Download this PDF - GEES Subject Centre Home

Issue One January 2001
January 2001
Issue One
Learning and Teaching
Support Network
National Subject Centre
for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences
Planet
Supporting learning and
teaching in Geography,
Earth and Environmental
Sciences
In this issue:
• Introducing the new National
Subject Centre
• Teaching and the RAE
• C & IT in fieldwork
• Business for Geology Students
• Collaborative Learning
Environments
• Synergy: The Greenwich Experience
• A Guide to HE Initiatives
• Diary Dates

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
C O N T E N T S
Welcome - “A word from the boss” 2
Cliff Allan
Introducing the LTSN National Subject 3
Centre for GEES
Brian Chalkley
Feature Articles:
- Teaching and the RAE 4
Mick Healey
- Developing Field-Sim; Software to 6
Support Fieldwork
Mike Sanders and Malcolm Nimmo
- An Oil Business Simulation for 8
Geology Students
Gordon Walkden
- Urban Planning: A New Collaborative 12
Learning Environment
Chris Webster, Jeff Johns and Kioe Sheng Yap
- Synergy: The Greenwich Experience 14
Mike McGibbon
Subject Centre Activities, Developments 15
and Projects
Reviews 19
GEES Guide to…. 21
For Your Information 25
Webbed Foot 27
Diary Dates 29/30
Information for Contributors 31
What is PLANET?
PLANET is the bi-annual publication of the LTSN National 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.
Welcome - “A word from the boss”
As Director of the UK’s new Learning and Teaching Support Network
(LTSN), I am pleased to welcome this first edition of PLANET. It is one of
a range of initiatives being undertaken by your new Subject Centre to
promote the cause of learning and teaching in Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences.
Your Centre is part of a network of 24 Centres (the LTSN) each of
which is providing a one-stop shop for staff wanting information, ideas,
resources or advice about teaching in their subject area(s). Each LTSN
Centre is adopting its own approach to the dissemination of good
education practice, but all are helping departments and individuals to
respond to change in ways which will enhance student learning.
The LTSN is a unique initiative and so the eyes of the world are upon us.
This opens up possibilities for international contacts and makes it doubly
important that we succeed in demonstrating the value of our disciplinebased
approach to developments in learning and teaching.
Here in the UK the disciplines of Geography, Earth and Environmental
Sciences are widely recognised as having a very strong commitment to
their students, not least as evidenced through fieldwork. In recent years
they have also developed much innovative good practice to share with
each other and with other subjects. I therefore wish your new Subject
Centre every success in all its various activities and services. Please use
them to the full!
Cliff Allan
LTSN Programme Director
DOWNLOAD PLANET 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.
Editorial Board
The University of Plymouth based team
Stephen Gaskin
Operational Editor
Subject Centre Dissemination Co-ordinator
Brian Chalkley
Subject Centre Director
Lawrie Phipps
Subject Centre C & IT Manager
Helen King
Subject Centre Manager
The Centre’s National Advisory Team
Mick Healey Cheltenham and Gloucester College of HE
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
PLANET ISSN Number 1473-1835
2

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Profile on….Cliff Allan
Who is he?
Cliff is responsible for the strategic direction of the Learning
and Teaching Support Network (LTSN), its funding arrangements,
overall management of the programme and support for Subject
Centres.
Background
Cliff spent 10 years working on policy for the funding councils,
first the former Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council
(PCFC) and latter the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE) where he was Head of Teaching and Learning
Policy. He has also worked in management consultancy, primarily
in the public and education sectors. Prior to this he briefly lectured
in International Relations and Politics at Coventry University.
Professional Interests
Cliff has a significant interest in the implementation of national
policy - trying to make ‘good ideas’ work in practice. In particular,
having seen and contributed to many previous HE policy initiatives
on learning and teaching he believes the LTSN is a real
opportunity to build on what we have learned and deliver
something that has a real impact on learning and teaching in HE.
He continues to undertake research in the educational policy
process.
Personal Interests
Cliff is an occasional runner and tennis player - but since returning
to his northern roots he has invested a slice of free time enjoying
the resurgence of his beloved Leeds United.
HE: the next ten years?
Cliff asserts that the biggest change in HE over the next 10
years will be students who enter HE after several years of using
and mastering communications and information technologies,
and who will expect their application in learning and teaching
and student support. He states that ‘we must be prepared,
adaptable and responsive to such changes in student expectations
and abilities’.
Introducing the National Subject
Centre: What’s it all about?
Welcome to the new LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences and to this very first edition of
PLANET. Our Centre is part of a network of 24 such higher education
centres, each one committed to raising the profile of learning and
teaching in a particular academic discipline or subject field. Our
Centre’s aim therefore is to promote the development and sharing
of good educational practice within and across the three disciplines
which define our particular remit.
Our role is national and comprehensive. So, no matter where you
are based or in what kind of institution you work, if you are interested
in the teaching of Geography, Earth or Environmental Science, we are
here to help. Our three subjects are already recognised as leading
disciplines in higher education teaching and the Centre will be working
hard to maintain and build on our established reputation for high
standards and successful innovation.
Academics rightly cherish their independence and so the new Centre
will most definitely not be in the business of telling staff how to do
their teaching. Instead, our approach will prioritise working
collaboratively to identify and meet the needs of the three communities.
Our key goal will be to promote ideas and practices which will enable
staff in the three disciplines to enrich the quality of students’ education.
This goal will be achieved through a range of activities and services
such as national conferences, departmental workshops, a staff advisory
service, special dissemination projects, good-practice databases, an
information gateway and our website news service. Our bi-annual
publication, PLANET, will also help to keep staff abreast of new
developments and provide a forum for debating current issues.
Based at the University of Plymouth, the Centre has five staff, myself
(Brian Chalkley) as Director, Helen King as Centre Manager, Steve
Gaskin as Dissemination Co-ordinator, plus Judith Gill who is our
Administrative Assistant and Lawrie Phipps who is our C & IT Manager
(though sadly Lawrie will soon be moving to take up a more senior
position at York with the LTSN).
Our Centre is fortunate in being able to draw on the services of four
part-time Senior Advisors not based at Plymouth, each of whom
provides specialist expertise. They are Jenny Blumhof (Environmental
Science), Mick Healey (Geography), Geoff Robinson (C&IT) and Neil
Thomas (Earth Science). All the Centre’s activities are overseen by a
Steering Group which includes senior figures from the three disciplines
and from the relevant professional bodies. Its chair is Rita Gardner,
Director of the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British
Geographers (RGS-IBG).
Our new Centre, sometimes referred to as GEES (pronounced geese),
represents a significant initiative in the development of learning and
teaching across our three subjects. It brings the benefits of a strong
discipline-focus together with opportunities for collaboration,
particularly with our near discipline neighbours. If PLANET readers
have suggestions to make about any of our activities and services, we
would be very pleased to hear from you. Our aim is to respond to
the needs of the three disciplines (both individually and collectively):
your ideas can help and would be much appreciated.
Brian Chalkley
Director
National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences
b.chalkley@plymouth.ac.uk
3

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Teaching and the RAE
Response to HEFCE (2000) Review of Research 00/37
Prepared by Mick Healey and endorsed by the Subject Centre’s
Director, Manager, Senior Advisors and Steering Group
Background
1. In September 2000, the Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE) published a consultation report on their
fundamental review of research policy and funding. The report,
recommendations and consultation questions can be viewed or
downloaded from the HEFCE’s web-site at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/
Pubs/hefce/2000/00_37.htm Many readers will have been involved
in contributing to comments on this report through their own
institutions, professional bodies and other interested groups. The
National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental
Sciences felt that several of the recommendations had important
implications for the teaching and learning of our subjects. The
response reproduced below was submitted on behalf of the
Centre, its Steering Group and Senior Advisers, and does not
necessarily reflect the views of the three discipline-based
communities. It focuses on three main topics:
• discipline-based pedagogic research
• the relationship between teaching and research
• the role of scholarship.
Summary
2. Our main concerns are as follows:
• The Review of Research treats research as an isolated and
separate activity and ignores the beneficial and detrimental
effects it has on other activities, in particular teaching and
student learning;
• The RAE explicitly recognises the ‘end users’ of research, but
it is unclear that the interests of teachers and students as users
of research are acknowledged;
• It is important that synergies between HEFCE’s policies for
teaching and research are made explicit to avoid unintended
detrimental impacts of the Research Assessment Exercise
(RAE) policy on the standing and status of teaching and the
quality of student learning.
Discipline-based pedagogic research
3. We welcome the acceptance of pedagogic research in the RAE
2001 as “a valid and valued form of research activity … (that) will
be assessed by all subject panels on an equitable basis with other
forms of research”. It will be important that the way in which
subject panels have interpreted this guidance is reviewed once
the outcomes are known. We would welcome confirmation at
an early stage that the policy (and practice) of equitable treatment
of pedagogic research will continue in any future RAEs so that
individuals and departments may plan their contributions sensibly.
The policy was announced too late in the cycle to have much
impact on what will be submitted to subject panels for RAE2001.
4. Discipline-based pedagogic research is at a very early stage in its
development and if it is to be encouraged and nurtured not only
should it be valued, but steps also need to be taken, we believe,
to raise the capacity of staff in the disciplines to undertake high
quality research. This might be achieved by a variety of mechanisms,
including opportunities for staff: to obtain pedagogic research
training; to work with, and be mentored by, experienced pedagogic
researchers; and to gain experience of undertaking small research
projects. Pedagogic research projects range over a continuum
from evaluations of practices arising from one’s own teaching
through more elaborate action research projects to full-scale
research projects, such as are funded by the Economic and Social
Research Council (ESRC). RAE outputs are likely to arise primarily
from projects located towards the latter end of the continuum.
However, to raise the capacity to undertake RAE-type research
many discipline-based staff will need first to gain experience of
undertaking projects located towards the other end of the
continuum. To promote the full range of pedagogic research it is
important therefore that policies developed by HEFCE’s Strategic
Committee for Research have a synergistic relationship with those
designed by the Learning and Teaching Committee.
The relationship between teaching and research
5. We are concerned that the report takes an insular attitude to the
relationship in that it argues the relationship is not its business.
There are two clear examples of this:
First, Para 175 states that “it would be wrong to allow teaching
issues to influence the allocation of funds for research”. The
same logic would suggest that the Teaching and Learning
Committee should similarly feel that it would be wrong to
allow research issues to influence the allocation of funds for
teaching. If that is the case, where do the relationships between
teaching and research get discussed and promoted? The
research into the relationship between teaching and research
clearly shows that if the synergies between the two activities
are to be maximised they need to be planned for at the level
of the individual, unit/department and institution and not left
to chance (Jenkins et al, 1998). Although mentioned in the
Sub Group report, ways of progressing this relationship (for
example, addressing the issue identified by J M Consulting
(2000) that institutional policies to extract synergies are patchy
and variable in effectiveness) are ignored in the
recommendations of the Review of Research.
Second, Para 20 states “We do not believe that the answer to
maintaining motivation and reward for other activities is
4

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
tinkering with the process of research funding or assessment:
that would be to act on the wrong instrument. Rather it is
necessary to create other and parallel reward systems so that
academic staff and their institutions see incentives to put their
effort into activities other than research, in which they might
have greater strengths or can add more value.” This again
raises the question who is responsible for correcting the
balance of status and rewards and where will this be addressed?
6. The statement in Para 20 contrasts with Recommendation 22
that suggests that “HEFCE should make it clear that its funds for
teaching include an element intended to enable staff to engage in
scholarship”. This suggests that this should be achieved with existing
funds. If so, how will the balance between rewards for research
and teaching be corrected?
7. We are also concerned about the way in which the Report treats
the research evidence on the relationship between teaching and
research. Para 168 states that “Most academics argue that good
research is necessary for good teaching.” However, most academics
argue this on the basis of belief and anecdotal evidence, not on
the basis of research evidence. The research evidence discussed
in the report that HEFCE commissioned from J M Consulting
(2000) only gives qualified support to the proposition that “there
is a strong relationship between good teaching and good research”.
Other evidence indicates that the relationship between teaching
and research is a complex one, and where is does exist, it takes
place through elements which are common to both processes,
such as ‘scholarship’ and the ‘act of learning’ (Elton, in press; Healey,
2000; Jenkins, 2000; Southampton Institute, 2000).
8. A further example of a change in the interpretation of the evidence
is given in the way the Review of Research reports on the synergy
between teaching and research. J M Consulting (2000) concludes
“there is no evidence of a particular synergistic relationship which
is present in any general sense across all institutions, disciplines
and levels of study.” Yet the Review of Research states in para 168
that “in general, over the sector as a whole, such a synergistic
relationship does exist”.
9. In summary, we are concerned that the Review of Research offers
no suggestions for developing the synergistic relationship between
teaching and research, minimising the detriments of staff research
for student learning and maximising the benefits of research for
teaching.
The role of scholarship
10. The over-simplistic treatment of the research-teaching relationship
is also apparent in Recommendation 21 “Scholarship is an activity
which is separate from research and should be required of all
academics who teach”. Scholarship is defined in the glossary as
“being … alert to developments in the subject, including new
discoveries, and interpreting and reinterpreting the knowledge
base of the subject”. As defined, this is also an activity that underpins
research. Hence the promotion and funding of scholarship should
not be restricted to the teaching function. Indeed, J M Consulting
(2000) clearly state “Scholarship is recognised as an important
underpinning for both teaching and research” (para 9).
11. We welcome the distinction that HEFCE are beginning to make
between the ‘scholarship for teaching’ - keeping up to date with
one’s subject - and the ‘scholarship of teaching’ - researching into
teaching (Beckhradnia, 2000; Watt, 2000). However, in the context
of the Review of Research we believe that it is helpful to clarify
these terms further to avoid unintended outcomes.
12. We have already made a case in para 4 for the difficulty of
separating pedagogic research which has an RAE outcome from
pedagogic research aimed solely at improving student learning.
Hence the RAE is only part of the solution for developing
pedagogic research.
13. We believe that keeping up to date with one’s subject is part of
the professionalism of being a teacher in higher education and
does not require separate funding. However, developing teaching
resources, especially electronic ones, and writing textbooks are
critical for the quality of student learning and there is evidence
that the RAE has diverted the efforts of academics in our subject
area away from these activities (e.g. Jenkins, 1995; Healey, 1997).
Policies are needed to ensure that the status and rewards for
engaging in the development of high quality teaching resources
match those for involvement in RAE research.
Conclusions
14. Against this background our answers to the relevant questions in
Annex M of the Review of Research are as follows:
Question 17: Do you agree that RAE panels should be
given more freedom to collect evidence specific to
their discipline?
15. Yes. Individual disciplines do have distinctive academic traditions
and modes of enquiry and it is important that this is recognised in
the RAE process.
Question 21a: Do you agree that scholarship is an
activity that can be distinguished from research?
16. The answer depends on what is meant by ‘scholarship’. If the
definition in the report is to be used, the answer is “no”. Research
and scholarship are related and overlapping activities, which it
makes no sense to distinguish. If a broader definition is to be
used, which would be our preference, then funds for scholarship
should be found from both the Teaching and Research budgets.
Question 21b: Do you agree that scholarship should
be required of all academics who teach?
17. Yes, whichever definition is used. The research evidence is clear
on the importance of the teacher’s knowledge of their discipline,
of their being involved in or aware of current developments in
that discipline, and also in the teaching of that discipline, as being
central to the quality of student learning .
18. Measures need to be built into the RAE system, or elsewhere, to
encourage the production of quality textbooks and electronic
teaching resources. Without such measures the RAE will continue
to distort the pattern of scholarship across higher education.
5

