is also possible to track individual student’s 

use of the online materials. Blackboard also has a calendar, as well as the 

facility to make announcements and set tasks. 

While academic staff have a similar on-screen view of the learning 

environment to students, they also have additional tools and privileges 

that allow them to add materials, create conferences and track students’ 

progress. The flexibility of learning environments enables them to support 

different learning and teaching styles. 

Implementation 

The Department of Geography at Durham is one of the largest in the 

country. It has long-established and well-recognised strengths in both 

teaching and research. It is committed to using C&IT to enhance learning 

and teaching and is willing to be innovative . 

During the 1999-2000 academic year the Department identified an 

urgent need to improve the mechanism for delivering parts of its new 

first-year curriculum where students were expected to use web-based 

materials for self-paced learning exercises. Student feedback in the 

previous year identified several problems with the delivery of learning 

resources from web pages written in-house. The web pages hosted notes, 

practical exercises and instructions. They did not allow staff to 

communicate with students or to monitor the use of the materials. It 

was therefore vital to evaluate the best possible way of responding to 

student feedback for the next academic year. An evaluation of the available 

software by the LLT led to the use of Blackboard and the Geography 

Department staff worked closely with the LLT to address the strategic 

needs of the first-year curriculum. 

The implementation of the online learning environment involved several 

steps. First, the academic and administrative staff in the Department of 

Geography were given demonstrations on the functionality of duo. These 

staff immediately perceived the benefits that duo could have for teaching 

and administration but recognised the work involved in developing a 

fully functioning system that matched their expectations. LTT offer 

optional training on duo, on both technical skills and pedagogical issues 

to help academics enhance their teaching. The majority of staff involved 

with the first-year modules requested training. The training specifically 

addressed the issue of authoring and management. Academic staff were 

initially encouraged to use their existing teaching materials, such as lecture 

notes and PowerPoint presentations, and links to existing web sites. This 

enabled the staff to build on their existing work, become familiar and 

confident with the software and take ownership of their courses. 

Developing the full functionality of duo was more complicated. For 

example, academic staff required the assistance of LTT to help set up 

and register students on the system, and to develop online assessments 

and surveys. The final stage of the implementation was to compare the 

use of duo with past practice; to listen to the student perceptions of the 

system; and to make improvements for the future. 

Evaluation 

The Department of Geography seeks to maintain excellence in learning, 

teaching and assessment through annual teaching reviews, robust systems 

of module evaluation, a reflective assessment system, and engagement 

with wider debates over good practice in learning and teaching. Therefore, 

the evaluation of the duo system was part of the normal mechanism of 

quality assurance undertaken by the Department. However, additional 

surveys of student opinion were sought near the start of the academic 

year because of the introduction of a new software system. It was 

important to identify any teething problems at an early stage. 

First-year Geography students were asked for opinions on duo three 

weeks into the first term in 2000 to gauge their initial reactions and 

resolve any problems. The results showed: 

· 86% found duo easy/very easy to use; 

· 90% thought they would be using duo at least several times a week; 

· 81% rated the actual materials and content as excellent/very good. 

The main comment from students was that they would like duo to be 

available in the modules that they were taking outside the Geography 

department. The immediate success of duo within the Geography 

department was a major factor in the LTT’s decision to make duo available 

to any academic or department that wished to use it. 

Further evaluations of students and staff using duo across the whole 

University were undertaken in April and May 2001. These evaluations 

asked questions about their use of duo, the type of content, the use of 

the communication features and the effect of duo on learning and 

teaching. There was a very high response rate (89%; n = 124) from the 

Geography students, and responses were generally positive: 

15


P L A N E T 

· 97% were confident to use duo after up to 5 logins; 

· 72% had accessed duo out of term time; 

· 88% recommended that it should be used for all their modules; 

· 58% stated that the online resources e.g. web pages and lecture notes 

had made a considerable contribution to their use of duo. 

The responses from members of staff in Geography showed that: 

· 85% were confident to use duo after up to 5 logins; 

· 77% had undertaken training; 

· 63% found it easy to add materials; 

· 67% rated duo as a very effective electronic learning environment. 

A final evaluation of duo was undertaken as part of the normal process 

of module appraisal. It was at this stage in the previous year that problems 

in the delivery of some first-year modules were fully commented on in 

student questionnaire returns. Students were not specifically asked to 

comment on duo, but to give an opinion on each module and its strengths 

and weaknesses. The questionnaire had 21 specific questions that addressed 

the content, delivery and enjoyment of each module and it also asked 

students to identify in writing the best and worst aspects of each module. 

The quantitative summary of this exercise showed that duo had helped 

enormously in the technical delivery of relevant modules. On a scale of 1 

(good) to 5 (poor) the overall summary of the first year undergraduate 

module that made most use of duo, IT for Geographers, was raised from 

3.50 to 2.76. This is a significant improvement but it still indicates that 

students have some concerns about the module. An analysis of the written 

comments is very revealing. First, although most questionnaire returns 

said nothing about Blackboard, those that did mention it were always 

positive. For example, when asked what was the best feature of this course, 

students responded as follows: 

“the self assessment exercises on the computer” 

“the CAL exercises were easy to follow” 

“Blackboard was very helpful; the pasting of lecture notes on Blackboard 

is very useful” 

“I found it very easy and accessible to obtain instructions from Blackboard” 

“24 hour access to information” 

“the projects were good in the way that they gave the possibility of working 

at your own pace then taking the test on Blackboard”. 

Secondly, the majority of negative comments focused on the lack of formal 

classroom teaching and not on the delivery of the information over the 

web. Several students noted that computer classrooms and other publicly 

accessible computers did not provide the easiest of work places. Others 

expressed the view that it was helpful to complete project work “in their 

own time and in their own space”. While there is still room for improving 

the mechanism for delivering effective student centered learning, the 

qualitative comments made by students suggest that Blackboard provides 

a solid platform on which to build a web-based learning environment. 

An important aspect of the duo system within the Geography Department 

has been its popularity with the teaching staff. The Blackboard software 

strikes a good balance between ease of use and functionality. Almost all 

the staff who had received an introductory training course found that 

they were able to implement functions that the students found useful. 

For example, students appreciated formative self-assessment exercises, 

the message-board facility, the ability to link reading lists to the library 

online catalogue, and several other features. The results of these surveys 

have already been used to inform future use of duo within the Geography 

Department. Second-year modules are to be delivered through duo in 

the academic year beginning October 2001. 

Conclusion 

The Department of Geography was one of the first departments to take 

part in a major innovation within the University of Durham. The successful 

use of duo in the Department will be built on in future. It has also been 

an excellent example for the rest of the University, and by the end of the 

academic year in 2001 there were approximately 6000 students and 600 

staff in 550 courses in 23 departments using duo. 

Recommendations 

For those who may wish to use Blackboard in a similar capacity as it has 

been used at Durham, the following points are worth considering: 

· Ensure that students who may rely on Blackboard have adequate 

access to computers; 

· Blackboard provides a very robust platform on which to build 

computer assisted learning materials but it is not a substitute for it. 

