The notion of a first year course for students with math, physics and computing interests and abilities has seen a fair bit of casual discussion among EOAS faculty. It was hoped that development could begin in 2020 but progress stalled perhaps due to resources and energy being overwhelmed by COVID-related priorities.

This page has two parts: first there are recommendations and associated discussions about how to develop a first year course, what its content could be and how to teach it. Then a synthesis of early discussions that about this idea is provided.

R14. Develop a quantitative EOAS first year course

Recommended actions and tactics are organized into three categories; (1) development, (2) content, and (3) teaching models.

1. Regarding development of such a course

1. Such a project needs a complete proposal and a funding request (eg small TLEF).
2. Regarding name and marketing of such a course: make sure it has an “eye-catching” public face. Maybe “Introductory Climate Physics” is the wrong title since it seems daunting. It may be “true”, but the truth also needs to be attractive.
3. The team:
   • A dedicated project coordinator is needed. UBC’s course development support resources should also be engaged to minimize EOAS time and resources.
   • A team of faculty needs to be given time and space. Ideally, the team should be approved by colleagues so everyone’s interests are represented.
   • Factor regular progress updates (eg at Dep’t meetings) and opportunities to contribute by interviewing, asking for content, etc.
   • Include undergraduate and graduate students as partners in the development.
   • Consider consulting with Sun Kwok if he is interested, able and still around.
   • CTLT (Carry Hunter) is eager to support research for and development of such a course.
4. Support in terms of teaching/learning expertise, project coordination and teacher buyout during development. This won’t happen without it becoming a “formal” EOAS project, with broad approval across the Department.
   • Take advantage of UBC’s course design resources and expertise. Individual support is available, there are workshops on course or instructional design, and there are many resources with advice and wisdom from educational design experts.
5. Designing a first year course from scratch represents a significant opportunity to incorporate proven best-practices to optimize student motivation, efficiency & efficacy of learning, and instructor motivation. Some examples to consider:
   • Unlike other EOSC 1xx or 31x courses, the target audience for this course is NOT “everyone”. It is a class size of perhaps up to 50 students interested in challenging, inspiring and relevant science.
   • However, students will expect to do well and they will not register for this elective if it gains a reputation for being “difficult”. Students do not like courses that drag their averages down. This may be a reason to consider this idea as a 200-level course, and/or possibly as a prerequisite in some EOAS programs, but these have not been discussed.
   • Put careful thought into teaching model. Lecture? Flipped course? Single instructor? Sequence of multiple instructors (not recommended)? Paired instructors to support transfer in subsequent terms? Rotating teaching assignments or one (or two) faculty to take “ownership”? Modular?
   • Make it attractive and fun to teach so all EOAS faculty members will enjoy teaching the course. That means incorporating at least some room for instructor’s “autonomy”.
   • Keep it straight forward – no fancy or unusual scheduling or pedagogic needs.
   • Take advantage of the large global community of educators who teach geoscience “first-exposure” courses, especially NAGT and the SERC repository of geoscience teaching wisdom. Then adapt to the EOAS context.
   • Include experiential opportunities – lab visits, industry connections or field trips, career opportunity search assignment, and others. Maybe one for each module. Experiences could involve “virtual” experiences.
6. The goal should be to not to teach facts, figures and procedures about Earth and climate, but to gain familiarity with quantitative ways of thinking needed to understand how Earth works, and for sustainable, responsible stewardship of our planet and its resources and environments. Do not duplicate what goes on in MATH courses these students will already be taking.
7. Consider precedent from other institutions.
   • Consider especially ideas regarding first year courses from SERC and the EDDIE Model (Environmental Data-Driven Inquiry and Exploration) for quantitative modules in earth science courses.
   • See also the global community of educators who teach geoscience “first-exposure” courses, especially NAGT and the SERC repository of geoscience teaching wisdom.
8. Determine likely students; this is necessary due diligence or “market research” regarding who can, and who might, take this course.
   • A challenge when BSc students are the target is that first year students have no room for a “new” or “elective” course because they are way too busy taking prerequisite courses in math, physics, chemistry and communication.
   • First year electives are often taken by more senior students as electives. Whether to, and how to, mitigate or manage this needs discussion.
   • Estimate how many students could (or would) enroll. CTLT can help with questions such as this.
   • Determine potential student demand: For example, find a willing professor in a mandatory (or popular) first year course taken by appropriate students and ask them to complete a very quick 2 or 3 (carefully crafted) questions to gain a sense of interest, likelihood of taking such a course, and reasons for being unable to take it.
     • Do not ask students “what would like to see or learn“. Asking “if such-and-such an opportunity was available, would you be interested” – or “would you have been interested” if we ask senior students.
     • Frame the proposal (to students) based on societal needs, by referring to quantitative nature of sustainability, environmental and resource stewardship, water & climate crises, etc. Mention “cool stuff” – measurements, analytical potential, meeting the needs of society, solving critical problems.
   • Note there is already insight about impacts of current EOSC 1xx courses on decision making among EOAS graduates in the 2020 report by Jolley, summarized here. In short, the question and answer was: “Did EOSC 1xx courses influence your choice? 30-40% of Combined Majors, EOS Majors and Geology students said “yes”, fewer than 10% for others“.