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Question 22: Do you agree that funds for teaching
are the right source of support for scholarship?
19. Not exclusively; research funding should also support scholarship.
References
Beckhradnia, B. (2000) Teaching, research and national policy. Paper
presented to Oxford Brookes University 14 November
Elton, L. (in press) Research and teaching: what are the real
relationships? Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1).
Healey, M. (2000) Developing the scholarship of teaching through
the disciplines, Higher Education Research & Development, 19 (2),
169-189.
Jenkins, A. (1995) The impact of the research assessment exercise,
funding and teaching quality in selected geography departments in
England and Wales, Geography, 80, 367-374.
J M Consulting (2000) Interactions between research teaching and other
academic activities. Draft report for HEFCE, Bristol.
Healey, M. (1997) Geography and education: perspectives on quality
in UK higher education, Progress in Human Geography, 21 (1), 97-108.
Jenkins, A. (2000) The relationship between teaching and research;
where does geography stand and deliver?, Journal of Geography in
Higher Education, 24(3), 325-351.
Jenkins, A., Blackman, T., Lindsay, R. and Paton-Saltzberg, R. (1998)
Teaching and research: student perspectives and policy implications,
Studies in Higher Education, 23 (2), 127-141.
Southampton Institute (2000) The relationship between research and
teaching in higher education: present realities, future possibilities. Report
of a Seminar organised by Southampton Institute and the HEFCE,
Chilworth Manor, Southampton, 19-20 January, Southampton Institute.
Watt, S. (2000) Creating synergy between policy and practice. Paper
presented to Staff and Educational Development Association 5 th
Annual Conference, Manchester 22 November.
Copyright
Copyright for all published material in PLANET is held by the
LTSN National 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 National 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.
Developing ‘Field-Sim’:
Software to support
fieldwork
Mike Sanders and Malcolm Nimmo
This case study provides an insight on how small-scale projects can
be used to provide effective learning products. It examines the
evolution of a project from the initial rationale, through the
development process and onto subsequent evaluation and
modification. It also provides a good example of how educational
developers/technologists can work, in partnership with lecturers, to
provide solutions to learning and teaching issues.
One common issue in undergraduate fieldwork is students not
maximizing their educational experience when they arrive on the
field site, as they do not have a conceptual picture of either the location
or the intended learning outcomes. A piece of learning software
named Field-Sim was designed by staff at the University of Plymouth
to better prepare students for field-based water quality projects in
Malta. The work was funded through the University’s Student Centred
Learning (SCL) initiative, which has financed the development of a
series of small-scale learning and teaching initiatives. The resources
allocated to this particular project totalled around £3000. It was
essential throughout the project development that a practical and
realistic approach was adopted so that a finished product would be
available both within budget and on time (within a six month period).
This was achieved not least through a good relationship between the
educational developer/technologist and the lecturer, both parties being
enthusiastic and flexible in the project framework.
The aim of Field-Sim is to provide an overview of the geology and
hydrology of the Maltese Islands, allowing students to become familiar
with some of the key concepts they will need whilst on a residential
fieldtrip in the Islands. The programme contains two distinct
constituents: an interactive ‘information-section’ and a project simulator
(which also contains formative questions). Upon running the
programme, students are asked to work through a text-based
information resource that incorporates interactive diagrams. This
information originates from Maltese academics (primarily through the
International Environment Institute in Malta) and lecturers running
Malta field courses from Plymouth. The information gives students a
solid academic background to enable them to attempt the simulated
projects presented in the latter section of the package. The simulated
project section allows students to focus on a particular water quality
issue and then have to decide upon various approaches with respect
to (i) sampling strategy and (ii) measured parameters. Data, graphs
and maps, based on the students’ responses are displayed at the end
of the exercise along with formative questions to test the students’
ability to interpret field results. All of the data presented in the package
are based on real field data, primary reference sources or from previous
student project work.
In order to provide the students with a learning experience, rather
than an electronic ‘Cooks Tour’, the development team and lecturer
identified distinct learning objectives at the beginning of the project
and continuously referred back to these during the project.
6

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
An interactive diagram of the Maltese Aquifers
The primary principle was to allow students to try something out and
then be able to learn from any mistakes via informative feedback.
Students were presented with a project aim, to understand and carry
out water quality assessment, and then allowed to work through the
simulation. At various times they would have to choose one of several
practical options. Depending upon their response, they would be
allowed to progress to the next stage of the simulation (correct
response) or given feedback on their incorrect response. This
continuous feedback approach was chosen both for pedagogical and
programming reasons, where the lecturer’s initial idea was tempered
by the programming constraints within the software. This provides a
good example of the compromises that were made between developer
and lecturer to produce a product within limited resources available.
This continuous feedback solution worked very well, allowing students
to deviate from a predefined path and then be guided back to that
path via feedback. The alternative of allowing a student to ‘wander’
would have presented a sizeable programming task and also ran the
risk of a student running a project several times before arriving at an
acceptable solution and therefore getting demotivated!
Field-Sim was created using a powerful piece of authorware called
“Asymetrix Toolbook II” which contains its own scripting language.
The software provided a programming environment that allowed the
rapid development of functionality and adaptation in Field-Sim.
However, using this product was not without problems. The biggest
issues were in publishing the program for distribution. There were also
setbacks with file corruption during development which required every
modified version to be saved as a separate file, so earlier uncorrupted
versions of files could be returned to if need be.
During the pilot study the Field-Sim package was distributed on CD.
Students signed out the CDs and were required to install the software
on their own personal computers or they could run a pre-installed
version on the University network.
One of the scheduled pre-field course briefings was held in a computer
suite. This allowed student evaluation of Field-Sim to take place whilst
in use. During this session both the developer and lecturer were present.
From a development perspective the rationale behind the evaluation
was to focus on the two areas of concern: (i) navigation and (ii) the
textual introduction. Some of the pages in the project section were
Working through Field-Sim
rather complex but could not really be simplified by defeaturing.
Therefore, navigation had to be evaluated to ensure it was intuitive.
The textual introduction needed to be assessed to ensure the right
level and quantity of information. The evaluation methodology used
was observation, followed by a structured interview/questionnaire.
Feedback from students indicated that minor modifications in the
layout and colour scheme needed to be made. However, it was also
encouraging to see the feedback working as intended i.e. a student
would always be guided towards the correct answers and not become
stuck in one particular area for too long.
In development it is commendable to aspire to the high standards of
functionality and appearance that are produced by the larger software
houses. However, with a £3000 budget this was not always possible!
The Field-Sim project was never over-ambitious and an iterative
development process was fostered between academic and developer.
Both parties would put forward ideas on design that would be tried
out and a judgement made on whether they were achievable with
the available resources. Key factors were that both parties were
prepared to liaise regularly and were reliable when producing any
materials requested.
Field-Sim has been variously described using such words as interactive,
multimedia, simulation and virtual. Some of these descriptions are
perhaps a little misleading as it is a fairly modest tool technically.
However, it was created with sound pedagogical principles in mind
and largely achieved the objective of clarifying what was expected of
a student carrying out fieldwork during the Malta Field trip. Students’
use of ‘Field-Sim’ has shown it to be a useful academic preparative
package in enhancing students’ academic knowledge and decision
making skills in the field.
If readers would like to learn more about Field-Sim they should contact
Mike Sanders.
Mike Sanders
Learning Support Advisor
University of Plymouth
M.A.Sanders@plymouth.ac.uk
Malcolm Nimmo
Environmental Science Programme
Coordinator
University of Plymouth.
M.Nimmo@plymouth.ac.uk
7

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
A Field-Based “Oil Business
Game” for Honours
Geology Students
Gordon Walkden
Introduction
The inclusion of a challenging investigative theme provides a sound
means of enhancing the effectiveness of field training, giving it drive
and focus. When one of the prime aims is to demonstrate how
accurate geological knowledge generates commercial added value
and competitive advantage, then the exercise can become infectious
and compulsive for all concerned. The Aberdeen University field
based Oil Business Game was devised for senior Honours students
who are in the last few months of their study in a department with a
strong petroleum focus. It is a competitive team exercise, integrated
with an optional residential field course covering the superb Upper
Palaeozoic to Mesozoic geology of the SE Scottish/ NE English coast.
The game takes a week to unfold.
The oil game anchors the field course in applied realism, but adds
excitement and fun - something special and unusual for students on
the final straight of a Scottish 4 year undergraduate course! It is not
an exercise in sophisticated petroleum geology, but an exercise in the
data acquisition, management and decision making aspects of the
processes involved. Student response is very positive and some,
looking back on it, see it as a valuable introduction to the world of
work.
This article describes the game, not the underlying fieldwork that
underpins it. Despite the oil focus, the general principles and methods
of the game, including the associated computer software, are adaptable.
Direct translation to other applied themes, such as aggregate extraction
and water resources, would be straightforward, and the game can be
simplified. A “Research Company” version is in sketch form, and
doubtless other generic applications will occur to readers. All feedback
is welcome. Why not join us on a course, and see if the package is
transferable for your particular purposes?!
The exercise
The exercise simulates the activities of oil exploration and production
companies in creating teams, assessing plays, seeking investment,
evaluating oil prospects, conducting impact assessments, bidding for
blocks, and producing oil or gas that requires to be transported from
site. Integrated with the geology field course, it reinforces the
geological objectives, underscores the value of accurate field
observation, and illustrates the ways in which geological science can
be used in support of industry. In particular, it brings home to students
the extent to which diverse subdisciplines, such as palaeoecology,
trace fossils, diagenesis, sedimentology and structural geology
contribute to the holistic understanding necessary for accurate
petroleum modelling.
Individuals play both in their own right and as members of a team
(company). Personal “investment cash” is earned, players placing half
in their own company and half in a “portfolio” of choice in other
companies. Investment is controlled through a simulated stock market
(a purpose designed interactive spreadsheet, see figure 1) responsive
to actual investor confidence and company performance. The initial
share value of a company is set by the team at floatation but this
soon changes in successive rounds of bidding as market forces operate.
Once formed, each company team works as a group in data gathering
and interpretation exercises, and their relative effectiveness can quickly
become apparent. A final share trading round is delayed to show the
effects of this, when values can further change as investors move into
the better looking companies.
Investor capital is used by the companies to assess, bid for and develop
hydrocarbon prospects. These are potential fields contained in “blocks”
put up for auction by the “regulators”. Blocks are precisely defined,
based on real geological maps, involving real localities, rocks and
structural features that are visited and examined in detail at various
stages in the field course. Students are asked to imagine that they are
walking around inside potential reservoirs, emulating the virtual reality
caves used by some major companies, but some blocks are never
seen first hand. A certain amount of “tweaking” is obviously necessary
in block specifications, to define burial depth and overburden, and
some structural enhancement is sometimes necessary. A second
spreadsheet is used by companies to simplify and speed up reserve
calculations, recovery figures, development and production costs,
environmental premiums, taxation and ultimate likely profit or loss.
Specific input data are required that force competitors to consider
real issues and make judgements on these, including human and
environmental impacts.
The reservoirs, development costs and ultimate recovery figures are,
of course, imaginary, but the outturns used by the regulators are
based upon the same assumptions as used by the teams. Actual daily
oil and gas prices are used in calculations. The winning team (company)
and winning individual (shareholder) will be those who have made
the most of their investments. The results are calculated through the
spreadsheet and are made known on the last night of the field course.
The main stages of the exercise
The Business game operates during the evenings, whilst the field course
occupies the days. What the game generates, though, is an absolute
need to examine certain localities and acquire specific data. The
game and the fieldwork mutually reinforce one another.
Day 1: Outline of Business Game.
The exercise is outlined in its separate stages, and the work and
materials required in support, are explained. Laptops with information
and software are distributed.
Day 2: Skills statements; allocation of personal
investment capital, team building.
Individuals publish an A4 poster of relevant personal and scientific
attributes, and a notional cash reward of £100m is given to each.
Statements are reviewed by all; the fundamentals of team building
are reviewed and a procedure to create company teams is agreed
and implemented.
8