Therefore, it is vital to devote sufficient time to develop excellent 

course work; 

· Devote sufficient staff time to learn how to use Blackboard effectively. 

Reference 

Boardman, K. (2001) Blackboard: our future is busy, Association for Learning 

Technology Newsletter, 32, pp.5 

Further information 

Further information about duo is available on the LTT web pages at: 

http://www.dur.ac.uk/ITS/ltteam/ and http://www.alt.ac.uk. 

Blackboard has published a case study about Durham at: 

http://products.blackboard.com/clients/cases/viewcs.cgi?csid=24090213 

Barbara Watson 

Information Technology Service 


b.a.watson@durham.ac.uk. 

Daniel Donoghue 



danny.donoghue@durham.ac.uk 

Register of Interest 

The LTSN Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and 

Environmental Sciences (GEES) is looking for people 

who have experience and/or expertise in any area of 

learning and teaching in these disciplines e.g. problembased 

learning, integrating C&IT into the curriculum, 

developing key skills, promoting employer links etc. If you 

consider yourself to be an expert in any area of learning and teaching, or 

if you have experience in any innovative learning and teaching field, then 

we would like to hear from you! We are currently developing a register 

of interest database. This will enable us to efficiently and effectively put 

individuals who approach the Centre with any learning and teaching 

question, in-touch with relevant people in our disciplines. If you would 

like to find out more about this service, or if you would like to be added 

to this database, then please contact the Subject Centre on: 01752 233530 

or email: info@gees.ac.uk. 

(Please note that any personal information provided to the Subject Centre will be kept 

in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998.) 

16


P L A N E T 

Sustainable development and the 

professions 

Steve Martin 

Visiting Professor, Open University 

Annie Hall 

Environment Agency 

Abstract 

Professional bodies are beginning to recognise that sustainable development 

is a key issue for professional practice and the wider role of professionals in 

society. Since many professional bodies also define the curricula of degree 

programmes which provide the educational route to membership of the 

professions, this significant change in emphasis has far reaching implications 

for degree programmes in HE institutions. As part of this change process, 14 

professional bodies have developed a common framework for sustainability 

to enable them to develop their thinking and practice. They have also developed 

a generic course on sustainable development for the professions, based on 

systems thinking. 

Introduction 

All over the world professionals and practitioners in a wide variety of 

public and private sector roles have begun to explore the opportunities 

and challenges of sustainable development. However, exploration is not 

action. Meaningful change is only just beginning. 

It is important to recognise that a significant number of professional bodies 

play a key role in defining the curricula of higher education programmes 

which prepare students for a specific profession. This is because many 

professions have been phasing out their own examinations and now rely 

on ‘accredited’ degrees as the educational route to membership. 

In the UK, a number of professional bodies have begun to recognise that 

sustainable development is a key issue to their members. Some, like the 

Engineering Council, are actively revising and updating their ‘Code of 

Professional Practice’ and setting up working groups to discuss topics 

such as ethics, values and the sustainability agenda. This is good news, 

because most of the professional institutions (and educational institutions) 

have, until recently, demonstrated considerable indifference to this issue 

(HMSO, 1993; HMSO, 1996). 

The Government’s sustainable development education panel (DETR, 1999) 

has also set out a number of strategic goals for the professions. It 

recommends that by 2010 all professional bodies and industry lead bodies 

should have sustainable development criteria included within their course 

accreditation requirements. 

Professional bodies are increasingly being asked to review their traditions 

and practice both radically and urgently to meet the needs of their existing 

membership. This has far reaching implications for those HE courses for 

which they control or influence the curricula. The challenge of sustainable 

development has profound implications for the engineering, planning, 

chemical, environmental, accounting professions and many others, in both 

the practice and role of the professional. For example, engineers are 

responsible not only for the safety, technical and economic performance 

of their activities, but they also have responsibilities to use resources 

sustainably; to minimise the environmental impact of projects, wastes and 

emissions; and to use their influence to ensure their work brings social 

benefits which are equitably distributed. These responsibilities heighten 

the importance of ethics in curriculum design and require greater emphasis 

on codes of conduct and the role of engineers as social change agents. 

The key driver for much of this change is the significant shift in policy in 

the UK and elsewhere, from a focus on the environment to the wider 

context of sustainable development. This shift began in earnest in 1992, 

following the Earth Summit- when we heard more and more about the 

two apparently interchangeable ideas of sustainability and sustainable 

development. Both terms have acquired almost instantaneous status as 

desirable and essential, but few really understand what they mean in 

practice. This should not really surprise us because for nearly thirty years 

academia, policy makers and civil society have wrestled with the nature 

of sustainability and its implications for the economy and society. A useful 

summary of the issue is provided by Atkinson (1998): 

“Sustainability is an ideal end-state. Like democracy, it is a lofty goal whose 

perfect realization eludes us. For this reason, there will always be competing 

definitions of sustainability. We know the definitions will always include the 

well being of people, nature, our economy, and our social institutions, working 

together effectively over the long term. But as the process of attempting to 

achieve sustainability will continually reveal new challenges and questions – 

pushing back the horizons, as it were – a definitive definition is impossible. 

Any indicator framework, therefore, needs to be flexible and adaptable to 

those changing definitions. It needs to grow as our understanding grows, while 

continuing to serve its purpose as a simplifier and guide to complexity. It 

needs to maintain a trail of continuity from year to year and decade to decade. 

Most important, it needs to speak to people in ways understandable both to 

the rational mind and the intuition.” 

It follows that sustainability is the capacity for continuance into the longterm 

future, where as sustainable development is the process of moving 

towards this ideal end state. 

Professional Practice for Sustainable Development 

Professional institutions constitute a range of individuals whose beliefs 

and values towards sustainable development are mainly derived from 

their long education, training and experience in their basic discipline. These 

are reinforced through their professional networks. If there is to be a 

common approach for sustainable practice amongst professionals, then 

the framework and training for this needs to come through their 

professional bodies. The Professional Practice for Sustainable Development 

Initiative, sometimes referred to as PP4SD, arose out of this kind of thinking. 

Working with 14 professional institutions, the project aims to help 

members improve their capacity to plan and carry out their 

professional duties in ways that support their achievement of sustainable 

development (1). 

The project started in June 1999 with funding from the Environmental 

Action fund following an invitation seminar in March 1999 initiated and 

hosted by the Environment Agency (EA) and the Council for Environmental 

Education. Its specific objectives are: 

· To engage the participating professions in a learning process to develop 

a common curriculum framework for sustainable development. 

· To develop, test and publish training materials derived from the 

framework appropriate to the needs of the professional institutions. 

The PP4SD Framework 

One of the first tasks of the project was to generate a framework for 

sustainability, to enable all of the participating institutions to ‘apply’ a shared 

mental model, when thinking about sustainability. The framework also 

sets out the limits (or boundaries) of sustainability and is based on high 

level principles which: 

· Cover the whole area of sustainability 

· Are essential but not prescriptive 

· Are applicable over different scales and ranges of activity. 