2. Regarding scope of coverage and content themes

1. Here are two models for developing course module content. The second is likely to be more inspirational.
   • Introducing concepts from math, physics and data science and illustrate them with applications, OR
   • First introduce issues, questions, or problems that are important for communities, scientific advancement, and understanding how our planet works. THEN explore the universal concepts from math, physics etc. are employed to measure, analyze, model, inform critical decisions, and understand the processes.
   • Iteration or back-and-forth between the two models is likely as course development seeks to clarify the inspiring contexts and applications versus ensuring that “desirable” concepts are touched upon.
2. Build a modular course, to be taught as 4 modules (not more). Four modules allows for ~3 weeks each with 9hrs of lessons and ~18hrs homework (if students take 5 courses and work 45hrs per week, they should devote a average 9hrs/wk/course, or 3hrs lecture + 6hrs homework). Four modules works well for DSCI 100.
   • Commit to adding a module every year or so to ensure the course remains current, and give faculty who are new to the course a chance to contribute a module that reflects their expertise and interests.
3. Design content and learning activities that point at QES programs, courses, & experiences. In fact, identify explicitly what inspiring learning experiences students can expect in EOAS courses.
4. Content and contexts need to be inspiring. See  for example Capello, et.al., 2021, “The Geophysical Sustainability Atlas: Mapping Geophysics to the UN Sustainable Development Goals.”
5. Jupyter Notebooks are attractive because they facilitate interactive exploration of concepts at any level of complexity, from no coding at all, through modifying lines or segments of code, all the way to building or illustrating complete programs. Also they are becoming widely used across EOAS (and UBC) for both teaching and research, which makes it more likely that (a) EOAS faculty can pick up the course (or part of it) with minimal preparation and (b) students will either be familiar with tools or will be using them later in their degrees.
6. Course developers will benefit from exploring the large global community of educators who teach geoscience “first-exposure” courses, especially NAGT and the SERC repository of geoscience teaching wisdom.
7. Potential themes were discussed.
   • A “physics of climate” theme was originally a top choice. It is topical, students see it as “urgent” and EOAS has a wealth of expertise both directly and indirectly engaged in climate-related teaching and research.
   • An alternative suggestion (perhaps less “politically” charged) was “Critical problems in Earth and Climate Sciences“.
   • The notion of “spheres” (atmosphere, ocean, hydrosphere, cryosphere, surface, etc.) as a framework was suggested. This may be a convenient way to describe the components of the Earth system. However, being somewhat abstract, to may be less attractive to students. They are attracted to topics to which they can relate; topics that they perceive as meaningful. The goal of the course is to attract and then inspire students, not “tell them” about the Earth as cleverly as possible.
   • With a little creativity, the teaching goals of experts (instructors) can be met regardless of the framework, but the framework will either attract students – or not. See also What is likely to be attractive above.
   • There is room for discussing the Earth science focus – whether climate related, “critical Earth science problems”, Earth’s spheres, or something else.

3. Regarding teaching models

1. Choosing teaching tactics (few vs many instructors;  Jupyter notebooks or not, labs or not, etc.) is a second step. A focus is needed, best articulated by starting with 5-8 preliminary Course Learning Outcomes.
2. Regarding the choice of teaching model
   • A course such as this must be efficient to teach, sustainable and “transferable” (from one instructor to the next).
   • Efficiency and consistency are increased by a tightly scripted course (like early math courses) while the second approach is preferred by those who claim they “can’t teach from someone else’s materials”.
   • Balancing efficiency and consistency while enabling some degree of autonomy is surely possible. Support from experts in educational design will be important.
3. Single, two, or many teachers are options. Jones and Harris, 2012 discuss pros and cons of these models. But having two teachers who truly work as a team, and bringing in a guest for each module, would effectively balance the competing objectives of efficiency, variety, exposure to EOAS, sustainability, and – importantly – transferability (from one instructing team to the next).
4. Traditional lecture, online, a truly flipped class involving pre-readings and classes mostly involving student activities (solo, pairs and groups) with minimal “lecturing”, or a hybrid?
   • Note that if the intent is to rotate instructors then an effective way to ensure consistency with some autonomy is to use a paired-teaching model in which instructors teach in at least two subsequent terms, so they learn the ropes in their first term and mentor the next instructor in their second term.
5. Labs are considered awkward, hard to coordinate and probably unnecessary for a course like this. That said – EOSC 111 could have new modules developed to complement this new course.

The following is a summary of early paper- and email-based discussions about a quantitatively oriented first year course.