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Figure 1: Example of part of the main Stockmarket Spreadsheet
This edited version of the Stockmarket Spreadsheet for Easter 2000 shows the investment details of just 2 of the 5 teams or companies (blocks of data under Company “2 – Total G”
and Company “5 – Oilyend M”). Student names are on the left, grouped in teams of 4. Share purchases by individuals are listed across the page. R1 to R5 represent 5 successive
bidding rounds, in which they placed half their investment in their own company and distributed half across the remainder. The row marked “starting share value” shows the evolution
of share value during these successive bidding rounds. Of the 2 companies shown, one suffered a declining share value and one experienced an increase. The “Centre” invested £400m
in each company in round 4. The “spend” and “value” columns show the total investment by each individual in each company and the final value of this investment at the close of the
stockmarket. Similarly, columns 1 (total value of spend) and 2 (current value of investments) keep overall track of each individual share portfolio across all companies (3 companies
are not shown here). Note that by this intermediate stage in the game, individual profits of up to 11% have already been made, and there are some proportional losses (column 3).
Total company income, available for spending by them on blocks, appears in one of the bottom rows.
At the conclusion of the game, when profits and losses have been calculated, share values have moved ahead proportional to the profits made by the companies. This is calculated on
separate company spreadsheets and not shown here. However, the final share values are entered in the row at the top (“CO1” to “CO5”), and the spreadsheet can then calculate the
final value of individual share portfolios. Company 3 was the winner. Columns 4 and 5 are the end of game equivalents of columns 2 and 3 and show the final values of individual share
portfolios, and the percentage profit or loss percentages, following the variable performance of the companies. Student J was the winning investor.
Your advert could be here!
Would a wider readership increase the sales of your product? Would PLANET be an appropriate shop window for your product? If
the answer is YES to either of these questions, then read on!
Multiple copies of PLANET are sent free of charge to all Higher Education academic departments that teach Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences, alone or in combination. It is also sent to some Further Education Colleges that offer degree programmes in
these disciplines. Copies are also sent to relevant professional bodies, as well as all other Subject Centres. We even have an overseas
mailing list.
Circulation is typically around 1000 per edition, and PLANET is also freely available to download at our website http://www.gees.ac.uk
as a .pdf file.
Conferences, workshops, meetings and any other events will be given free publicity, as will adverts for non-profit making products.
The following are the advertisement rates for 2001, inclusive of VAT (All rates are for a two-colour print, as per this edition):
Full Page £300 (277 mm x 190mm or, 297mm x 210mm) Back Cover £500* (297mm x 210mm)
Half Page £150 (132mm x 178mm)
Insets £50 (A6 - 148mm x 105mm or A7 - 74mm x 105mm)
Quarter Page £80 (132mm x 84mm)
Inserts £75** (1000 copies, size A5, to be provided by advertiser)
* Full colour. ** Inserts will be charged at £50 if an advert is also placed.
A 10% discount is given on a series of three or more advertisements.
The deadline for inclusion of adverts in the next edition of PLANET is April 1 st 2001.
Further details can be obtained by calling Steve Gaskin on 01752 233535 or by email: sgaskin@plymouth.ac.uk
9

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Day 3: Formation of companies; sale of shares.
Allocation of plays to companies for prospect
appraisal.
Companies reveal their names and internal organisation. Share dealing,
using the stockmarket spreadsheet, is explained. The nominal value of
shares is £1m each, but each company can set its own share value at
floatation. During successive rounds of share dealing, players must
invest half their personal wealth in companies other than their own.
Stockmarket calculations are run after each round, and share values
are seen to fluctuate according to the relative appeal of companies.
Most players get the hang of this quickly, and some bid strategically to
manipulate share values. No overspend or borrowing is allowed.
At the close of the stock market companies have up to £500m each
in share investment. This varies, however, and hot favourite companies
are immediately apparent. To top this up the regulators allocate paid
consultancy work to all the companies. This takes the form of a
hydrocarbon play appraisal of rocks they actually encounter (simple
definitions such as Carboniferous, Permian, Jurassic and Cretaceous
work well), to be researched over the next 2 days. .
Day 4: Preparation of play appraisals.
Companies work on their allocated plays. They are asked for the
likely hydrocarbon sources, migration fairways, seals and reservoir rocks
within (and outside) their given plays, and for likely trap types, porosity
and recovery values and an assessment of possible exploration and
production problems. This involves literature search and the
preparation of a Powerpoint and/or poster presentation.
Day 5: Team presentations on plays. Fees are allocated;
Blocks are revealed.
Companies give independent presentations on their allocated plays.
The setting is a formal government enquiry where there are influential
personnel who may ask tricky questions. Other companies also ask
questions, and they are expected to make notes. A (pretty unrealistic)
performance-related, fee of up to £400m is allocated to each company.
The license blocks are then announced. There are around 20 of
these, comprising areally-defined production rights for which the
companies must bid competitively. The blocks are 4km square (16km 2 )
on 1:50,000 geological maps, relating directly to areas most of which
are also seen in the field. Some gross simplifications are made to save
time and materials. For example, teams are asked to regard present
day outcrop as if it is a 3 dimensional slice through the subsurface,
and the standard map cross section substitutes for seismic data. No
distinction is made between the exploration and production phases.
All blocks on offer contain at least one obvious possible oil trap and,
for the purposes of the game, most contain at least one prospective
reservoir. To be safe, however, students have to look for good reasons
why a trap might not be effective, adjusting their bids according to
perceived risk. Broadly speaking, the regulators are not out to mislead,
which, again is unrealistic, since reality can be very fickle!
Day 6: Bid applications for blocks are prepared, and
handed in as sealed bids.
Using a second spreadsheet, companies must calculate a likely volume
and value of recoverable hydrocarbon in place and assess the difficulties
and costs of recovery, including human and environmental factors.
They must also cope with a variable taxation regime, which encourages
development of small fields. The spreadsheet requires input of data
that force quantification of real issues. A minimum profit margin of
25% on outlay must be built into bids. A confidential file of these is
submitted by each company to the regulators by a previously agreed
deadline. Teams sometimes work on these into the small hours.
Day 7: Sealed bids are opened; blocks are allocated;
final company values are calculated through the shares
spreadsheet; winners and losers.
The regulators now sort through the sealed bids, block by block, keeping
track of company acquisitions and preventing overspend. The regulators’
own calculations (development costs and value of recoverable
hydrocarbon) define the notional outturn for each block. A “star”
system enables companies to prioritise “hot shot” blocks, which are
dealt with first. The profit or loss that individual companies make on
blocks is calculated through the Company’s own spreadsheet. This
contains all the shareholder and share value data, and the resultant
overall profit/loss on acquired blocks generates a proportional (and
sometimes substantial) rise or fall in share value.
The winning company is the one with the highest final share value, but
in order to calculate the individual winners the final share values of
each company are entered back on the main stockmarket spreadsheet
(see Figure 1). Driven by the new company share values, the overall
value of the share portfolio held by each individual is displayed. Some
players will have made losses (tears and recriminations) and some
large gains (drinks all round). Two results define the overall individual
winner(s); the highest proportional gain and the largest windfall income.
These don’t necessarily coincide, and two winners may be generated.
The main learning outcomes are:
• In- depth knowledge and understanding of the geology of a
selected area.
• Understanding of the direct application and value of field study.
• Understanding of how information derived from unrelated
subdisciplines feeds an integrated, holistic picture that can inform
commercial judgements.
• Development of intellectual, self-management, practical,
communication, numerical, computing, interpersonal and
teamworking skills.
• Understanding of the means by which pooled skills, effective
teamwork and focused activity aid decision making and can create
added value.
• Experience of the conflicting balances between fact finding,
residual uncertainty and real deadlines in a competitive
environment.
•
10

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
• Awareness of the roles of business organisations, stock markets
and central and local government mediation in relation to resource
exploitation.
• Awareness of the effects of business decisions on people and the
environment.
The ideal requirements of the exercise are:
• Good centres with dedicated meeting rooms, where “stuff” can
be left out during the day.
• Around 20 students working in teams of 4.
• Multiple copies of local geological maps.
• One laptop computer for each team, with basic information and
spreadsheet-based software, including: a company data
spreadsheet for recording all income and financial transactions, a
taxation calculator, a reserves and upstream/ downstream costs
calculator.
• A laptop and portable projector for staff with the stockmarket
spreadsheet that gives a display, on demand, of team performance,
stockmarket fluctuation and game results.
• A small library of relevant reference books and papers
• Lots of flip chart paper, and lots of beer and/or coffee!
Some features of the Game
The game has already been run for three successive years, and it has
evolved, particularly through the development of the associated
software, but the game can be run without this. Greater sophistication
would be achieved by using the results of actual seismic and drilling
investigations through the area, and reduced sophistication could
involve dropping the stockmarket stage and concentrating on field
and evening team exercises.
The rules are very flexible, and there have been some surprises. For
example, in 2000, when Oil Company Mergers were much in the air,
two of the strongest teams pooled resources and created a joint
company. The reaction from the excluded teams was a defensive
data trading and non competition deal. We awaited the result with
trepidation. The merged team became overconfident, and nearly
crashed. Weak, overconfident management led to insufficient delegation
and information flow to generate enough realistic bids. They over
priced these and got landed with several turkeys.
On another occasion a student needed a day’s absence for a crucial
interview. Rather than disadvantage either him or his team, we made
him an independent consultant, charged with making as much out of
paid consultancy work with companies as the others made through
the normal rules. He was given the actual results, shown the workings,
but forbidden to divulge detail. His services were in great demand in
the early stages and he very nearly won the game!
Most students enter into the spirit of the exercise very rapidly, and
some of the introductory parts are designed to encourage them to
take ownership. The game seems to generate a real sense of fun, but
also one of serious competition. There is a knife edge balance to be
maintained between the two.
Follow-up and student reaction
On the last evening of the course we generally hold a follow-up session,
in particular tracking the skills development that the course has
mediated. This promotes much discussion, both of the extent to which
the Business Game mirrors reality and of the broader educational
outcomes. This retrospective analysis is vital, raising awareness of the
issues involved and extending student self knowledge. There are more
thorough ways in which this could be approached, for example using
a formal written self appraisal of learning outcomes.
Course assessment is presently done on the basis of a formal
submission that includes submitted field notes, copies of materials
prepared in connection with the game, and an account of some
detailed aspect of the course. The outcome of the game plays no
part in the assessment. Most students put such intensive effort into
the course that we are reluctant to allow this submission to be an
extensive and time consuming part of the exercise. In 2000, we asked
students for a detailed account of one aspect of the course they
found most interesting, expecting a geological focus, but many chose
to highlight the Business Game. Here are some of their reactions:
“The Business Game was a very enjoyable and worthwhile exercise.
The game combined real geology with the business side, which previously
I have had no experience of.”
“I worked with a team of people I would not normally have worked with,
very much like real life.”
“The Business Game provided a good source of transferable skills throughout
the field trip. Many useful points were illustrated, and some of the realities
of running a business were realised.”
“I found it very useful - enhancing my knowledge about the petroleum
system as a whole and re-tuning my geological map interpretations.”
A black shale horizon shows where Coccolith production and bioturbation
stopped completely during an anoxic event in the Chalk sea.
Reservoir seal or production barrier?
Mike Simmons leads a discussion. Cenomanian Chalk, South Ferriby.
“The information collected during the day was not simply forgotten in our
notebooks.”
11

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Urban Planning: A New
Collaborative Learning
Environment
Chris Webster, Jeff Johns and Kioe Shen Yap
This article explores a new teaching pedagogy which provides a
learning environment for students studying urban issues and policies;
it uses a combination of Web based distance learning and on-line
expert tutors. This method allows flexible study modes for the students
and tutors, and transcends barriers of office hours, global time-zones
and physical location.
Oil exploration must take second place when a block bearing an
Ichthyosaur skull needs to be lifted up the cliff!
Bituminous Shales, Port Mulgrave.
“The game also focuses on the social and political implications of business
decisions where commercial development is likely to affect people and
the environment.”
And negative comments? - well there was just one: The course
leader has a known penchant for bakery shops, and introduces
students to one of the best in Britain, at the centre of Beverley, near
Hull. Following this enlightening experience, one student wrote: “I
would just like to note that a negative aspect of the trip was that it
brought home to me just how useless the ‘Auld Toon Café” (the Aberdeen
campus baker’s shop) really is”!. It is nice to see that a good student
clearly recognises the important things in life!
Conclusions
Field-based exercises such as this take (let’s face it) weeks to prepare
and develop, let alone to run. We need to be certain that such time
is well spent. There are several aspects to this. Foremost is the
valuable “deep learning” experience for the students, in terms of
durable main learning outcomes. Such exercises present a substantial
challenge and can provide a good real life analogue. Added to these,
though, is the reinforcement provided by the sheer fun of participation
and the sense of adventure in discovering intricacies and encountering
the unexpected. For those in charge, perhaps the best reward is
experiencing and participating in the dynamics of a group of intelligent
young adults. It provides a deeper level of engagement with these
developing personalities than provided by mere social interaction,
and reveals that our future is likely to be in good hands. Please
contact me if you would further information.
Gordon Walkden
Department of Geology and Petroleum Geology
University of Aberdeen
g.walkden@abdn.ac.uk
Collaborative learning is particularly important in the education and
training of urban managers and planners (UNESCO, 1998).
Networking between policy makers and the public within a city,
between cities and between countries should result in a more efficient
process of policy evaluation and innovation diffusion (Healy, 1997).
The Internet provides an efficient flexible tool for educating managers
whilst also providing the tools and skills required for international
networking (Stiles, 2000). In the learning environment outlined below
on Asian cities (and the Virtual Policy Studio), interaction can be
engineered by carefully structured exercises and tutor on-line expert
intervention in collaborative problem-solving ‘rooms’. Active
collaboration between participants proves less useful than the tutorparticipant
interaction. The study mode of the participants in this
example was part-time, mixed work/home study, and remote (other
countries).
Institutional capacity building in Asian cities: the
context
Asia is rapidly urbanizing and so is poverty. Within the next two
decades, a majority of the population will live in urban areas and a
majority of the urban population will be poor. Poverty is not just a
lack of income, but also of physical and social assets and of recognition
and influence that prevents the poor playing the role of contributor
to, and beneficiary of, development. Local governments will have an
increasing role to play in poverty alleviation. Through measures such
as the provision of basic infrastructure (to improve living conditions),
the application of good governance (to enhance participation) and
urban economic development (to increase the demand for labour,
goods and services), local governments can support and empower
the urban poor to improve their situation. However, many local
government staff lack the knowledge and skills to work with and for
the urban poor.
Urban poverty alleviation is only one of many new tasks for local
governments; others include urban environmental management,
monitoring of privatised infrastructure and services, city marketing
and investment promotion. Having to assume roles and responsibilities
previously within the domain of the central government, local
governments are entering new and uncharted territory. To perform
their tasks well, local government staff need a better understanding
of their new situation and of the experience of others to enable
them to develop new responses to old and new challenges. Effective
responses often require changes in the organisational arrangements
within local governments and institutional arrangements between
government departments. An effective and efficient local government
requires a new government culture and government staff with new
knowledge, skills and attitudes. Local governments all over the world
12