The framework has been derived from a number of key sources, including: 

The Rio Declaration, World Business Council on Sustainable Development, 

DETR, The Natural Step, The International Institute for Sustainable 

17


P L A N E T 

Development, the World Commission on Environment and Development, 

Forum for the Future and Natural Capitalism. At present given its evolving 

status it states that in a sustainable society: 

1. Any materials mined from the earth should not exceed the 

environment’s capacity to disperse, absorb, recycle or otherwise 

neutralise their harmful effects to humans and the environment; 

2. Synthetic substances in their manufacture and use should not exceed 

the environment’s capacity to disperse, absorb, recycle or otherwise 

neutralise their harmful effects to humans or the environment; 

3. The biological diversity and productivity of ecosystems should not be 

endangered; 

4. A healthy economy should be maintained, which accurately represents 

the value of natural, human, social and manufactured capital; 

5. Individual human skills, knowledge and health should be developed 

and deployed to optimum effect; 

6. Social progress and justice should recognise the needs of everyone; 

7. There must be equity for future generations; 

8. Structures and institutions should promote stewardship of natural 

resources and the development of people. 

The framework can be used flexibly to identify and map the range and 

depth of information to be included in training materials for sustainable 

development. It also highlights the dilemma of sustainability, because it 

illustrates the issues of developing an acceptable quality of life using materials 

and energy for a growing population, whilst seeking to decrease society’s 

harmful physical impact on nature. The framework is set in a future 

perspective and therefore offers a useful tool to help describe the gap 

between today’s activities and the future requirements of a sustainable 

society. 

Implementation 

As far as possible any approach to sustainable development needs to 

encourage professionals to internalise the general principles set out in the 

PP4SD framework and to work out for themselves, the implications or 

applications, as they relate directly to their professional activities. In order 

to support this process the PP4SD project has published two booklets. 

Booklet 1, describes the project’s objectives and the role of the professional 

institutions and partners and defines the framework. This was published 

in May 2000. Booklet 2 was published in September 2000; it is a general 

support document for use in the development of training courses and 

associated materials and tools to promote greater understanding of 

sustainable development within professional practice. During the next 

phase of the project, a generic foundation course on sustainable 

development, based on systems thinking, has been developed in partnership 

with the participating professional bodies. This has just been published by 

the Institution of Environmental Sciences (2). 

Training Materials 

The course materials are designed for use by trainers with professionals. 

Trainers can use them as presented or adapted as necessary for each 

occasion. They introduce the principles of sustainable development in a 

thought-provoking manner, requiring the participants to assess their own 

knowledge, skills and experiences within the context of sustainable 

development. Case studies from business and industry are used to illustrate 

how sustainable development principles are being applied. The materials 

have also been developed for inter-professional groups to ensure that a 

holistic approach to sustainable development is taken. The course aims 

to: 

· improve awareness of the principles which underpin sustainable 

development; 

· examine the implications of applying the principles to their work and 

their lives; 

· enhance awareness of the benefits for business of applying the 

principles to their business activities; 

· assess a number of business case studies; 

· develop understanding of systems thinking and application; 

· increase knowledge of tools and techniques for applying sustainable 

development principles; 

· initiate personal action planning and implementation. 

The materials and concepts have been trialed extensively through 

participative workshops in industry and the professions. The overriding 

conclusion was that a systems approach to sustainable development offers 

real opportunities for new ways of thinking and practically engaging with 

this complex issue. 

Endnotes 

(1) The professional institutions involved in this phase of the project are: 

Building Services and Research Information Association, Chartered 

Institution of Building Services Engineers, Chartered Institution of Water 

and Environmental Management, Chartered Institute of Purchasing 

and Supply, Institute of Energy, Institute of Waste Management, Institute 

of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Civil Engineers, Institution of 

Environmental Sciences, Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Royal 

Institute of British Architecture, Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, 

Royal Society of Chemistry, Royal Town Planning Institute. 

(2) Further details of Booklets 1 and 2 can be downloaded from the 

Institution of Environmental Sciences website: http://www.ies-uk.org 

References 

Atkinson, A. (1998). The compass of sustainability: framework for a 

comprehensive information system. Version I. In: Walter Leal Frilho (Ed.) 

Sustainability and University Life (Peter Lang, Germany). 

Baines, J, Brannigan, J, Martin, S. (2001) Professional Partnerships for Sustainable 

Development (Institution of Environmental Sciences, London). 

DETR (1999) Sustainable Development Education Panel - First Annual Report 

1998 (DETR, London). 

HMSO (1993) Environmental Responsibility - an agenda for further and 

higher education (HMSO, London). 

HMSO (1996) Environmental Responsibility - a review of the 1993 Toyne 

Report (HMSO, London). 

Annie Hall* 

Head of Education 

Environment Agency 

annie.hall@environment-agency.gov.uk 

Stephen Martin** 

Independent Consultant and Visiting Professor at the Open University 

esm@esmartin.demon.co.uk 

* Annie Hall is currently Head of Education, Environment Agency England 

& Wales. She is currently managing the agency’s pathfinder project, which 

is looking at the EA’s future role in sustainable education for the business 

sector. She is also a member of PP4SD project management group and 

the Government Panel on Education for Sustainability. 

** Stephen Martin is a member of the PP4SD project management group 

and the Sigma project steering group and visiting Professor at the Open 

University Centre for Complexity and Change. 

18


P L A N E T 

Using Class Quizzes for 

Weekly Review 

Martin Haigh 


Abstract 

This article describes the use of classroom quizzes as a way of promoting 

student learning in the Department of Geography at Oxford Brookes University. 

Starting each class with a quiz on the previous session’s work encourages 

students to review their course notes ahead of each session, removes the 

need for any spoken review of course progress, and abets attempts to help 

students convert surface memorisation into deep learning through classroom 

discussion. Class quizzes are popular with most students, who mainly agree 

with the above analysis. Quiz scores correlate significantly with most other 

types of assessment, including those from formal essay examinations, so they 

may be considered valid as a mode of assessment. The exercise described in 

this paper will have transferability to other degree programmes, including earth 

and environmental sciences. 

Introduction 

“Assessment is the most powerful lever that teachers have to influence 

the way students respond to courses and behave as learners “ (Gibbs, 

1999, p. 41). However, there remains an assumption that the merits or 

otherwise of most traditional forms of assessment are already well known. 

For example, every progressive instructor knows that using class quizzes 

for student assessment is poor practice. It encourages shallow surface 

learning as students try to memorise their course notes. It suppresses 

student innovation because it implies that there are ‘correct’ answers that 

must be learnt. It discourages student engagement because quizzes tend 

to stress boring ‘facts’ over interesting ‘ideas and arguments’. It also reduces 

student enthusiasm because students find class quizzes stressful and their 

results painful (cf. Zeidner, 1990). Put simply, students do not like class 

quizzes (Nuzum, 1999). 

