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 1st 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
| Stage 1: Plan (Kolb’s “Active experimentation”) |
Students were given the following task: Your group is part of the US Department of Climate Change. The American government has requested that you make an assessment of the cost-to-benefit ratio of different policy approaches to reducing future warming. Your goal is to predict what the temperature will be in the USA in 2050 under different policy scenarios, and advice on the best policy option.
Each group was given 5 different graphs that showed the change since the 1800s. Students were asked first to explore the trends and describe them in their worksheet. This step was designed to make students familiar with the data. During the next part, students were exploring how exact the same parameters were changing with temperature. This step was created to make students think about what parameters should be included in their model. They were also asked to make a rationale why they want to include a certain parameter in the model and why not. |
| Stage 2: Experience (Kolb’s “Concrete experiences”) |
Then, students were asked to create their own model based on eth parameters they chose earlier. To do that they were asked to “predict” the value of the parameter in 2050. To do that, students were using the graph from Part 1, but were required to use some sort of logic/rationale, as the trend finishes in 2018. Students were encouraged to discuss what may happen in the future using past and present trends. Then they were using the temperature graph to see what the temperature would be given the value of parameter from 2050. At the end they came up with the estimate of the temperature in 2050. |
| Stage 3: Reflect (Kolb’s “Reflective observation”) |
The next stage of the lesson was making students to reflect on their model. To do that they were given two scenarios that described what government can do to mitigate the warming. Option one was very expensive, but most effective; while Option2 was less expensive and not as effective as Option 1. So, students were encouraged to choose one option that government should implement. As there was no “correct answer” in this situation as they face a dilemma that all governments are facing in real world: to go what is less expensive or the one that works best (but is more expensive) option. Thus, this part gave them an opportunity to share their own values and beliefs. |
| Stage 4: Conceptualise (Kolb’s “Abstract conceptualization”) |
Students were asked to evaluate their Model: to emphasize strong and week points. And also suggest how they can improve their model if they were asked to do it once again (e.g. What other parameters to consider) |
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.