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
are confronted with these challenges and are searching for answers.
The challenge of making cities ‘work’ is more than a local government
issue however. More generally, the requirement is to build the institutional
capacity of urban governance at all spatial levels and in each sector. This
includes voluntary organizations, NGOs and private firms. Urban services
are not so easily categorised into public and private these days. Self
organised neighbourhood groups in Bangladesh supply their own garbage
collection services. Water cleansing plants in India are built under privatepublic
partnerships. Private manufacturing firms in China provide housing,
security, and educational services for employees. Entrepreneurial
neighbourhood firms supply professional classes in Jakarta and Manila
with private environmental management and local planning. Rapidly
growing cities struggling against economic, environmental and political
hardships require a well-meshed matrix of agencies each contributing
to the institutional infrastructure of urban ‘governance’.
Virtual Policy Studios (VPS)
The VPS project is a joint venture between the Centre for Education in
the Built Environment (CEBE) at Cardiff University, the Asian Institute of
Technology and the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
Pacific Human Settlements Division. It is a prototype capacity building
tool (Urban Management Centre, 2000) designed to foster the exchange
of innovation and best practice among managers of Asia’s cities and to
encourage thoughtful adaptation and adoption of new urban
management approaches. VPS provides a virtual collaborative learning
space containing online learning and teaching material, case studies,
exercises, discussions and online experts. PLANET readers are invited
to take a look at the Municipal Finance VPS (MFVPS) that ran during the
spring of 2000 (Johns and Webster, 1999). Students of Urban Geography
or the Geography of Development will find some fascinating case study
material here and may be interested in using it for essays, projects and
dissertations. Participants of the MFVPS are mid to senior level
government officers in cities such as Manila, Bangkok and Delhi and the
VPS offers insights into what it is like to manage such complex cities.
Persistent students might find their way through the virtual corridors of
the MFVPS building to another VPS - on Environmental Management
Systems. This has less discussion in it but more resource material and
more graphics. It should be of interest to those undertaking project
work on urban environments. The two figures give a flavour of the VPS
learning environment.
The VPS differs from many other managed virtual environments in having
a very fast development time. It is effectively a Web based threaded
discussion list intimately linked to a Web page based resource library
and online links. The threading is used to organise and manage the flow
of learning, the material to be accessed, the exercises to be undertaken,
the responses from the participants and the feedback from the tutors
or on-line experts. It also provides collaborative discussion and learning
spaces, and communication links between tutor and participants etc.
The use of the Web based discussion list also takes care of participant
registration, authentication, progress tracking and allows for subsequent
statistical analysis.
Although Internet delivered teaching has been used for many years
now for a large range of disciplines, its potential in training professional
planners in the workplace seems to have been largely ignored. The
specific niche of collaborative learning in the networked environment in
which policy makers work remains still to be utilised. The VPS project
therefore offers new learning opportunities for both students and for
practising professionals.
References:
Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies,
Macmillan, London.
Johns J and Webster W . (1999) Municipal Finance VPS: Internet-based Training
Workshop on Municipal Finance for the Network of Local Government Training
and Research Institutions in Asia and the Pacific [online]. Cardiff University.
Available from HtmlResAnchor
http://t062.cpla.cf.ac.uk/wbimages/mfvps/intro/intro.html [Accessed 20
December 2000].
Stiles, M J. (2000) Effective Learning and the Virtual Learning Environment.
Proceedings: EUNIS 2000 - Towards Virtual Universities, Instytut Informatyki
Politechniki Poznanskiej, Poznan April 2000, The Learning Development Centre,
Staffordshire University, UK. 2000.
UNESCO (1998) Educational Innovation for Sustainable Development:
Proceedings of the Third UNESCO-ACEID (Asia-Pacific Centre of Educational
Innovation for Development) International Conference, held in Bangkok
December 1-4, UNESCO Principal Regional Office PO Box 967 Bangkok 10110,
Thailand.
Urban Management Centre (2000). Capacity Building. Asian Institute of
Technology, Thailand. Available from HtmlResAnchor
http://www.hsd.ait.ac.th/umc/cb/cb.html [Accessed 20 December 2000].
The Urban Managers’ club as a metaphor
Contemporary resources straight to the desks of busy Urban Managers
Chris Webster
Department of City and Regional
Planning Cardiff University
Webster@cardiff.ac.uk
Jeff Johns
Centre for Education in the Built
Environment / Department
of Architecture Cardiff University
JohnsJR@cardiff.ac.uk
Kioe Sheng Yap
UN Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and Pacific
yapks@ait.ac.th
13

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Synergy:
The Greenwich
Experience
Mike McGibbon
The new LTSN National Subject Centre has the task of supporting
teaching and learning in the three separate disciplines of Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences, each of which has distinctive aims
and cultures. None the less, the three subjects do share some
important common ground in terms of curriculum, and certainly have
much to learn from each other in terms of learning and teaching
methods. While respecting their different identities and traditions,
the Centre will therefore be encouraging the three subjects to work
more closely together. This development at the national level is
paralleled by closer collaboration within a number of institutions.
Greenwich University provides a particularly good example. The aim
of this short article is therefore to show how recent changes in our
school reflect increasing integration in the study of the environment.
The School of Earth and Environmental Sciences was formed in 1996
through the merger of the University’s schools of Earth Science and
Environmental Science. The School initially offered BSc (Hons) degrees
in Geology and Applied Geochemistry, followed serially by
Environmental Earth Science, Engineering Geology, Geography (BA
and BSc), GIS, and Natural Resource Management programmes
through the early-mid 1990s.
The undergraduate programmes offered in the School since this time
have covered a wide range of inter-related subject matter, and a process
of sharing modules between programmes has been progressing since
1995. However, it became clear that the pace and scale of integration
should be much greater. Guidance from benchmarking panels, funding
councils and the research activities of academics indicated that a more
integrated and multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the
environment is required. The environment is complex, multi-faceted
and ever changing. Students require a range of knowledge, analytical
capabilities and critical faculties to cope with this dynamic world,
including the ability to synthesise and integrate information, and to
solve problems by drawing upon information across disciplinary
boundaries. Following this philosophy, the School of Earth and
Environmental Sciences engaged in a root and branch appraisal of all
its undergraduate degrees in 1999 with a view to focusing on a smaller
number of integrated programmes drawing upon the skills and interests
of physical and human geographers, environmental scientists and
geologists. As such, the School has been implementing a strategy that
is consistent with the coming together of Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences within the LTSN National Subject Centre.
The School’s approach emerged from a number of observations. First,
that the task of addressing environmental problems increasingly involves
integrated research by teams of geographers, geologists and
environmental scientists; second, that there is increased support for
inter/multi-disciplinary environmental research; and, third, (given the
first two), that there is potential for greater integration of the subjects
in the education of undergraduate students. Increasingly, colleagues
have felt that the boundaries between Geography, Geology and
Environmental Science have been growing more permeable.
After a lengthy period of discussion within the school, the decision
was taken to restructure the undergraduate degree provision and to
focus on the three subject areas: Geology, Environmental Science and
Geography (BSc and BA), with Geographic Information Systems acting
as a powerful integrating technology for all subjects. At the same time,
the restructuring offered the School an opportunity to re-examine
programme content and approaches to teaching, learning and
assessment in order to improve students’ higher learning skills,
transferable skills and, ultimately, their employability. The subject
benchmarking statements, the array of FDTL resources available for
geographers, geologists and environmental scientists and external
examiners’ valuable comments were all influential in shaping the changes
that have been made.
The most significant overall change in the structure of the School’s
undergraduate provision has been the creation of a single Subject
Group, “Earth and Environmental Sciences”, within which sit Geography
(BSc and BA), Geology, Environmental Science and GIS. A wider range
of coursework, fieldwork and other assessment types has also been
introduced across the School, but at the same time the overall volume
of assessment has been reduced in favour of greater emphasis on
raising the quality of discussion, debate and critical/evaluative thinking.
In addition, a new school-wide learning support and tutorial system
has been introduced to help the students improve their learning skills
at levels 1 and 2.
The final year dissertation is regarded as a key measure of the quality
of a student graduating from the School. Accordingly, it occupies the
entire first semester of the final year, making it unique in the UK. The
students then complete their studies in semester two by taking four
optional courses from a list of 16, which are shared between the
programmes.
Fieldwork, both in the UK and overseas, will continue to play a central
role in the School’s taught programmes. New integrated field courses
are being developed this year and will see groups of geographers,
geologists and environmental scientists working together in ways that
will enable them to develop respect for the complementary
contributions each subject can make to understanding the environment.
The School’s new programmes were formally validated in May 2000
and were implemented at levels 1 and 2 in September, with the
overwhelming support of continuing students. We feel that our
approach is consistent with the closer collaboration implied by the
creation of the LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth
and Environmental Sciences, and are confident that the programmes
will prove to be exciting, informative and educational for students. At
the same time, we hope that colleagues elsewhere will be interested
in the School’s approach, and it is our intention to report on the
progress and impact of various aspects of the restructured programmes
over time. If you would like to know more about the Greenwich
experience, please do get in touch.
Mike McGibbon
University of Greenwich
M.J.McGibbon@greenwich.ac.uk
14

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Subject Centre Activities,
Developments & Projects
Subject Centre Launches into Action
The LTSN National Subject Centre for GEES officially began its busy
calendar of organising learning and teaching conferences in the Autumn
Term of 2000. Our two launch events, one held in London and one
held in Edinburgh, were both successful and well-attended. Both
conferences entitled ‘Academic Review: Supporting our Disciplines’
provided an introduction to the new Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)
Academic Review system. The new system is to be introduced in
January 2002 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and is already
operating in Scotland.
The first event, held at the Royal Geographical Society with the Institute
of British Geographers in London on September 26 th was attended
by over 100 delegates. The day started with Professor Brian Chalkley,
Subject Centre Director, introducing the concept of the new Subject
Centre and the role it has to play in identifying the changing learning
and teaching needs of the three discipline communities.
Then, a series of four parallel workshops were run on various features
of the new Academic Review system. These were (a) using the QAA
benchmarking statement for Geography, (b) using the QAA
benchmarking statement for Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences
and Environmental Studies, (c) preparing a programme specification,
and (d) enhancing the quality of the students’ learning experience.
In the afternoon, Peter Milton, Director of Programme Review at the
QAA, addressed the audience with details about the new Academic
Review process. A question and answer session then ensued.
The following excerpts from the delegates’ evaluation returns evidence
the success of the conference:
‘Useful summary of the current situation. Best point: discussion with fellow
sufferers!’
‘The day revealed some common problems and it reinforced ideas
concerning what needs to be done in departments preparing for the new
system of Academic Review’.
‘Very informative session on programme specification. Clarified a number
of points of concern’.
‘Good presentations, but greater opportunities for questioning could have
been given, so departments can learn from one another’
‘The size of the lunch rolls led to some difficulties – eating such a roll with
squidgy filling one-handed whilst standing up was not easy!’
A smaller but somewhat similar event was repeated at the University
of Edinburgh in October for the Subject Centre’s Scottish contingent.
David Bottomley, Associate Head of the QAA in Scotland, provided
the key-note address. Again, feedback from the event suggested that
delegates found the day engaging and thought provoking, though few
welcomed the prospect of the work involved in preparing for QAA.
(PLEASE NOTE: The LTSN National Subject Centre for GEES is not
responsible for the design of the new QAA procedures but is keen to help
our three disciplines prepare for the pleasures in store!).
Peter Milton delivering his key-note at the Subject Centre launch event in
London, September 2000.
New lectures workshop
The first Subject Centre workshop for new and
recently appointed teaching staff
23-24 May 2000 University of Birmingham
Overview
This workshop aimed to help newly appointed teaching staff in
Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences become better teachers
more quickly. During this two day residential event participants had
the opportunity to:
• learn about and evaluate a range of approaches, methods
and resources for teaching, learning and assessment in
Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences;
• appreciate how general training in teaching, learning and
assessment in higher education needs to be interpreted,
adapted and supplemented for effective use in our three
disciplines;
• share experiences and ideas on teaching both with other
new teaching staff and with experienced practitioners;
• create plans to improve their teaching and extend their
continuing professional development;
• evaluate the workshop and help the staff to improve it for
future years.
The workshop was run by a team of geographers and earth and
environmental scientists, who are all experienced in teaching and
learning issues. It was led by and organised by Gordon Clark, from
the University of Lancaster. In the light of the success of this pilot
event, a similar workshop will be run at the University of Birmingham
on 21-22 May 2001.
Feedback from a Participant
Having started in January at the University of Sussex, as a Teaching
Fellow, I found the workshop to be most valuable in pointing out the
importance of teaching in the University environment. The workshop
helped me to reflect on the courses I have taught and to consider
changing aims and methods. Particularly informative was the session
on ‘Lecturing in our Subject’ because of the good balance between
reflecting on our experiences and tips for enhancing lectures.
15