While there may be some truth in these beliefs, the class quiz is a part of 

the educational tool kit and, like any such device, its impact on student 

learning depends, in large measure, on how it is used. This paper describes 

an application of class quizzes that aims to have positive impacts on student 

learning, student engagement, student enthusiasm, and students’ ability to 

self-construct their own understanding. 

First the problem: how do we as practitioners bridge that tricky moment 

at the start of each class session, when the task is to pull together the 

strands of previous sessions and try to move forward? The awkwardness 

recurs every week, especially in courses that are not discrete topical 

packages but have a direction and build towards a final goal. How is it 

possible to ensure that the students are ready and able to proceed? How 

can this be done when the class includes a population of ‘semi-detached’ 

students, those who are not committed to the course or who like to 

believe they can do enough to pass without much classroom endeavour 

or attendance? Their assumption may be right or wrong but, in the 

meantime, these students choke the development of the course through 

their inability to contribute to classroom discussion or interaction. Normal 

good practice dictates that each new class should begin with a review of 

the previous session’s work. However, the plain fact is, if a student was 

absent in either body or spirit during that previous session or has not 

bothered to prepare ahead the new class, this review may have little 

positive benefit. The problem resolves as how to encourage students to 

enter each new class with the works from the previous session fresh in 

their minds? 

The solution, proposed to the author by colleague Peter Keene, is to 

begin each new session, or allege to begin each new class session, with a 

short class quiz that covers the main points from the previous session 

and perhaps also the required reading for the current session. The question 

discussed here is does this work? Specifically, are class quizzes a useful 

form of assessment that broadly support other assessment strategies? In 

addition, do the students feel that class quizzes are a useful course 

component that helps them learn? 

Context 

The strategy reported in this paper has been adopted in two advanced 

level modules in the modular course at Oxford Brookes University over 

a period of three academic years. Here, each module involves 32 classroom 

contact hours, developed across 4-hour blocks in 8 consecutive weeks. 

These two modules fill a variety of functions in an array of degree 

programmes. Typically, student participants take the modules as 

components of curricula that variously combine Geography, Physical 

Geography, Environmental Sciences, Water Resources, Environmental 

Biology, Planning Studies etc. These students are commonly in either their 

second or third year of undergraduate study. The two modules examined 

in this study are M02676: Gaia: the Earth as a Living System (Haigh, 2001) 

and M02643: Soil Conservation. This second supplements classroom contact 

with a laboratory / field programme of about 8 hours (cf. Haigh and 

Kilmartin, 1987). Typically, the modules enrol 20 - 45 students each year. 

Class Quizzes 

The class quizzes are introduced in the first session as a coursework 

component called “Echoes”. Students are informed that each Echo quiz 

will cover major points from previous sessions or the required reading. 

They are advised, at the outset, of the purpose of these quizzes - namely 

to make them review their notes ahead of class, undertake the required 

reading and/or catch up if they missed a session. Each quiz consists of 2- 

4 open-ended questions, each requiring a sentence or so in answer. They 

are administered at the start of each session or immediately after a coffee 

break, at the whim of the instructor. There are 4-6 quizzes during the 

module and, in sum, the assessment adds up to 20% of the marks for the 

module. The intention is to make the mark for the sum of the quizzes 

substantial, whilst keeping the assessment for individual quizzes small 

enough to be non-threatening (cf. Zeidner, 1990). 

The significant difference between this application of class quizzes and 

their traditional use is that the main function is not assessment. Instead, it 

is to encourage class preparation, attendance and, hopefully, ensure that 

the students attending know enough to participate in class discussion 

designed to reinforce learning. However, the technique also contributes 

to assessment and this generates the question of whether or not the 

assessment generated supports other, more usual, modes of assessment. 

So the questions are, did the strategy work, and is the assessment generated 

useful? 

Evaluation 

Three approaches have been adopted for the evaluation of the role of 

class quizzes in the two modules. The first involves the statistical 

comparison of Echo quiz scores with other aspects of assessment using 

Spearman correlation on mark-sheets for 227 students (cf. Haynes, 1996). 

The initial assumption might be that class quiz scores would not correlate 

with aspects of assessment that test deeper learning, such as an essaybased 

examination, a learning journal, a self-constructed laboratory 

exercise, and a field interpretation exercise. They might, however, correlate 

with scores collected by students who performed well in making a short 

classroom representation of a textbook reading, since this could be 

constructed on memorisation and other reproducing-orientation skills. 

The second involves a comparison of the performance of students who 

completed all the class quizzes with those who completed 50% or less 

(already labelled in this paper as the ‘semi-detached’). 

19


P L A N E T 

The third involves the analysis of 127 course evaluation questionnaires 

for the two courses, collected in the period May 1999 - July 2001. These 

questionnaire returns are anonymous, so it is not possible to differentiate 

between responses on the basis of student attendance or performance. 

Instead, the aim is to determine whether the students found the class 

quizzes a valuable part of the programme and whether preparing for the 

quizzes helped them learn more from succeeding classes. 

Evaluation was conducted by means of an open format questionnaire 

administered at the close of each course. Students were given report 

forms and asked to respond to the request ‘Please describe, as fully as 

possible, your experience of this module?’ This approach allows students 

to mention their concerns, both positive and negative without any 

constraints concerning either topic or topic selection. The assumption is 

that if a student finds something valuable about the course, they will 

mention this fact. Equally, if they have negative feelings or problems about 

an aspect of the course, this will also be mentioned. As an approach to 

evaluation, this seems hugely preferable to any method that constrains 

student views by closed questions and some kind of likert response scale. 

It also supports the learning strategy of the Oxford Brookes University 

Geography Department, which emphasises student-centred and studentactive 

learning, and where - by listening to what the students actually 

want to say - the courses aim to help the student get the most from their 

own education. 

In one case, evaluation policy deviated from this completely open structure. 

In 2001, students on M02643: Soil Conservation were asked a second 

question specific to the class quiz component of the course. This asked if 

they felt that the class quizzes encouraged them to review their notes 

ahead of each lecture and whether they regarded the class quiz as an 

adequate replacement for any spoken review of the previous week’s work. 

Results 

Correlations between the class quiz and final examination scores were 

reasonably strong and highly significant (rho= 0.384, p< 0.0005, n=227). 

This suggests that the class quiz results broadly reinforce this more 

traditional form of assessment, which is also usually taken as the measure 

of student learning. In terms conventional, this suggests that the class quiz 

mechanism fosters student learning (cf. Marco and Crone 1991). 

The Echo quiz scores also correlate significantly with three other modes 

of assessment. As expected, they correlated strongly with spoken class 

presentations (rho=0.284, p


P L A N E T 

The two courses under examination here have been run and evaluated for 

many years. In a new course, many rough edges show through, but in these 

courses several years of work and reworking have been devoted to help 

the module run smoothly. For example, in modules that recruit from 

geography and the social sciences, there is an immediate crisis every time a 

mathematical argument is presented. Crossing such hurdles, helping students 

to read and use each equation and to think about its meaning, has taken a 

lot of thought and time. A measure of success is that, now, few students list 

‘equations’ among the negative or troublesome aspects of the course. In the 

same process of revision, generally popular course elements, such as the 

use of video case studies - supported by question sheets and student group 

discussion - can be tuned up. After some trial and error, other things being 

equal, the result can be a generally happy class. 

