Monthly Archives: April 2019

• Course: EOSC112
• Date: April 1st, 2019
• Class Size: ~200 people
• Topic: Future climate

During my teaching practicum during term 2, I decided to teach two consecutive classes on a similar topic. During my previous lesson, I introduced students to climate models and the process of how models are created. During my next class, I wanted to build on their experience and introduced them to a more complex “real-life” climate model that has been used to predict the future of the planet for the next century.

This class was designed as a lecture-based session (with clicker participation). Although, l could have been more creative and structure the class differently. I think I reversed to my most comfortable way of teaching (but not the optimal one) due to lack of time to prepare for it properly and also, I was afraid that doing worksheet activity gain would be too much for the students. Thus, if I am going to teach this section next year, I want to create something more hands-on for the students, rather then just lecturing.

Throughout the lesson, I tried always referring them back to the previous class, to build on students’ experience and show them the link between what they did with what they are studying now.  I also added a clicker question, asking students to choose the most effective way/ action they can take to reduce warming (reduce CO2 in the atmosphere). I gave them a list of options. Then I showed them the infographics (see below) with the actual impact they will make with their action. Through this activity, I wanted to emphasize the importance of personal choices/ action on the future of our Planet. Unfortunately, most of the actions at UBC are focused on the importance of recycling. Although it is a crucial step we need to take, such action is not enough to mitigate a drastic temperature rise in recent years. So, I wanted to share this idea with students to introduce a sense of urgency and to empower them to do something more than just our convenient behavior.

This infographic shows climate choices. Credit: Seth Wynes/Kimberly Nicholas, Environmental Research Letters, 2017

The thing that I think went wrong:

• I was too nervous, and as a result, my pace was too fast, and we finished 10 min earlier than expected
• I did not explain the graphs properly (pointing out the axis, units, explaining each line)
• My gestures were hectic, and my hand movements were excessive

The course instructor, Dr. Waterman, was observing me during the lecture> she identified several strength and weaknesses in my presentation.

Strengths:

• She appreciated the worksheet I designed, she commented on a  great design; appropriate level; and that it was well-timed and was well-executed.
• she also commented on my proficiency in utilizing active learning techniques (clickers) during the lecture. She also noted that I did a great job in reacting on the spot to student responses and targeting my lecturing accordingly.
• Dr. Waterman also commented on my ability to design/ update the lecture materials for the course. She said that the content was excellent because it was current, high quality and diverse (e.g. IPCC projections, as well as how personal choices impact one’s carbon footprint). She also mentioned that I was very responsible in posting helpful class resources in a timely fashion.

Suggestions for improvement:

• The clicker questions for the worksheet debrief were perhaps a little too easy to be optimally effective and maintain engagement.  She encouraged me to continue to experiment to find the right balance between being affirming and challenging/engaging students.
• It appeared sometimes challenging for me to keep all students attentive during the frequent shifts between group work and debrief for the worksheet exercise.  It is challenging to have to try to repeatedly bring students’ attention back to the front.
• Dr. Waterman also suggested to project your voice more and/or turn out your microphone amplification.

References:

“The Climate Mitigation Gap: Education and Government Recommendations vs. Effective Individual Actions” Wynes, S. and Nicholas K 2017 Environ. Res. Lett. 12 074024 , iopscience.iop.org/article/10. … 088/1748-9326/aa7541

Course: EOSC112

Date: March 29, 2019

Class Size: ~200 people

Topic: Future climate

I am continuing to challenge myself to change my lecture style from instructor-focused to student-centered teaching. During my 1^st teaching practicum in Term 2 of CATL program, I decided to teach a class that I have been TAing for 5 years. The course schedule has been modified this term, and as a result, an additional class in the last module of the course, The Future Climate, was added to the class schedule. As the previous years only contained 3 lectures per module, there was a need to design an additional one. I was assigned to collect the additional material on future climate section and update already existing lectures with up-to-date information. As a result, I thought it will be a great opportunity for me to implement what I have learned during CATL in designing a lesson.

I was trying to structure my lesson in the form of activity that was leading students through the Kolb’s cycle. My activity was consisting

During this lesson I was trying to accomplish the following goals:

Channel A

• DEVELOPE a simple climate model
• COMPARE different policy outcome using simple climate model

Channel B:

• To understand the uncertainty in human action (predicting how parameter will change in 2050)
• In reality, the best option is not usually the one that is most effective, but that is more affordable.
• There is multiple of possibilities when we talk about future
• You can only work with what is available, but not with what is needed.

Overall, the activity went well. The timing of each part was in good pace, with no rushing at the end (which was very surprising as I usually tend to over- budget the activities I crate). Students seemed to be very engaged in the discussion, but for the next year, I would make the writing portion a bit more condensed. Also, I was suggested to modify the model slightly to make the estimates a bit closer to the real world.