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
The emphasis on the development of a more active-learning-based
approach was helpful because it coincided with my interests and
observations that this method is able to engage students’ attention
and increase their learning effort. However, the workshop also
increased my awareness of a nagging thought that the demands to
improve one’s teaching come on top of other increasing demands on
one’s time and budget, such as research and administration.
The organisers and other participants ensured that the workshop
was a very valuable and enjoyable experience.
Uwe Dornbusch
University of Sussex
u.dornbusch@sussex.ac.uk
Other comments:
“Realising that much quality help and advice is available to me in many
different forms”.
“Meeting and talking to staff and delegates. The feeling of common
experiences / challenges and resultant camaraderie. Being involved in
such a well planned / organised event with enthusiastic people”.
“Meeting colleagues in similar circumstances but from different institutions
– opportunities to share and exchange and support. The positive and
supportive nature of the experienced leaders”.
Geological Society of America:
Summit 2000
Reno, Nevada: November 9-18
The Geological Society of America’s mission is “to be a broad, unifying
society that fosters understanding of earth systems, supports its
members and addresses human needs”. As stated in the conference
programme “these values are embedded within the activities of the
Summit 2000 meeting, which provides a forum for scientific debate, a
venue to meet with our colleagues, and an opportunity to discuss the
challenges in earth science education and share a public voice on
current issues that challenge our science.” (For more information
about the Society visit its web-site at http://www.geosociety.org/).
Helen King and Lawrie Phipps attended the conference (partly
subsidised by the LTSN National Subject Centre for GEES), in order
to promote the Centre’s activities, seek out possible international
collaboration opportunities, and to investigate the state of play in
Geoscience learning and teaching in the USA.
From left to right: Lawrie Phipps, Helen King and Roger Suthren at GSA
2000.
Over the four day period of the conference, almost 100 presentations
took place on education and educational research as well as poster
sessions, organised discussions and meetings covering a range of
educational topics. Discussions were not restricted to the teaching
of Geology; Earth Systems Science is a major feature of learning and
teaching in the USA and includes interactions within and between
the hydrosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and lithosphere, therefore
fully embracing geography, earth and environmental sciences.
Some of the information, resources and examples of interesting
practice gathered at the conference will be disseminated via the
Subject Centre’s workshops and other activities in the coming months.
One of the most exciting new developments showcased and discussed
extensively was the Digital Library for Earth Systems Education
(DLESE) http://www.dlese.org/. This new, Federally-funded initiative
has many parallels with the Subject Centre’s own Information Gateway
project - Tellus. Discussions between the Subject Centre and DLESE
staff were very positive and further collaborative work will be actively
pursued. The issues of metadata standards and interoperability across
the two projects were discussed and an exchange of ideas and views
will be set up electronically in the near future.
Contacts were reinforced with the National Association of Geosience
Teachers (NAGT) http://www.nagt.org/. This is a USA-based
organisation but with many overseas members and it also embraces
a broad definition of Geoscience. Many NAGT members are also
involved with the International Geoscience Education Organisation
(IGEO) http://reaction.psc.sc.edu/cse/igeo.html and these two bodies
provide excellent opportunities for international collaboration.
So, if you are interested in developing overseas contacts in Geoscience
Education, do get in touch with the above organisations or contact
the Subject Centre in Plymouth.
Helen King and Lawrie Phipps*
National Subject Centre
hking@plymouth.ac.uk
(*now at LTSN Technologies Centre, York)
16

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Staff and Educational Development
Association (SEDA)
Annual Conference, Manchester
Conference Centre: 21-22 November 2000
“Staff and educational developers have tended to work collaboratively to
promote and share ideas and good practice with the aim of improving
student learning.” (Rakesh Bhanot, Chair: SEDA Conference Committee).
The work of staff and educational developers has expanded considerably
over the last few years to become involved in strategic and policy issues
as well as research and development in higher education learning and
teaching. This broadening was reflected in the annual conference which
was attended by educational developers, learning technologists and senior
lecturers, as well as staff from several Subject Centres.
The conference was preceded by a workshop day targeted at educational
developers and Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN) staff.
The workshops proved to be very useful in supporting the work of LTSN
staff and the day also provided a further opportunity for discussion and
networking between different Subject Centres.
Many excellent workshops were run during the main conference. Perhaps
the two most pertinent were ‘How do teaching and learning projects
develop the new developers?’ run by Carole Baume (Director of the
TQEF National Co-ordination Team) and David Baume (Director of the
Centre for Higher Education Practice, Open University); and ‘New
Professionals as Expert Learners’ run by Martin Oliver (UCL). Both of
these workshops explored the development and future roles of the ‘new
generation’ of educational developers, including learning technologists and
project staff from learning and teaching programmes such as the Fund for
Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) and the Teaching and
Learning Technology Programme (TLTP) and the LTSN.
Further information on the conference and other SEDA activities can be
found at their web-site: http://www.seda.demon.co.uk/
SEDA Associate Fellowship
The GEES Subject Centre is delighted to announce the award of SEDA
Associate Fellowship which was presented to Helen King at the conference
reception. This award is part of a professional accreditation scheme
intended for those who support lecturers, support staff and their institutions
to enhance the quality of the student learning experience, through the
professional development of staff who work in higher education.
C&IT in Fieldwork Conference
University of Leeds, 29th November 2000
The new LTSN National Subject Centre is building on the work of the
former Computers in Teaching Initiative (CTI) Centres and is keen to
promote the use (where appropriate) of learning technologies. One of
the most interesting and controversial current issues is how best to use
technology to support fieldwork. For this reason the LTSN National Subject
Centre for GEES recently held a one day conference on fieldwork teaching
using C & IT. The conference was hosted by the School of Geography at
the University of Leeds, fifty delegates attended representing the Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences community as well as staff from cognate
disciplines such as biosciences and archaeology.
The conference aimed to demonstrate good practice and provide a forum
for some of the issues raised by the use of C & IT in fieldwork. Six pieces
of work were demonstrated ranging from the small-scale implementation
of software within a department to large-scale development of software
suites available to all Higher Education Institutions. In his keynote address,
Tom Franklin of the LTSN Technologies Centre, spoke of the importance
of C & IT in the curriculum and accessibility in the design of these resources.
A prevailing theme throughout the day was that technology is a tool,
which can be used as an important enhancement for fieldwork teaching
but should not be used as a substitute for the real thing!
Proceedings of the conference will be available as a version of PLANET in
the near future.
Software for Earth Science
Teaching and Learning
Twenty-one fully indexed CAL modules
developed in UK Universities with TLTP
funding covering most aspects of Geology
and several aspects of Environmental
Science and Physical Geography.
Web and application based versions
available for Macintosh and Windows, also
free demo CD-ROM and low-cost scheme
for students to buy all the modules on one
CD-ROM.
See the website for details
www.man.ac.uk/~ukescc
UK Earth Science Courseware Consortium
Department of Earth Sciences
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL, UK
ukescc@man.ac.uk
Tel: 01625 612896
Fax: 01625 613997
“My fieldcourse doesn’t need updating, I’ve been
running it for thirty years’
Bookwinner
The winner of the ‘Name Badge Draw’ at the C & IT in
Fieldwork conference was Richard Teeuw, Department of
Environmental Sciences, University of Hertfordshire. Richard
receives a John Wiley book of his choice. So, the next time
you attend a Subject Centre event remember to return your
name badge!
HF (2000)
17

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Subject Centre Learning and
Teaching Development
Projects: 2001
Supporting good practice in learning and teaching is not only about sharing
existing skills and resources, it is also about facilitating the development of
new ones. At the end of last July, the Subject Centre therefore announced
the first round of funding (£15,000) under its small-scale projects
programme. Subsequently, the selection panel, consisting of the Subject
Centre Director, Manager and the four Senior Advisors, then had the
difficult task of choosing the few that could be funded out of the 17
excellent proposals submitted.
The funding programme aims to:
• Support curriculum developments and other innovations which will
enhance the quality of the students’ learning experience;
• Harness existing staff expertise and identify and encourage fresh
talent;
• Offer opportunities for continuing professional development of
teaching and support staff in the three disciplines;
• Disseminate good practice to the wider communities;
• Encourage collaboration and sharing of good practice between the
three disciplines;
• Widen participation in the Subject Centre’s work.
Our congratulations go to the four successful projects which will
commence in January 2001 and run for one year. They are:
“Atmosphere, Lithosphere, Hydrosphere, Biosphere: Cross-Disciplinary
Virtual Fieldwork”
Roger Suthren, Geology (BMS), Oxford Brookes University
“Development of POPWEB, a Web-based Guide to Pollen and Plant
Types: a Learning Resource for Lecture and Practical Support”
Jeff Blackford, Department of Geography, Queen Mary College, University
of London
“Reflective Learning in Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences”
Margaret Harrison, School of Environment, Cheltenham & Gloucester
College of HE
“Developing Team Skills in the Curricula”
Kenneth Lynch, School of Earth Sciences and Geography, Kingston
University
Further information on these four projects is available on the Subject
Centre web-site and regular updates on their progress will also be posted.
The next round of funding under this programme will be announced in
August 2001 – keep an eye on the web-site for details:
http://www.gees.ac.uk
We need YOU!
The LTSN National Subject Centre for GEES recognises that there
is a great deal of good practice and innovation in learning, teaching
and assessment that already exists across our disciplines. We are
here to support, develop and disseminate such examples to a wider
audience within HE. So, if you think that someone else could benefit
from your experiences, then let us know. We will do our best to
promote your work through our database of good practice. In
addition, if you would like to disseminate your experiences through
PLANET by writing a short article, then please get in touch with the
editor. Contact details can be found at the end of this edition. We
hope to hear from you!
Project Tellus: The Information Gateway
for Learning and Teaching in Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences
The LTSN Subject Centre’s Information Gateway project was tendered
out in July 2000. Following interviews held on 9th October 2000, the
Subject Centre is pleased to announce that the successful team are
Andrew Evans, Myles Gould and Graham Clarke, from the School of
Geography, University of Leeds.
The project officially commenced on 1st January 2001, but much
work has been completed in the period between the interviews and
the official start date. A working ‘in-progress’ gateway should therefore
be operable in the late spring or early summer of 2001.
The aim of the project is to provide a portal through which quality
learning and teaching materials can be accessed. The materials will be
reviewed and annotated, providing a useful resource for anyone using
the gateway. It is intended that a ‘personalised’ front page will also be
added to the site, giving users a chance to be alerted to new materials
that become available in the database depending upon their interests.
If anyone would like more information on the project, e-mail
geoaje@leeds.ac.uk or access the Project Tellus web-site (http://
www.tellus.ac.uk) where further information will be placed as and
when it becomes available.
• ISBN:
1-86239-068-1
• Easier to use
• More relevant
information
• Published
annually
• List price:
£79/US$132
The Geologist’s
Directory 2000
(10th edition)
The Leading Guide to Geoscience
in the UK and Ireland
Incorporating the Register of
Consulting Chartered Geologists
Since it was first published in 1980,
The Geologist’s Directory has been
recognised as the most comprehensive,
authoritative and useful reference
guide of its kind available to the
earth scientist. It’s the perfect
source for individuals working
right across this important field
to gain access to reliable and
up-to-date information.
A Who’s Who of Chartered Geologists, both UK and overseas •
Consultants • Contractors • Specialist Services • Plant and Equipment •
Products and Materials • Manufacturers • Distributors • Associations,
Societies and Institutions • Geology in Education •
Government Bodies • The Geological Society • Brand and Trade Names
Order your copy from:
Geological Society Publishing House
Unit 7 Brassmill Enterprise Centre, Brassmill Lane,
Bath BA1 3JN, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1225 445046 Fax: +44 (0)1225 442836
Email: dawn.angel@geolsoc.org.uk
Online bookshop: http://bookshop.geolsoc.org.uk
18