Course Attributes in Rank Order 

Respondents (n=67) 

Enjoyable/Interesting etc. - positive general 43 

comments on the topics covered by the course 

Good course / structure - positive general comments 37 

on the student on the structures and presentation of 

the course 

Videos (and question sheets) - first ranked course 19 

component singled out for positive comment - 

students liked the videos and also the supporting 

question sheets, which try to ensure that they 

collect information and also apply critical analysis 

to the video text. 

Quiz - second ranked course component 14 

Choice in coursework - support for the selection 13 

of coursework activities available - often linked to 

comments about the development of personal skills 

Student presentations -support for the opportunity 13 

for students to develop spoken presentation skills and 

gain assessment for not-written coursework. This is 

also the second ranked most disliked course component 

- a comment on the quality of some student presentations. 

Handouts - students liked being given copies of the 10 

information on the OHP slides, which meant they did 

not have to worry so much about note taking and 

keeping up. 

Dislike: 4-hour class block. Students argue that these 10 

are much too long and too intensive. (Almost every 

aspect of the course was disliked by at least one 

student - but the only component mentioned 

regularly was the 4-hour -block that was used by the session). 

Field trail - supported by the students and 8 

mentioned, mainly, in connection with the thought 

that it should be compulsory and that it should be 

conducted in parallel with the virtual field trail 

of the same sites. 

Lectures - general positive comments, not usually 6 

linked to any special attribute of the lectures. 

Assessment balance - positive comments often 6 

linked to the 60:40% coursework: examination split 

and the assessment awarded to individual options - 

a position achieved for this course after years 

of trail and error. 

Table 2. Digest of Evaluation Returns for M02643: Soil Conservation 

(1999-2001). 

21 

In 1999, 2000 and 2001, 67 of 89 students returned questionnaires on 

M02643: Soil Conservation. Overall, quizzes were the 2nd most frequently 

mentioned course component in the lists of positive course attributes; 

only the video case studies were more popular. They were listed as positive 

features of the course by 14 students and in a negative context by only 

one, which means that 52 students did not feel it necessary to single 

them out for specific comment. Table 2 provides a summary of the 

content of three years’ anonymous course evaluation returns for M02643: 

Soil Conservation. It shows all comments that concerned 6 or more 

respondents and illustrates the typical mix of general and specific 

comments. In 2000-2001, 66 of 73 students on M02676: Gaia : The Earth 

as a Living System, completed course consultation questionnaires. Quizzes 

ranked 4th and 8th among lists of positive course attributes with a total 

of 11 respondents agreeing that the quizzes encouraged them to revise 

their notes. Quizzes were listed as negative attributes, ranking 5th and 

9th, by 5 students who complained that quizzes were not specific enough 

to the previous week’s work and carried too many marks. 

Evaluation summaries are filed on the module website for student access 

and they are discussed at staff-student meetings. 

In 2001, 27 students on M02643, the Soil Conservation module responded 

to a second question that asked students specifically for their views on 

quizzes. The results and some specific student comments are included as 

Table 3. Some 20 agreed that the quizzes met the course aims of 

encouraging revision, 12 added that they also replaced the need to review 

the previous lecture. However, 6 commented that the quizzes did not 

encourage the revision of course notes, 4 finding it possible to rely on 

memory, 2 arguing that each quiz carried too few marks to make the 

effort worthwhile. 

Analysis of Student Comments (with number of respondents 

addressing topic) 

Positive Comments: 

• Made me revise before each session: 12 

• Effective - met both aims well; 12 

• Good/ effective / (retain in module): 4 

• Makes you want to go to class (assessment driven): 2 

Negative Comments: 

• Did not achieve objectives: 6 

• Too few marks per test to be bothered: 2 

Specific Illustrative Comments: 

• “It became essential to review notes… this is one of only a few 

modules where I feel last minute cramming for the examination 

will not be necessary” 

• “Quizzes were a good ‘learning’ technique …making the learning 

process easier” 

• “Quizzes every week - excellent way of getting people to lectures 

- I really learnt from the quizzes” 

• “Echo quizzes kept us on our toes…” 

• “They make us look at our work every week, however, if people 

wanted to learn, they would by themselves” 

• “Tests work very well, if people didn’t listen the first time, they 

won’t listen to a spoken review!” 

• “The tests don’t encourage revision - but people check to see if 

they had the right answer afterwards”. 

• “I’d prefer more marks of a longer test more than several small 

tests which are not worth much” 

Table 3: Do class quizzes encourage the review of course notes and 

replace the need for a spoken review of the previous week’s work?


P L A N E T 

Discussion 

Researchers have frequently shown that assessment style drives students’ 

strategies for learning (Hargreaves, 1996). Ramsden (1992, p. 211) advises 

that objective tests should be used with caution. Some strategies have 

negative impacts, encouraging surface learning more than a deep approach. 

Class tests are frequently numbered in such lists (Kember et al., 1995). 

Inevitably, the class quiz system emphasises reproducing learnt information. 

However, it ranks among the most popular elements of coursework 

because it fosters deeper learning. By encouraging students to review 

their notes from previous sessions, it helps them gain more from the 

current session - the majority of those questioned directly emphasised 

that the approach helped them keep on top of their learning tasks 

(Table 3). 

Statistical analysis shows that quiz results correlate strongly and significantly 

with other more usual modes of assessment, including those taken as 

indicative of deep rather than shallow learning. For example, formal 

examinations are regarded as the principal guide to student learning by 

the majority of courses in the majority of UK universities. The strong 

correlation between quiz and examination scores implies that quizzes 

support learning in similar ways. 

This conclusion is reinforced by the comparison of performance between 

students that scored in all or most quizzes versus those who scored in 

less than 50% - here labelled ‘the semi-detached’. The results show that 

those who were most engaged in the course, as evidenced by scoring in 

most class quizzes, fared significantly better in the final examination than 

those who failed to score in most quizzes. It must be emphasised that 

the phrase ‘failed to score’ broadly implies a failure to attend either the 

current session or to make up work from a missed previous session. Of 

course, there is some circularity in this argument. It could be argued that 

those who attend lectures would do better in examinations, class quiz or 

not. It has been shown that students prefer lecturers that make their 

lectures compulsory and feel that they gain more when governed by this 

discipline (Williams, 1992). Several students felt that the quizzes 

encouraged their class attendance. 