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Keep in Touch with YOUR Subject Centre
Here’s how you can keep up-to-date with Subject Centre activities and with
learning and teaching developments/issues across the three discipline
communities.
Departmental Contacts
The Subject Centre has a contact person in every UK HE department that
offers Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences programmes, alone or in
combination. These contact persons have been established to act as an effective
voice for the department on any learning and teaching issue which you consider
to be important. The departmental contact person is also the Subject Centre’s
first port of call for disseminating information. For example, this issue of
PLANET was distributed via your departmental representative. If you do not
know who your contact person is, why not send an email around your
department, or contact us direct to find out? Email: hking@plymouth.ac.uk.
GEES Headline News (serving all three subject communities)
This is an e-mail distribution list maintained by the Subject Centre. This service
specifically provides short e-mails keeping all who subscribe informed of Subject
Centre activities, developments and projects. No general pedagogic material
is sent to this list. If you would like to be added to this mailing list then please
e-mail: jgill@plymouth.ac.uk
ESac-LTSN (serving Environmental Science)
This service is maintained by the Subject Centre’s Environmental Science
Satellite at the University of Hertfordshire. The list is intended for the
Environmental Sciences academic community (ESac) and is used as a forum
for discussions about learning and teaching issues and good practice in
Environmental Science. It is also used as a list to post Subject Centre
announcements and requests for information.
To join ESac-LTSN visit the JISCMAIL homepage at: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
Geo-Network (serving Earth Sciences)
This service is maintained by the Subject Centre. Geo-Network is used as a
platform for discussion on the provision of key skills, careers guidance and
general pedagogic issues within Earth Science degree courses. It is also used
as a medium for the dissemination of information relating to the activities of
the Subject Centre in the area of Earth Sciences.
To join Geo-Network visit the JISCMAIL homepage at: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
Geog-Net (serving Geography)
Geog-Net is a moderated e-mail discussion list, primarily used for the discussion
of issues associated with learning and teaching in UK Geography Higher
Education. It too includes information about the Subject Centre.
To join Geog-Net e-mail: GEOGNET@northampton.ac.uk
Register of Expertise
If you have a question or query on any learning and teaching issue, then
please contact the Subject Centre and use our register of expertise. This
register currently has over 50 names and contact details of individuals who
have expertise in various learning and teaching areas, ranging from computeraided
assessment to problem-solving, or from the adoption of C&IT in fieldwork
to benchmarking Alternatively, if you have an area of expertise that you think
others could benefit from, why not contact the Subject Centre and add your
name to the register? Please email: sgaskin@plymouth.ac.uk if you would like
to use and/or be added to the list. (Please note that the register is NOT
published on the web).
Reviews
A review of the Discovering Geology
Open University CD-ROMs
The Discovering Geology set of six CD-ROMs derives from an Open
University second level undergraduate course entitled Geology S260.
The CD-ROMs form an integral part of the S260 course, but they have
been issued as self-contained Computer-Assisted Learning units for use
either separately or as a series. They are winners of the 1999 EuroPrix
Multimedia Art Award in the Knowledge and Discovery category.
The CD-ROMs cover four thematic blocks: Maps & Landscape, Earth
Materials, Internal Processes and Surface Processes, with two supporting
resources, a Digital Microscope, and a Digital Kit containing a virtual
representation of the 30 rocks, 20 minerals and 20 fossils required for the
study of S260. Each of the four thematic CD-ROMs is supplied with the
relevant S260 workbook, and the parts of the book to which the CD-
ROM relates are clearly marked with a disk icon. This review covers only
the Maps and Landscape (Block 1) unit. CD-ROM based activities
associated with Block 1 include virtual fieldwork on Skye (at Torrin and
Strathaird localities) and two units concerned with geological structures
and their outcrop patterns, involving 3D block diagrams and virtual
fieldwork (at St Andrews and in Big Bend National Park, Texas). There is
also a set of self-assessment questions.
The innovative virtual fieldwork is supported by impressive 360 degree
views of the selected localities, with mouse-driven scanning and zoom
facilities. At each locality, a number of simple observational tasks and/or
measurements may be carried out under the guidance of an introductory
commentary. Measurements of dip can be carried out on some of the
field photographs using a simple on-screen clinometer.
The fieldwork tasks show very good progression through the sequence
of activities linked to the Scottish localities. These start in Skye with general
field observation and description of Tertiary igneous rocks and landforms
near Torrin at the northern end of the Strathaird peninsula, then proceed
to rock description and simple measurement of dip and strike at a localities
further down the peninsula, and conclude with field sketching, detailed
dip and strike measurement and simple structural mapping of the beach
section in folded Carboniferous strata at St Andrews. This virtual fieldwork
is certainly no replacement for real fieldwork but it introduces, in a
systematic and progressive way, some basic aspects of geological field
study. It can therefore help to prepare students for the types of activity
involved in real fieldwork and start to develop some of the necessary
specialised skills. Bad weather is not one of the shortcomings of virtual
fieldwork, however: having paid several visits to Skye, I found the place
almost unrecognisable in the OU materials with so much blue sky in
evidence!
The amount of intrinsic geological interest present in the selected field
locations and, in consequence, the range and value of tasks that can be set
vary from locality to locality. The St Andrews coastal section in the Map
Explorer II unit is full of visual geological interest and is well supported by
detailed field photographs and field notes on specific features. By contrast,
the four localities in Santa Elena Canyon in Big Bend National Park used in
the Map Explorer I unit have 360 degree views and commentary but are
unsupported by field photographs and notes. The commentary is bland,
ending with a later superimposed ‘what do you think?’ One is inclined to
think that the programme makers need not have travelled all the way to
Texas for so little obvious purpose.
The ‘map explorer’ units both contain sets of tasks based on simple 3D
block diagrams in which the learner is invited to explain the structural
cause of illustrated outcrop patterns by selecting appropriate values for
relevant dip, fold or fault parameters. Text messages provide help in the
case of incorrect answers. Overall, the range of geological tasks set in
relation to the virtual field localities and block diagrams is very well judged
and attractively presented, and the CD-ROMs will doubtless find wide
and appreciative use by students in post 16 and first year undergraduate
programmes of study.
The complete set of six CD-ROMs is available from Open University
Worldwide at a cost of £119.99 + VAT. Individual CD-ROMs cost from
£24.99 + VAT to £29.99 + VAT.
Mike Brooks
Geological Society
brooksm@brooksm.demon.co.uk
19

Issue One January 2001
From Only £24.99+ VAT
Discovering Geology CD-ROMs enable you to learn many
practical geological skills without even leaving your
computer. Computer-Assisted Learning packages will take
you on virtual field trips, while simulations of a petrological
microscope, geological experiments and virtual kits provide
a state-of-the-art laboratory.
• practice fieldwork in virtual fieldtrips to classic areas
• 'handle' & label the 70 samples from the digital kit
• examine rocks using the digital microscope
• explore rock forming environments, past and present
• suitable for undergraduate and post-16 students
• Activity Workbooks included
For more information or to make an order call: 01908 858785
e-mail: ouwenq@ouw.co.uk or go to www.ouw.co.uk

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
The GEES Guide to Higher
Education Initiatives
This question and answer guide attempts to explain the plethora of
acronyms used to describe major learning and teaching initiatives in Higher
Education in the UK (albeit that some have been focused only on England).
After outlining the emergence of various funding initiatives, the guide
summarises the main aims of, and key learning resources available from,
several projects across our three discipline communities. So, if you are
confused about FDTL, TLTP, TALESSI, HILP, TRIADS, SEED, GNU,
IMAGE, CLUES, UKESCC, GDN, CTI, GEOCAL, TQEF, HEFCW, SHEFC,
DENI and LTSN then read on! A more comprehensive guide to learning
and teaching acronyms will soon be available at http://www.gees.ac.uk/
resource.htm.
Sources of Funding
Q: What Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) funding is
available to support learning and teaching in Higher Education?
A: During 1999/2000, the HEFCE announced a funding mechanism to
support the development and enhancement of learning and teaching in
Higher Education.
A plan was drawn up to establish a single teaching quality enhancement
fund (TQEF) that would reward high quality and encourage improvement
through funding which covered three strands: the institution, the subject
discipline, and the individual academic. The HEFCE agreed to allocate
£24 million to the fund in 1999-2000, £29 million in 2000-01 and £30
million in 2001-02. The TQEF is an aggregated fund, and the long running
Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL) (launched in
1995) and the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP)
(launched in 1992) have now been merged into this single programme.
The largest component of the TQEF is the financial and practical support
available for institutions to develop and implement their learning and
teaching strategies. Some of you may have been involved in helping to
prepare your institution’s policy. If on the other hand you didn’t know
you had one, then find out about it!
The subject strand of the TQEF aims to promote innovation and the
sharing of good practice in the disciplines. It does this through the Fund
for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL). The FDTL was
established to support projects aimed at stimulating developments in
learning and teaching and to encourage dissemination of good practice.
Bids were invited from HE institutions that were able to demonstrate
high quality in their educational provision, as judged by the Teaching Quality
Assessment (TQA) exercise. FDTL was the first programme to link high
quality teaching assessment results to the allocation of funds in the Higher
Education sector.
The aim of the Teaching and Learning Technology Programme (TLTP)
was to make teaching and learning more productive and efficient by
harnessing modern technology. Universities were invited to bid for funding
for projects to develop new methods of learning and teaching through
the use of technology.
Finally, the individual strand of the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund
aims to encourage Higher Education institutions to recognise and reward
excellent learning and teaching support through institutional learning and
teaching strategies. In addition, the HEFCE has given £1m to the newly
established Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT) to run the National
Teaching Fellowship Scheme (NTFS) which rewards exemplars of good
learning and teaching practice in Higher Education.
Over the last 12 months, the HEFCE, the Higher Education Funding Council
for Wales (HEFCW), the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council
(SHEFC) and the Department for Education in Northern Ireland (DENI)
have also established a Learning and Teaching Support Network (LTSN)
consisting of 24 Subject Centres. More information of the National Subject
Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences is provided at
the beginning of this publication.
Other HEFCE funded initiatives include widening participation and
supporting students with disabilities.
The Fund for the Development of Teaching and
Learning (FDTL)
Q: What specific projects has the HEFCE Fund for the Development of Teaching
and Learning (FDTL) supported?
A: The FDTL has supported a wide spectrum of projects on developing
teaching and learning in Higher Education and there is a natural link
between many of the projects working in the same discipline. However,
many projects have also come together because they are working on
similar educational themes. Various institutions representing the three
disciplines of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences were successful
in securing FDTL funding. Although most of these projects have now
come to an end, they have all produced valuable teaching and learning
resources. The following is an annotated list of the ten funded projects
across the three disciplines. The resources provided by these three projects
are available to the entire UK Higher Education community.
‘Disseminating Good Teaching, Learning and Assessment Practices
in Geography’
Geography Discipline Network (GDN)
Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education
Subject Area: Geography
http://www.chelt.ac.uk/gdn/
Contact: mhealey@chelt.ac.uk
Aims: To identify and disseminate good practice in the teaching, learning
and assessment of Geography at undergraduate and taught postgraduate
levels in Higher Education institutions in England and Northern Ireland.
Available resources: The Geography Discipline Network has published ten
excellent Guides covering a range of methods of delivering and assessing
teaching and learning. It is possible to purchase copies of the Guides
directly from the Geography Discipline Network. The GDN has also
developed a good practice database for learning and teaching. This is
currently being enlarged to encompass the wider community of Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences. This valuable resource is being migrated
to the Subject Centre and will become a searchable archive available
from the http://www.gees.ac.uk and will be maintained by both staff at
the Centre and Phil Gravestock of the GDN. (In addition, the GDN has
also recently published a series of texts on key skills; these were produced
as part of the Department for Education and Employment’s (DfEE) key
skills project).
‘Developing postgraduates’ teaching skills in the sciences: a training
and development programme for teaching assistants’
University of East Anglia
Subject Area: Environmental Studies
http://www.uea.ac.uk/sdto/project/welcome.html
Contact: r.e.goodall@uea.ac.uk
Aims: To produce a training programme, designed to develop postgraduates’
teaching skills in the sciences, which will be capable of being delivered by
academic staff, senior postgraduates or staff developers in a range of
contexts.
Available resources: The programme offers the equivalent of 30 hours of
workshops and seminars and includes guidance notes for tutors, a video,
handouts, OHPs.
‘Teaching and Learning at the Environment-Science-Society Interface
(TALESSI)’
University of Greenwich
Subject Area: Environmental Studies
http://www.greenwich.ac.uk/~bj61/talessi/
Contact: fdtl38@greenwich.ac.uk
21

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Aims: The project seeks to promote interdisciplinarity and values awareness
and critical thinking in environmental Higher Education, especially in
environmental science/studies and geography.
Available resources: Teaching and learning resources are available for free
download, as html pages, on the above website.
‘Hertfordshire Integrated Learning Project (HILP)’
University of Hertfordshire
Subject Areas: environmental studies, geology, chemistry, law, computer
science, business and management studies, mechanical engineering, music,
applied social work, history, english.
http://www.herts.ac.uk/envstrat/HILP/
Contact: m.hall@herts.ac.uk
Aims: HILP aims to enhance staff and student perceptions of skills
development, and has as its focus the integration of skills development
into the academic curriculum.
Available resources: Resources include a graduate skills menu, descriptors
for graduate skills, skills support materials, tools for mapping and tracking
graduate skills and transdisciplinary case studies for problem-based learning.
‘TRIADS - Tripartite Assessment Delivery System’
University of Liverpool (collaborative with the University of Derby and
the Open University)
Subject Areas: Geography, geology, medicine, veterinary science
http://www.pcweb.liv.ac.uk/apboyle/triads/index.html
Contact: apboyle@liv.ac.uk
Aims: To improve the quality of students’ learning by promoting a ‘learning
outcomes led’ approach to curriculum design and assessment.
Available resources: Free demonstration of question styles are available at:
http://www.derby.ac.uk/assess/newdemo/newdemo.html
‘Skills Development: The Management of Change’
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Subject Areas: Architecture, chemistry, computing, geography, history,
tourism
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ADU/hefce/
Contact: i.h.nixon@ncl.ac.uk
Aims: To identify strategies that can facilitate changes in the curriculum to
promote the development of students’ skills.
Available resources: Web-site links to relevant resources, publications and
case studies at the above address.
‘SEED: Science Education Enhancement and Development’
University of Plymouth
Subject Areas: Geography, geology, environmental studies
http://www.science.plym.ac.uk/departments/seed/
Contact: bchalkley@plymouth.ac.uk
Aims: To develop, document and disseminate good practice in Science
teaching and learning. The programme consists of a series of projects in
areas such as lab-work, field-work, graduate teaching assistants and
computer-aided learning.
Available resources: Learning and teaching handbooks on computer based
assessment, developing employer links and fieldwork in the sciences, are
among some of the resources available to download free, in pdf format,
from the web-site above.
‘Staff Development in the Earth Sciences’
University of Southampton
Subject Area: Earth Sciences
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~ukgec/
Contact: h.king@plymouth.ac.uk
Aims: To identify current best practice in teaching and learning and to
promote its widest possible dissemination, take-up and implementation.
Available resources: A Staff Handbook to Support Earth Sciences Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education available free from the above address
or download, in pdf format, from http://www.gees.ac.uk/Resbook.pdf
‘GNU: Geography for the New Undergraduate’
Liverpool Hope University College
Subject Areas: Geography
http://www.hope.ac.uk/gnu/
Contact: cs.maguire@ulst.ac.uk
Aims: To develop a first year undergraduate seminar programme to teach
personal, interpersonal and transferable skills within a geographical context,
and to assist the successful transition to undergraduate studies, particularly
for non-traditional-entry students.
Available resources: Tutor and student guides to a seminar programme on
various skills themes. Tutor guides provide enough information for tutors
to run seminars.
‘IMAGE: Interactive Mathematics and Geoscience Education’
University College London
Subject Area: Geology
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/geolsci/edu/ugrads/image.htm
Contact: p.meredith@ucl.ac.uk
Aims: The project aims to develop essential skills applicable to geoscience
education, primarily under the subdivisions of mathematics and fieldwork.
Available resources: web-based computer-aided learning resources available
for use on the web-site above include geo-mathematics revision topics
and fieldwork (tailored to UCL courses).
Summary of FDTL
As seen, there is a large corpus of teaching and learning resources that
have been made available through the HEFCE Fund for the Development
of Teaching and Learning (FDTL). Most material is available for downloading
from the listed websites or by getting in touch with the named contact
person. Most of the available resources are free of charge.
The Teaching and Learning Technology
Programme (TLTP)
Q: What specific projects has the HEFCE Teaching and Learning Technology
Programme (TLTP) supported?
A: Not unlike the HEFCE Fund for the Development of Teaching and
Learning, the Fund for Teaching and Learning Technology has supported a
whole host of projects. Within the disciplines of Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences four projects were funded. An annotated list of
these is provided below.
‘UK Earth Sciences Courseware Consortium (UKESCC)’
University of Manchester
Subject Area: Earth Sciences
http://www.man.ac.uk/Geology/CAL/index.html
Contact: ukescc@man.ac.uk
Aims: to develop, produce and distribute high quality interactive courseware
for use in Earth Science teaching and learning.
Available resources: hybrid Macintosh/Windows demonstration CD-ROM
containing examples of the 21 courseware modules available can be
ordered from the web-site.
The UKESCC project has now become a commercial venture and the
available learning resources are chargeable. However, the National Subject
Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences has all 21
courseware modules for use at the Centre’s library. Please contact
sgaskin@plymouth.ac.uk if you would like to visit and experiment with
the software.
22