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons the technique succeeds is that quiz 

questions are pitched at an accessible level. The tests work as an incentive 

to class participation. Ehrlich (1995, p.379) describes how, in early 

experiments, he set questions that were too challenging and served only 

to remind students of their own inability to master the material. As a 

consequence, students were unhappy and dreaded the quizzes. By contrast, 

when Ehrlich set quizzes that were more easily answered, the positive 

results improved student morale, self-belief, and determination to work 

hard to maintain good scores. Marco and Crone (1991, p168) found that 

their ability to predict college grades, (i.e. further learning, from High 

School SAT tests) was greatest when the challenge was linked to ‘middle 

difficulty’ for the average student. 

Another ingredient of success seems to be that the tests were regular. 

Zeidner (1994) found that surprise quizzes were opposed by most of 

the students in his study; who felt that the quizzes were administered for 

vindictive purposes and caused unnecessary stress. Zeidner’s respondents 

also worried that their quizzes tested relatively unimportant information. 

In sum, class quizzes have to tackle major issues and they have to be 

administered regularly with as little surprise as possible. 

Zeidner (1994) reports that students who valued the tests did so for 

similar reasons to those voiced here. The quizzes provided a guide to 

progress (52%), motivation for the revision and review of course material 

(37%) and boosted grades (4%). Equally, most (70%) of Zeidner’s sample 

of teachers welcomed quizzes because they kept students motivated 

(64%), provided prompt feedback on learning (25%) and provided a 

realistic appraisal of student knowledge (9%). Those who opposed quizzes 

thought they were stressful to students (52%), reduced student grades 

22 

(33%) and reflected only short term learning (7%). However, it has been 

suggested that learning is a function of the degree to which students feel 

concerned about the tasks they are set (Saljo and Wyndham, 1990). 

‘Concern’ and ‘stress’ may be two sides of the same coin. 

In response to these last points, quizzes that reduce student grades may 

be pitched at a level that is too hard to be useful. A successful quiz strategy, 

that encourages student learning, should generate high marks. These 

function to foster positive participation, to reward and reinforce those 

who are striving to keep ahead of the work - carrots rather than sticks to 

use a vernacular expression. Here, each quiz provides only the tiniest 

assessment incentive to class attendance. However, even such a small 

reward may be critical. 

The necessity for class attendance, however, makes the technique less 

popular with students that do not like to attend class so regularly and 

hence are penalised by missing quiz scores. Elsewhere, high levels of 

attendance in class and longer, more diligent, studying have been associated 

with students adopting inefficient surface learning strategies (Kember et 

al., 1995). However, in a course that builds progressively away from the 

textbook and into uncharted territory as in the case of M02676: Gaia, 

there is no way to avoid class attendance. Even in M02643 Soil 

Conservation, the course deals with a subject that is in the throes of 

tumultuous and revolutionary change, which is being driven by field 

practitioners rather than academics and by workers whose studies and 

arguments are hard to access through library publications. The easiest 

route to deep understanding is through the critical evaluation of grey 

literature and video case studies, reinforced by classroom discussion 

between students. 

Quizzes have the advantage that they remove some debate over marks 

and also the possibility of bluffing (cf. Zeidner, 1994, p47). Zeidner suggests 

that students view essay-type exams as more fair than objective tests but 

this does not seem to be supported in this case (Zeidner, 1990 p.161). 

Zeidner (1990 p.158) adds that students find quizzes less stressful than 

essay tests. 

Finally, it is undoubtedly the case that quizzes test surface learning. However, 

it is very useful to have a reservoir of memorised learning in place at the 

start of a class session. This gives the instructor some foundations to build 

on during the session and hopefully, something to convert into deeper, 

longer term, understanding. Here, the quizzes were welcomed because 

they contributed to the variety of activities undertaken in class and because, 

in preparation and post-mortem, they provided opportunities for 

discussion with colleagues. 

Conclusion 

The introduction of regular class quizzes, that test students’ knowledge of 

the substance of previous sessions and required reading, has successfully 

encouraged students to review their course notes ahead of each class. 

The approach has been popular with a majority of students on the two 

courses where it has been introduced. In both cases, it seems to have 

encouraged greater class participation by a larger group of better-prepared 

students. Although class quizzes sponsor a reproducing orientation in 

student learning, the scores from these quizzes correlate significantly with 

those of course components that foster deep learning. These include 

traditional essay examinations, preparation of a learning diary and selfconstructed 

laboratory experimentation. This supports the intuition that 

the students’ preparation for a class quiz gives them additional shortterm 

knowledge that abets the development of deeper learning by further 

study. 

References: 

Ehrlich, R. (1995) Giving a quiz every lecture. Physics Teacher, 33(6), 378- 

379. 

Gibbs, G. (1999) Using assessment strategies to change the ways that 

students learn, pp 44-54, in: Brown, S. and Glasner, A. (Eds) Assessment


P L A N E T 

Matters in Higher Education: Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches. 

Buckingham, SRHE & Open University Press, 210pp. 

Haigh, M.J. (2001) Constructing Gaia: using journals to foster reflective 

learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 25(2), 199-221. 

Haigh, M.J. & Kilmartin, M.P. (1987) Teaching soil conservation in the 

laboratory using the “Bank Erosion Channel” flume. Journal of Geography 

in Higher Education, 12(2), 161-167. 

Hargreaves, D.J. (1996) How undergraduate students learn. European Journal 

of Engineering Education, 21(4), pp. 425 - 434. 

Haynes, R.J. (1996) Use of statistics, pp 67-134, In: Watts, S. J. and Halliwell, 

L.(eds) Essential Environmental Science: Methods and Techniques. London, 

Routledge, 512pp. 

Kember, D. Jamieson, Q.W., Pomfret, M. & Wong, E.T.T. (1995) Learning 

approaches, study time and academic performance. Higher Education, 29(3), 

329-343. 

Marco, G.L. and Crone, C.R. (1991) The relationship of trends in SAT 

content and statistical characteristics to SAT predictive validity, pp 161- 

194 in. Willingham, W.W., Lewis, C., Morgan, R. and Ramist, L. (eds) Predicting 

College Grades: An Analysis of Institutional Trends over Two Decades. New 

York: The College Board and Educational Testing Service, 342pp. 

Nuzum, M. (1999) “But you didn’t tell us you were giving a test today!” 

(use of tests as teaching tools). Instructor (Jan-Feb), 3pp. (http:// 

findarticles.com/cf_0/m0STR/5_108/53649874/printjhtml) 

Ramsden, P. (1992) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. London, 

Routledge. 

Saljo, M. and Wyndham, J. (1990) Problem solving and academic 

performance and situated reasoning: a study of joint cognitive activity in 

the formal setting, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(3), 245-255. 

Williams, E. (1992) Students’ attitudes to approaches to learning and 

assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 17(1), 45-58. 

Zeidner, M. (1994) Reactions of students and teachers towards key facets 

of classroom testing, School Psychology International, 15, 39-53. 

Zeidner, M. (1990) College students’ reactions towards key facets of 

classroom testing, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15(2), 

pp 151-169. 

Martin Haigh 



mhaigh@brookes.ac.uk. 