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
‘Centre for Computer Based Learning in Land Use and
Environmental Sciences’
University of Aberdeen
http://www.clues.abdn.ac.uk:8080/
Contact: CLUES@abdn.ac.uk
Aims: To enhance the quality of learning and increase the effectiveness of
teaching in subjects relating to land use and environmental sciences within
UK Higher Education through the application of computer-assisted learning
(CAL) and other appropriate information technologies (IT).
Available resources: CLUES products include CAL courseware and selfteaching
tutorials. The web-site also contains a useful, annotated Directory
of Resources for Computer Based Learning in Land Use and Environmental
Sciences
‘Geotechnical Computer-aided Learning’
University of the West of England
http://geocal.uwe.ac.uk/
No longer running
Aims: GeotechniCAL’s objective is the appropriate use of information
technology for the teaching and learning of geotechnics.
Available resources: the web-site contains an index of computer-assisted
learning packages for geotechnical engineering. Some of the resources
contain “live” online material developed using open Internet standards.
‘GeographyCAL® UK Computer-assisted Learning Consortium in
Geography’
University of Leicester
Subject Area: Geography
http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/cti/tltp/
Contact: vg5@le.ac.uk
Aims: To specify, develop, test and deliver a library of high-quality
transportable resources in the form of computer-assisted learning (CAL)
modules.
Available resources: CAL modules in human geography, physical geography
and geographical techniques.
Q: What was the funding councils Computers in Teaching Initiative(CTI) about?
A: The Computers in Teaching Initiative spanned the ten years of the
1990s. The aim of the CTI was to enhance the quality of learning and
teaching in Higher Education through the use of appropriate technologies.
This has successfully been achieved in the disciplines of Land Use and
Environmental Sciences, Geography, Geology and Meteorology through
the CTI Centres for these subject areas. Up until January 2000, the CTI
Centre for Geography, Geology and Meteorology was based at the
University of Leicester and directed by Geoff Robinson (now the C & IT
senior advisor to the Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences). The Subject Centre for Biosciences has taken
up the baton for CLUES, the CTI Centre for Land Use and Environmental
Sciences, where the former director Simon Heath is now advising as a
Subject Specialist.
Many excellent learning and teaching resources were produced as a result
of the CTI. These include a web-site for the Geography, Geology and
Meteorology CTI (http://www.geog.le.ac.uk/cti/) containing a catalogue
of geographical software, providing information on over 100 software
items.
Additionally, an information gateway provides an index of on-line Geo-
Information resources for university staff and students: this will soon be
subsumed into the Subject Centre’s own Information Gateway which
spans a much wider community. The development of GeographyCal®
courseware (see above) involved over 130 academics and has proved to
be an immense help and resource for the teaching community. However,
January 2000 potentially marked a turning point in the provision of support
for learning and teaching in Higher Education, and the CTI centres came
to an end. However, they left behind an important legacy of involvement,
commitment and encouragement.
Q: If the CTI Centre for Geography, Geology and Meteorology is no longer in
operation, who is serving the need to enhance the quality of learning and
teaching in Higher Education through the use of appropriate technologies?
A: In January 2000, the HEFCE set-up a Learning and Teaching Support
Network (LTSN), consisting of 24 Subject Centres, a Generic Centre
and a Technologies Centre (GEES). The Subject Centre for Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences is committed to integrating C&IT into
learning and teaching in Higher Education as part of a wider remit. For
more information on the LTSN National Subject Centre for GEES refer
to an earlier article in this edition of PLANET.
Q: Are there any projects across Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
that have been successful in securing funds to improve provision for disabled
students?
A: Yes, the Geography Discipline Network (GDN) (see above) provides
learning and teaching resources for the three disciplines of Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences and is based at Cheltenham and
Gloucester College of Higher Education. The GDN has been awarded
money to provide guidance on learning support for disabled students
undertaking fieldwork. The project will run until June 2001. The main
aim of the project is to identify, promote and transfer the principles and
good practices of how to provide learning support for disabled students
undertaking fieldwork and related activities. It is the intention of the
project managers to produce a series of six guides for use by relevant
departments. Contact: mhealey@chelt.ac.uk. or visit http://
www.chelt.ac.uk/gdn.
Q: How can I access and benefit from the above learning and teaching
initiatives?
If one of the projects above covers your subject area and interests you,
do contact the project leader and/or visit the website addresses listed
above and obtain copies of the project resource outputs. If there is a
learning and teaching topic that you are wrestling with, (such as the
introduction of C&IT into your course or developing your students’
employability and skills training), then again you will probably find it useful
to obtain the resource outputs from some of these projects. While many
of the initiatives have now come to an end, there it is still a need to
continue disseminating and deploying their resources. The Subject Centre
is keen to assist with this process.
And a last word……if you are in need of help on any learning and teaching
issue, then contact the LTSN National Subject Centre and use the register
of expertise. We hope to hear from you!
Steve Gaskin and Helen King
National Subject Centre
sgaskin@plymouth.ac.uk
hking@plymouth.ac.uk
This article has in part drawn on a feature first published in Educational
Developments 1.1 (Jan 2000), published by the Staff and Educational
Development Association (SEDA).
YOU to Review!
The National Subject Centre holds an archive of new learning
and teaching software and texts, in part supplied by John Wiley
& Sons. If you are interested in reviewing any of this material
then please contact the Subject Centre on 01752 233530
(jgill@plymouth.ac.uk). We will then commission a review that
will be published in a future issue of PLANET and on the Subject
Centre’s website.
23

Issue One January 2001
Taylor & Francis
Journals
Journal of Geography in Higher Education
Editors: Hugh Matthews and Ian Livingstone, both at University College, Northampton, UK
Volume 25, 2001, 3 issues ISSN 0309-8265
The Journal of Geography in Higher Education provides a dedicated forum for research and
discussion of geography teaching in all institutions of higher education throughout the world, it
provides an arena for geographers and others, regardless of their specialisms, to discuss
common educational interests, to present and review the results of educational research, and to
advocate new ideas.
Environmental Education Research
Editors: Chris Oulton, University College Worcester, UK and Dr William A. H. Scott,
University of Bath, UK
Volume 7, 2001, 4 issues ISSN 1350-4622
Environmental Education Research is an international refereed journal that publishes papers
and reports on all aspects of environmental education. The purpose of the journal is to help
advance understanding of environmental education through research and development
activities. The journal carries a diverse range of papers including: conference reviews,
retrospective analyses of activities in a particular field, commentaries on policy issues,
comparative aspects of an environmental education issue and critical reviews of environmental
education provision in a range of countries and regions.
Related journals of interest
Australian Geographer
Editor: Graeme Aplin,
Macquarie University,
Australia
Volume 32, 2001, 3 issues
ISSN 0004-9182
Higher Education in
Europe
Senior Editor: Leland C.
Barrows, CEPES c/o
UNESCO, Romania
Volume 26, 2001, 4 issues
ISSN 0379-7724
Ethics, Place and
Environment
Editors: Tim Unwin, Royal
Holloway, University of
London, UK
Volume 4, 2001, 3 issues
ISSN 1366-879X
Journal of Further and
Higher Education
Editor: Jennifer Rowley,
Edge Hill University
College, UK
Volume 25, 2001, 3 issues
ISSN 0309-877X
Gender, Place and
Culture: A Journal of
Feminist Geography
Editors: Lynn Staeheli,
University of Colorado, USA
and Gill Valentine,
University of Sheffield, UK
Volume 8, 2001, 4 issues
ISSN 0966-369X
Studies in Higher
Education
Editor: Professor Malcolm
Tight, Department of
Continuing Education,
University of Warwick, UK
Volume 26, 2001, 3 issues
ISSN 0307-5079
All of these journals are available online, for further information please
connect to: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
For further details on these and other journals, or to order FREE SAMPLE COPIES,
please contact:
Brant Emery, Taylor & Francis Ltd,
PO Box 25, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3UE
Tel: 01235 401065
Fax: 01235 401550
Email: brant.emery@tandf.co.uk
Visit our website at www.tandf.co.uk/journals

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
For your information
A Curriculum Contribution to
Work Experience
Do you want to work with student-centred case materials that get
students working in teams and applying a range of personal and
interpersonal skills, such as, team working, information handling,
problem identification, creative problem-solving, negotiation and actionplanning?
Then check out these case studies which have been used with
undergraduates and masters students in all the Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences disciplines. The cases are:
• ‘Seatons’ – about a chemical factory dealing with pollution issues,
compiled with the Environment Agency. (No chemistry needed:
this works well with the general public and as a staff training
exercise.)
• ‘SusDale’ – about issues occurring in the Yorkshire Dales National
Park, written with the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.
• ‘Flood Defence’ – two cases based on the River Lavant, Chichester,
compiled with the Environment Agency.
• ‘Flood Warning’ – two cases about planning a flood warning regime,
again with the Environment Agency.
Each case can be run in a 2-3 hour slot with appropriate briefing, or
be given to students for one week and presented a week or two later.
A detailed version of SusDale also exists as the main focus of a 10
credit module. I use the four flood defence and flood warning cases
as the assessments for a 10 credit hydrology module.
You can download the tutor’s notes and student’s notes for all these
cases from: http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/courses/other/casestudies/
The Environment Agency sponsored cases can also be found at:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/education/studies/case.htm
The flood warning and flood defence cases are splendidly topical at
present. The website http://context.tlsu.leeds.ac.uk/index.asp also has
more cases worth checking out.
Pauline Kneale
School of Geography
University of Leeds.
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/staff/p.kneale/staffinfo.html
pauline@geog.leeds.ac.uk
Reflective Portfolios /
Personal Development
Portfolios
A Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) pilot
project ‘Strategic Model for Developing Materials for
Recording Achievement in Traditional Universities’ led by
the University of Leeds had as its aim the creation of a
Faculty-wide portfolio for all undergraduates in Geography,
Earth Science, Environmental Sciences and Transport
Studies. Undergraduate progress files were piloted in 1998/
1999 and introduced across faculty in September 1999.
They are used in the Schools in different ways. These are
either through study skills sessions and tutorial modules
(Geography and Transport Studies) or within the University
personal tutorial scheme (Environmental Sciences, Earth
Sciences). They aim to encourage students to reflect on
and review their activities at least once a semester. They
are cross-referenced from study skills and careers modules
in the Schools to highlight transferable skill development
within mainstream teaching. Students taking workplace
projects and year abroad activities are given further
encouragement to log activities and highlight them in their
portfolios. A Taught Masters Students’ Progress file has also
been developed.
If you want to use the Leeds Portfolio in any way, from idle
reference to direct adoption, feel free. You can download
copies at any time from:
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/publications/portfolio/
I would welcome an email to let me know if you do use
some or all of the material, and comments on the style and
content would also be appreciated. We will review our
use of the portfolio later in the year and I would welcome
ideas and comments from the GEES community.
Pauline Kneale
School of Geography
University of Leeds.
http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/staff/p.kneale/staffinfo.html
pauline@geog.leeds.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 end
of this edition of PLANET.
25