Notice to Publishers 

Learning and teaching books and/or 

software for review should be sent to the 

editor at the address given at the back of 

this edition of PLANET. 

23 

Examining Home Learning 

Environments 

Greg Spellman, Ken Field and John Sinclair 


Abstract 

This study uses a methodology originally developed by education researchers 

examining the homework environment and homework achievement of school 

pupils. We adapt the approach to make it relevant to higher education, in 

this case to Geography and Earth Science students. We find that environmental 

and personal components, significantly influence levels of student achievement. 

The rationale for this research is that as our demands for personal study 

increase (due to the rise in distance learning and WWW- based learning) we 

should develop strategies to improve the relationships between out-of-class 

learning environments and individual learning styles. 

Introduction 

A growing literature exists on the relationships between the learning 

environment and the achievement of learning outcomes (Fraser 1998). 

However, research into the influence of the learning environment on 

learning strategies is relatively new (Wierstra et al 1999). The overall aim 

of this kind of investigation is to identify the relationship between all 

aspects of the environment and the student, with the intention of improving 

the learning process. To date, much of the work in this area has been 

conducted on the in-class environments of school-age communities. 

Higher Education is differentiated from primary and secondary levels by 

its greater emphasis on personal study - termed ‘homework’ at these 

lower levels. Geography and Earth Science approaches are typical. It is 

essential that students follow up contact hours with reading, prepare for 

assignments and research dissertations, whilst managing their own study 

environments. Thus there is strong justification for examination of the 

influence of out-of-class learning environments as we move into a time 

where wider participation via e-based tuition and distance learning is 

promoted. Hong (2001) states that efforts have been made to adjust 

classroom environment to students’ in-school learning styles and cites 

Boulmetis and Sabula (1996) and Caudill (1998) amongst others. Similar 

attempts should be made to encourage students to improve the 

environments in which they study in their own time. 

Many of the factors which affect in-class learning environments can be 

controlled by the tutor and, to some extent, by the learners themselves. 

These include physical ‘tangible’ factors such as seating, temperature, lighting, 

visual aids and the existence of adequate work surfaces and also ‘nontangibles’ 

academic context, motivation, peer influence and discipline. 

On the other hand many other factors will influence the effectiveness of 

personal study; these can be grouped as: 

1. the cognitive and personality characteristics of the student (e.g. 

individual preferences of time, place and conditions); 

2. the type of work being done (e.g. assessed, note-taking, research); 

3. other influences on the process of learning outside the University 

environment (e.g. the impact of culture and subculture, paid work, 

social commitments, friends, family and flat-mates). 

This preliminary study investigates the importance of aspects of the home 

learning environment on achievement. We base this work on the premise 

that HE has much to learn from the pedagogic research undertaken on 

school communities. This project relied heavily on a methodology 

developed by Hong and Milgram (2000) to evaluate the homework style 

of school (seventh grade) students in the USA. A homework scale was 

modified to be appropriate to an HE population. This involved for example 

omitting ‘parents’ as an influence on the home learning environment 

(although increasingly in HE the wisdom of this omission could be 

challenged).


P L A N E T 

Methodology 

The Personal Study Preference Questionnaire (PSPQ) (termed 

Homework Preference Questionnaire by Hong and Milgram) was used 

to measure how students preferred to learn at home. It was distributed 

to 103 First and Second year students of Geography and Earth Science 

at University College Northampton. In the questionnaire eighty items 

are rated on a five point Likert scale to provide 18 scores that correspond 

to 18 personal study components. Likert ratings were based on the 

results of a pilot study with a group of six respondents. Items were 

worded so that low point scores on the Likert scale were potentially 

associated with ‘good learning practice’ (for instance, ‘I like to work in a 

quiet place’). Items were subdivided by motivation and preference. 

Motivation items assess the source and strength of the motives that explain 

the initial student activation (Is it immediate? Is it last minute? Is it outcomeoriented?). 

Preference items investigate how the learner then proceeds 

until study is completed. For twelve of the components a high score for 

the relevant component indicates a high preference (Self-motivated, Tutormotivated, 

Persistence, Responsibility, Structure, Order, Authority figures, 

Auditory, Visual, Intake, Kinesthetic and Mobility). For instance, a student 

scoring high on ‘Structure’ prefers those activities that are well-defined 

and specific to a particular assessment rather than general research and 

background reading. Similarly, high scores on the ‘Visual’ component would 

reflect a liking of web-based tuition and poster-based activities. 

The remaining six components are environmental. These are scored on 

a bipolar scale with high scores indicating a preference for the second of 

each of these component pairs - silence/sound, dim/bright illumination, 

cool/warm temperature, informal/formal design, alone/with peers, change 

place/same place. For instance, ‘Informal/formal design’ refers to the choice 

between hard chair and desk or a sofa or bed. The internal consistency 

(Cronbach’s alpha) of each PSPQ component ranged from 0.48 to 0.86. 

The internal consistency estimates of four components (Structure, Order, 

Authority Figures and Tutor-Motivated) were below 0.60 and as a result 

these should be interpreted with caution. 

In common with the original procedure of Hong and Milgram (2000) the 

sample was divided into groups according to: 

1. A subjective method based on self-perceived achievement; 

2. An objective method based on previous assessment scores. 

Self perceived achievement was measured using five items which were 

included within the PSPQ. These asked students to agree/disagree (using 

a fivepoint scale) on questions such as ‘I try to get the highest grade possible 

in all assigned work’ and ‘I try to read everything on the module reading lists’. 

The students were divided into three groups on the basis of their scores 

on these five items. Those attaining total scores above the 33 rd percentile 

of the sample thus became the ‘high (self-perceived) achievers’ and the 

other two groups were the ‘middle (self-perceived) achievers’ and ‘low 

(self-perceived) achievers’. 

The objective method used previous class assessment scores to divide 

the sample based on actual achievement, in the same way as the selfperceived 

method above. One methodological issue here should be 

expressed and that is only a limited amount of assessed work (two pieces) 

was used. This should be treated with caution as in most institutions First 

year work does not require more than a ‘pass ‘ as the marks do not 

contribute to the final degree classification. 

Results 

(a) Self-Perceived 

Statistically significant differences in PSPQ scores (at 95%) were found 

between the three levels of self-perceived achievement. The differences 

were most apparent in 7 out of the 18 components, namely: self-motivated, 

structure, order, persistence, alone/with peers, tutor-motivated and sound. 

Students who perceived their personal study to be of high quality were 

self-and tutor-motivated, persistent (worked for lengthy periods at a time), 

liked structured activities, liked to organize themselves in a certain order, 

worked better alone and in quieter environments than their lower achieving 

peers. 

(b) Objective Method 

Univariate ANOVA reveals that four preferred personal study styles (‘Selfmotivation’, 

‘Alone/with Peers’, ‘Persistence’ and ‘Sound’) showed a significant 

difference (at 95%) between the three objective levels of achievement. 