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
A Real-World Project
Introduction
From time to time, the Subject Centre will be raising the awareness
of learning and teaching initiatives in cognate disciplines from which
we can learn. The REAL-WORLD project is a good example of this:
it has the principal aim of enhancing the employability of students by
integrating work-related learning activities into the curriculum. Workrelated
learning can include activities such as placements, industrial
visits, live projects, case materials, mentoring schemes etc. REAL-
WORLD has a national remit and is concentrating on the subject
areas of Agriculture, Forestry, Agricultural Sciences and the Organismal
Biosciences.
REAL-WORLD is based at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
The project team includes academic staff from the Faculty of
Agriculture and Biological Sciences at Newcastle, the School of
Sciences at the University of Sunderland and educational and
development staff from the Academic Development Unit, (part of
the Newcastle University Careers Service). The project is supported
by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) under
the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (FDTL).
Good Practice
A key feature of REAL-WORLD is the development of a good practice
guide that will draw from the experiences and expertise of both the
academic and the business community. Using the guide as a base,
REAL-WORLD will encourage and support the practical uptake of
work-related learning into the curriculum. For employers and support
organisations, REAL-WORLD will act as a link to ensure that skill
requirements and concerns are reflected in the integration of workrelated
learning.
For Academic Departments
• Access a good practice guide based on case studies. Participate
in the development of the guide to ensure that innovations in
work-related learning can be communicated to a variety of
institutions;
• Take advantage of the support, guidance and funding REAL-
WORLD offers regarding the development of work-related
learning;
• Share your experience and views with other practitioners.
For Employers
• Access and contribute to the good practice guide. Ensure that it
reflects the needs for a skilled workforce;
• Participate in the framework for establishing good practice in
work-related learning;
• Form relationships with academic departments who are
committed to meeting the skill requirements for graduates;
• Work with REAL-WORLD to develop work-related learning
initiatives.
Receive our initial report on good practice
From the outset we are encouraging participation from academics
and employers that we hope will benefit from REAL-WORLD. We
have prepared an initial report that is concerned with establishing
criteria for good practice in work-related learning. This is available
free of charge. To request your copy or to find out more about Real
World, please contact us at the address below. In addition, you may
like to contribute to the e-discussion on REAL-WORLD by visiting
the website http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/goodpractice
Robert Walker
REAL-WORLD
University of Newcastle
adu@ncl.ac.uk
Real-World Workshop
13 th December 2000, University of Newcastle
The FDTL3 Funded project REAL-WORLD outlined above
recently hosted a workshop for academic staff involved
with courses in Agriculture, Forestry, Agricultural Sciences
and the Organismal Biosciences.
The workshop entitled ‘Ready for The Real World’ hosted
by the University of Newcastle Careers Service encouraged
the sharing of expertise in the development of work-related
learning activities for the appropriate subjects. Work-related
learning can include activities such as placements, industrial
visits, live projects, case materials, mentoring schemes etc.
Participants from a range of institutions contributed to a
‘conceptual framework’ which will form the basis for
identifying examples of good practice in work-related
learning activities.
Robert Walker the Project Manager for the REAL-WORLD
project said ‘The workshop was a valuable opportunity to
access a wide-range of experience and expertise in the design
and delivery of work-related learning in agricultural and related
courses.’ He went on to say ‘The REAL-WORLD project
welcomes comments and contributions from other staff involved
with agricultural and related courses.’
Details of the areas covered at the workshop including a
copy of the conceptual framework are available from
Robert Walker at the REAL-WORLD project by email
(adu@adu.ac.uk).
26

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Webbed Foot
This section contains annotated web-links to general
and specific learning and teaching material.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://www.w3.org/
“Created in 1994, the W3C aims to lead the World Wide Web to its
full potential by developing common protocols that promote its
evolution and promote interoperability.”
A good overview of the Consortium aims and goals can be found at:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/
Throughout the web-site the technical language is kept to a minimum
and where ‘jargon’ is used it is either clearly explained or a link is
provided to an explanation.
The W3C hosts a variety of useful resources ranging from simple
overviews to in-depth technical reports. For those staff developing
web-based support for their teaching, or distance learning materials,
accessibility guidelines are provided.
The accessibility guidelines section (http://www.w3.org/WAI/) contains
several levels of information ranging from quick tips on building an
accessible web-site to more strategic issues, such as technical solutions
and government policies. For staff who are already using or thinking
of using the web to support their teaching, reading the W3C
accessibility guidelines should be high on their list of priorities.
“The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone
regardless of disability is an essential aspect.” Tim Berners-Lee, W3C
Director and inventor of the World Wide Web
27

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Relaunch of website for the
Environmental Sciences academic
community
The Committee of Heads of Environmental Sciences (CHES),
composed of senior Environmental Scientists, is a leading academic
association representing the UK Environmental Sciences academic
community (ESac) in Higher Education. It is concerned with, and acts
as a focus for, all aspects of Environmental Sciences including learning
and teaching developments. Most recently, the Benchmarking Panel
for Earth Sciences, Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies
at the Quality Assurance Agency was chaired by David Eastwood, the
chairman of CHES.
It is envisaged that by working closely with CHES (and particularly its
Learning and Teaching Sub-committee), the Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences Subject Centre will be able to encourage and
promote good learning and teaching practice within ESac. Support
from the Subject Centre has meant that the CHES website has been
overhauled over the last couple of months both in design and content
and work is underway to provide a set of pedagogically useful resources
and links.
The website is managed and maintained by the National Subject
Centre’s Environmental Sciences ‘satellite’ based at the University of
Hertfordshire. You can visit it at the following address:
http://www.herts.ac.uk/natsci/Env/ches/newches/home.htm
Marianne Hall
University of Hertfordshire
m.hall@herts.ac.uk
28

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Diary Dates
This section lists some specific learning and teaching conferences
and workshops, and other conferences with learning and teaching
sessions for 2001. For further information and registration, visit the
website addresses provided or email the listed contacts.
In addition, please photocopy these pages and place them on a
noticeboard in your staffroom. Please note that many website
addresses are transient but all those listed are correct at time of
print.
January
Jan 2 – Jan 5
‘Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British Geographers
(RGS-IBG) 2001 Annual Conference’
Organisers: RGS-IBG and the University of Plymouth
Location: University of Plymouth
http://www.rgs.org/Category.asp?Page=mainevents
Jan 4 - Jan 5
‘Second Symposium of the International Network for Learning and
Teaching Geography in Higher Education’ (INLT)
Organisers: INLT and the University of Plymouth
Location: University of Plymouth
http://www.chelt.ac.uk/el/philg/gdn/inlt/plym2001.htm
Jan 10 – Jan 12
‘International Conference on Learning and Teaching On-Line’
Organisers: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO), South China Normal University (SCNU)
and the Asian Association of Open Universities (AAOU).
Location: Guangzhou, China
http://ltol.scnu.edu.cn
Jan 15
‘The Teaching of Ethics and Professional Issues’
Organisers: National Subject Centre for Information and Computer
Sciences and the University of Greenwich
Location: University of Greenwich, London
http://www.ics.ltsn.ac.uk/events/ethics/
Jan 22
‘The 5th Java and the Internet in the Computing Curriculum
Conference (JICC5)’
Organisers: South Bank University
Location: South Bank University, London
http://www.ltsn.ac.uk/main/events.html
Jan 29 - Feb 2
‘2001 Geography, A Spatial Odyssey’
Organisers: New Zealand Geographical Society and the Institute of
Australian Geographers Joint Conference
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
http://www.geography.otago.ac.nz/Geography/nzgs/nzgsotago.html
29
February
Feb 1 – Feb 4
‘American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) 9th Annual
Conference’
Organiser: AAHE
Location: Tampa, Florida, USA
http://www.aahe.org/ffrr/2001/preview/index.htm
Feb 14
‘Information Technology in Teaching Geoscience’
Organiser: British Geological Survey (BGS)
Location: University of Derby
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=EMRG2001B
Feb 22
‘Motivating and engaging students in active learning in our disciplines’
Organiser: LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences
Location: Kingston University
http://www.gees.ac.uk/events.htm
Feb 23
‘Good Assessment Ideas in Environmental Sciences Learning and
Teaching’
Organisers: Committee of Heads of Environmental Sciences (CHES)
in association with the LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences.
Location: Kingston University
http://www.gees.ac.uk/events.htm
Feb 27 - March 3
Association of American Geographers (AAG) Annual Conference
Organisers: AAG
Location: New York, USA
http://www.aag.org
March
March 7
‘Working with Diverse Students’
Organiser: Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT)
Location: Napier University, Edinburgh
http://www.ilt.ac.uk/archives/07032001.htm
March 12
‘Careers in the Curriculum’
Organiser: National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences
Location: Geological Society of London
http://www.gees.ac.uk/events.htm
Cont.

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Diary Dates cont.
April
April 2 – April 3
‘Challenge to Change – enhancing the practice and scholarship of
learning and teaching’
Organisers: Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA)
and SEDA Scotland Spring Conference
Location: University of Glasgow
http://www.seda.demon.co.uk/glasgow01.html
April 2 – April 3
Committee of Heads of Environmental Sciences (CHES) Annual
Conference
Organiser: CHES
Location: University of Plymouth
Email: k.allen@rgs.org
April 4
‘Online Learning: Bridging the Gap’
Organiser: Association for Learning Technology (ALT)
Location: Manchester Metropolitan University
http://www.alt.ac.uk
April 5 – April 7
‘Bridging Minds and Markets’
Sixth International auDes Conference (Association of University
Departments of Environmental Sciences in Europe)
Organisers: auDes
Location: Venice, Italy
Email: audes6@unive.it
April 9 – April 11
‘2001: A Spatial Odyssey’
The Geographical Association 2001 Annual Conference
Organisers: The Geographical Association
Location: University of Sussex, Brighton
http://www.geography.org.uk/events/conf2001/2001.html
April 11 – April 12
‘Bridging gaps: an experimental two day workshop’
Organiser: Institute for Learning and Teaching (ILT)
Location: Cambridge – Madingley Hall
http://www.ilt.ac.uk/archives/11042001.htm
May
May 8
‘Learning support for disabled students undertaking fieldwork and
related activities’
Organisers: Geography Discipline Network (GDN) and the National
Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
Location: Royal Geographical Society with the Institute of British
Geographers (RGS-IBG), London
http://www.gees.ac.uk/events.htm
30
May 21 – May 22
‘New Lecturers Workshop’
Organiser: LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences
Location: University of Birmingham
http://www.gees.ac.uk/events.htm
May 22 – May 23
‘Maximising impact – working strategically across the sector’
FDTL/TLTP Annual Conference
Organisers: FDTL/TLTP National Co-ordination Team
Location: To be confirmed
http://www.ncteam.ac.uk
May 25 to May 26
‘The End of Quality?’
Organisers: Society for Research into Higher Education (SRHE) and
European Association for International Research (EAIR)
Location: Chamberlain Tower Hotel and Conference Centre,
Birmingham
http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com.eoq.intro.htm
July
July 4 – July 6
Institute for Learning and Teaching Annual Conference (ILTAC)
Organiser: ILT
Location: University of York
http://www.ilt.ac.uk/archives/default.htm
July 8 – July 11
Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia
(HERDSA) 24th International Conference
Organiser: HERDSA
Location: Newcastle, Australia
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/conferences/herdsa2001/
July 11 – July 12
Hertfordshire Integrated Learning Project (HILP) Annual Skills
Conference
‘Implementing Skills Development in Higher Education: Reviewing the
Territory’
Organisers: HILP
Location: University of Hertfordshire
http://www.gees.ac.uk/events.htm
September
Sept 9 – Sept 11
‘9th International Improving Student Learning Symposium’
Organisers: The Oxford Centre for Staff Learning and Development
(OCSLD)
Location: Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland
http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsd.html
Sept 11 - Sept 13
‘Association for Learning Technology (ALT), Annual Conference’
Organisers: ALT
Location: University of Edinburgh
http://www.ed.ac.uk/altc2001

Issue One January 2001
P L A N E T
Information for
Contributors
The Editorial committee of PLANET welcomes all material of interest
to academics and support staff in the fields of learning and teaching
across the three disciplines of Geography, Earth and Environmental
Sciences. Generic submissions from other disciplines and submissions
with an international dimension are also invited. PLANET also
welcomes learning and teaching ‘work in progress’.
The audience for PLANET is academics, support staff and educational
developers. Therefore, you should write clear lucid English, avoiding
where possible the use of acronyms. Where acronyms are used, a full
explanation should be provided the first time that it appears in the
text. Articles accepted for publication may be subject to editing.
Types of Contributions
Short research papers, notes or short communications, case studies
of learning and teaching practice, annotated web-links, software and
book reviews, forum commentary, and letters to the editor commenting
on an article previously published in PLANET, or on current higher
education issues.
Main Paper Submissions:
General: Manuscripts must be typewritten. The author(s) should
provide contact details, including email addresses. All submissions
should be in electronic format.
Forthcoming Special
Edition of PLANET
A special edition of PLANET will soon be made available. The issue
will provide in-depth coverage of a recent conference run by the
National Subject Centre entitled ‘Using C & IT to support fieldwork
teaching’ held at the University of Leeds in November 2000. The
conference proceedings will be a valuable resource for all delegates
who participated in this event, and for those who were not in
attendance. Contents will range from articles on the importance of
C & IT in fieldwork through to case studies of specific fieldwork learning
and teaching materials. The edition will include a CD-ROM of material
showcased at the conference.
Forthcoming Articles in the June
2001 issue of PLANET:
‘The Pros and Cons of Peer Assessment’
Ian Hughes
University of Leeds
‘Disabled students and fieldwork: towards inclusivity?’
Mick Healey
Cheltenham and Gloucester College of HE
Paper Length: Main papers should normally be in the order of 1000-
2000 words, although longer articles may be considered. Notes, or
short communications, annotated web-links, book and software reviews,
forum commentary and letters to the editor, should be no longer
than 400 words.
Referencing:
All publications cited within any text should be presented in accordance
with the Harvard Referencing System.
Illustrations:
All illustrations should be provided in a reproducible form (this may
include reduction).
All articles with any accompanying figures, tables, diagrams and
photographs, should be submitted in electronic format to:
Stephen Gaskin
Operational Editor
LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography,
Earth and Environmental Sciences
Room 509, The Moneycentre
University of Plymouth
Drake Circus
Devon, PL4 8AA UK.
Email: sgaskin@plymouth.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1752 233535
Fax: +44 (0)1752 233534
http://www.gees.ac.uk
Contact Us!
If you have any questions or queries about this publication, or
on any learning and/or teaching issue, then contact the Subject
Centre team at:
The LTSN National Subject Centre for Geography, Earth and
Environmental Sciences
University of Plymouth
Room 509, The Moneycentre
Drake Circus
Plymouth
Devon UK
PL4 8AA
Tel: +44 (0)1752 233530
Fax: +44 (0) 1752 233534
Email: jgill@plymouth.ac.uk
Website: http://www.gees.ac.uk
31

Issue One January 2001
Visit the Subject Centre’s website for a downloadable version of PLANET:
http://www.gees.ac.uk
and find out more about:
• Subject Centre News and Events
• The Information Gateway: ‘Project Tellus’
• Learning and Teaching Projects
• Links to other Subject Centres and Learning and Teaching sites
Learning and Teaching
Support Network
Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences
PLANET ISSN Number 1473-1835