Students in the high achievement category therefore like to be selfmotivated, 

prefer quiet environments, dislike groupwork and prefer to 

work for significant periods at one time. Low performers, on the other 

hand, are less motivated, like to work with an accompanying soundtrack 

and enjoy groupwork activities. 

Discussion and Conclusion 

In common with the research on school students by Hong (2001) more 

distinguishing personal study style components resulted from the analysis 

of the three self perceived achievement groups than from the groups 

based on actual achievement. This is because the former group reflects 

not merely the marking system but the students’ efforts and attitudes to 

their work. 

Hong (2001) comments that if the personal study environment is tailored 

to meet the individual preferences of learners “…it is reasonable to expect 

an improvement in homework attitudes and achievement similar to that 

attained when the in-school learning environment was matched to each 

student’s learning style.” Explicit self identification of preferred learning 

style might help the student as in other ways when such self reflective 

practices bear fruits. 

In HE the personal study element has traditionally made up a high 

proportion or the learning strategy (remember the old cliché “you read for 

a degree rather than being taught it”). This contrasts greatly with student 

experiences at earlier stages of their educational career. Historically, while 

sterling attempts have been made to foster learning in the HE classroom, 

the out-of-class environment has always been approached in a rather 

‘laissez-faire’ manner. It is suggested in this paper that if we accept learning 

environments are important factors in the learning process and we are 

intent on improving student achievement, then strategies should be 

developed to address the personal study environment. This is particularly 

vital in the context of increasing distance learning components in HE courses 

which could have a significant influence on the engagement and achievement 

of learners. 

We propose that further research should concentrate on an examination 

of differences between subjects within Geography (e.g. physical and human) 

and perhaps investigate how factors vary across the years of study. We 

noted considerable within-achievement-level variation and suggest that 

the different environmental components could differentiate between subgroups 

based on other common characteristics rather than achievement 

(e.g. mature or young, male or female). 

Finally, our research suggests that in HE, pedagogic researchers should be 

familiar with work on teaching and learning at all levels in education and 

we should not fall into the trap of assuming our learners do not have a 

long histories and well developed personal learning styles. 

Above all, we need to alert our students to the importance of approaching 

their home studies in ways that will enhance their academic performance. 

References 

Boulmetis, J. and Sabula, A.M. (1996), Achievement gains via instruction 

that matches learning style perceptual preferences. Journal of Continuing 

Higher Education, 8, pp. 7-25 

24


P L A N E T 

Caudill, G. , (1998), Matching Teaching and learning styles. Technology 

Connection, 4, pp. 24-25. 

Fraser, B. J. (1998) Classroom Environment Instruments: Development, 

Validity and Application. Learning Environments Research, 1, pp. 7-34 

Hong, E. and Milgram, R.M., (1999), Preferred and actual homework style: 

A cross cultural examination. Educational Research, 41, pp. 251-265 

Hong, E, (2001), Homework style, homework environment and academic 

achievement. Learning Environments Research, 4, pp. 7-23. 

Wiestra, R.F.A., Kanselaar, G. Van Der Linden, J.L. and Lodewijks, H.G.L.C., 

(1999), Learning Environment Perceptions of European University Students. 

Learning Environments Research, 2, pp. 79-98 

Gregg Spellman, Ken Field and John Sinclair 

School of Environmental Science (Geography Division) 


gregg.spellman@northampton.ac.uk 

ken.field@northampton.ac.uk 

john.sinclair@northampton.ac.uk 

HAVE YOU SEEN THIS? 

Disability Update 

Special Education Needs and 

Disability Act (SENDA) 2001 

Introduction 

The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA) finally received 

Royal Assent in May 2001. The new legislation will require higher education 

institutions to: 

· Not treat disabled students less favourably, without justification, than 

non-disabled students; 

· Make reasonable adjustments to ensure that people who are disabled 

are not put at a substantial disadvantage compared with people who 

are not disabled in accessing higher education. 

The legislation will have important implications, not only for estates 

departments and physical access but also for learning, teaching and 

assessment practices. It will impact on areas such as: 

· Course content and validation 

· Work placements 

· Teaching arrangements 

· Communication or learning support services 

· Materials in alternative formats 

· Staff training 

It is intended that most of the legislation will be brought into force by 

autumn 2002, with provision of auxiliary aids and services (such as 

interpreters) being implemented by autumn 2003, and physical adjustment 

provisions in 2005. 

A Code of Practice, which gives guidance to providers of post-16 education 

in the implementation of the new law, is currently out for consultation, 

and is available on the Disability Rights Commission website at 

http://www.drc-gb.org. 

Learning from Experience 

Last December I undertook a study visit to Australia where similar 

legislation has been in place since 1993. The Australian system of disability 

support is remarkably consistent with UK practice; the majority of services 

are organised from student support/welfare departments who liaise with 

academic departments on issues concerned with learning and teaching. 

Interestingly, since 1993, the majority of legal cases that reached court 

where the judgement has gone against the university, were directly related 

to learning and teaching issues. This includes direct discrimination in not 

allowing access to courses; the inability to make reasonable adjustments 

to teaching and learning practice and access to timely materials in 

alternative formats. 

Current Work 

The HEFCE recently commissioned a ‘map’ of existing resources related 

to the learning and teaching of disabled students in higher education. 

The map will locate pedagogical development materials, pedagogical 

research and resources including organisations/networks or people within 

institutions. It is expected the report will be published soon and will 

assist academic staff in locating resources and advice to support good 

practice. The LTSN Generic Centre (http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/genericcentre/ 

default.asp) is also hoping to fund a project that will build upon the 

outcomes of the mapping exercise. 

Individual subject centres are also starting to address disability. For example, 

the subject centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Science (GEES) 

held a conference in October for their communities on the new legislation 

and how best to support academic staff in ensuring compliance. The 

conference was well attended by academics and support staff from the 

disciplines. In addition, a special themed edition of PLANET is also being 

produced on special education needs and will be disseminated to all 

GEES departments in the Spring of 2002 (contact Steve Gaskin for more 

details: sgaskin@plymouth.ac.uk). The subject centre for Engineering (http:/ 

/www.ltsneng.ac.uk/) has seconded a Disability Advisor for one day a 

week to produce a series of disability awareness booklets about specific 

areas within engineering; the booklets will contain contributions from 

disabled people who are either engineers or engineering students. 

This type of activity is critical if the learning experience of disabled students 

is to match that of their non-disabled peers; subject centre developments 

will be important to achieve this necessary change. 

Mike Adams 

Director 

National Disability Team 

http://www.natdisteam.ac.uk/ 

m.adams@coventry.ac.uk 


Readers may also be interested in the article by Healey et al. on fieldwork 

and disability (in the main papers section), and also the short article 

written by McCarthy on TechDis, which follows in this section of PLANET. 

GEES Headline News Service 

Want to keep up-to-date with Subject Centre activities, 

developments and projects through email? Then join ‘GEES 

Headline news’ by emailing the Subject Centre on 

info@gees.ac.uk 

25

Download - GEES Subject Centre Home

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?