Learning outcomes

Does Promoting Diversity of Opinion in Collaborative Learning in Conservation Enhance Student Learning?

cdtlsd Paper Presentations , , , , ,

Ian Zhi Wen CHAN
Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science (FOS)

ianchan@nus.edu.sg

 

Chan, I. Z. W. (2023). Does promoting diversity of opinion in collaborative learning in conservation enhance student learning? [Paper presentation]. In Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, 7 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/does-promoting-diversity-of-opinion-in-collaborative-learning-in-conservation-enhance-student-learning/

SUB-THEME

Communities and Education 

 

KEYWORDS

Diversity, collaborative learning, learning outcomes, learning objectives, conservation

 

CATEGORY

Paper Presentation 

 

ABSTRACT

The use of pedagogical techniques to promote collaborative learning has wide-ranging social, psychological, and academic benefits for students (Panitz, 1996; Laal & Ghodsi, 2012). Academically, the successful implementation of collaborative learning results in increased student motivation, improved learning, and generally enhanced classroom results. However, there exist many potential pitfalls along the process of forming and working in groups which can detrimentally affect learning (Bitzer, 1999), such as differing motivation levels amongst group members and potentially disruptive interpersonal conflict. It is important for educators to be aware of these hazards to manage them well.

 

One area that would benefit from further study is how diversity in groups affects learning outcomes. In the literature, diversity is often seen as a challenge to be overcome (Ashman & Gillies, 2013) or a problem to be solved through collaborative learning as a form of social intervention, e.g. see the Jigsaw method (Aronson, n.d.) and Loes et al. (2018). Anecdotally, educators typically try to achieve a balance—too little diversity may lead to less robust discussions and groupthink, whereas too much could cause excessive conflict (Barkley et al., 2014). Yet, how the presence (or absence) of diversity in groups affects eventual academic outcomes such as the achievement of learning outcomes is generally not well researched—as an exception, see Curşeu et al.’s (2018) study on the benefits of gender diversity. In this study, I ask whether assigning students to work in groups with diverse views on a divisive topic in Conservation Biology enhances their learning.

 

Today over 42,000 plant and animal species are threatened with extinction. Conservation action is crucial to protect them but many academics and practitioners disagree fundamentally on what kind of action should be taken. Together with the emotional and evocative nature of the problem, this has led to heated arguments, even in the literature. In an attempt to update Soulé’s (1985) original “Traditional Conservation”, Kareiva and Marvier (2012) put forth new ideas which became known as “New Conservation”. These ideas did not sit well with Soulé (2014) who said, “[…] it does not deserve to be labelled conservation” (p. 895), prompting replies from Marvier (2014) “New Conservation is True Conservation” and others. Over the past two years, I have observed a similar (if less vocal) divide amongst my students in the course LSM4262 “Tropical Conservation Biology”, and I ask whether assigning students with differing views on this divisive topic to the same group will enhance their learning over the course of a semester.

Students’ opinions on three issues in conservation—people-centredness, the role of science, and the role of capitalism—can be broadly used to identify whether they prefer “Traditional Conservation”, “New Conservation”, “Market ecocentrism” or “Critical social science”.
Figure 1. Students’ opinions on three issues in conservation—people-centredness, the role of science, and the role of capitalism—can be broadly used to identify whether they prefer “Traditional Conservation”, “New Conservation”, “Market ecocentrism” or “Critical social science”. Adapted from The Future of Conservation (n.d.).

 

At the beginning of this semester (Semester 1, AY2023/24), I will use my students’ opinions on three issues to identify their preferred approach to conservation (Sandbrook et al., 2019; Figure 1). As far as possible, students will be distributed into groups of four students—each with a different preference—and these groups will go through the same learning activities (e.g. class discussions) and assessments (e.g. preparing and presenting a case study) as the cohort from the previous year which was randomly sorted into groups. I will compare these two cohorts based on: (i) their academic performance as assessed by me using rubrics designed to evaluate their improvement in the course’s learning outcomes, and (ii) student self-reported learning using pre- and post-surveys and reflection assignments. These results are intended to inform educators designing collaborative learning activities on whether intentionally introducing diversity to groups can enhance student learning.

 

REFERENCES

Aronson, E. (n.d.). History of the Jigsaw. Retrieved from https://www.jigsaw.org/history/.

Ashman, A. F., & Gillies, R. M. (2013). Collaborative learning for diverse learners. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 297-313). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203837290.ch17

Barkley, E. F., Cross, K. P., & Major, C. H. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.

Bitzer, E. M. (1999). Pitfalls and bridges: Co-operative and collaborative learning in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 13(1), 11-17. https://hdl.handle.net/10520/AJA10113487_892

Curşeu, P. L., Chappin, M. M., & Jansen, R. J. (2018). Gender diversity and motivation in collaborative learning groups: the mediating role of group discussion quality. Social Psychology of Education, 21(2), 289-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9419-5

Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science? BioScience, 62(11), 962-69. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5

Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091

Loes, C. N., Culver, K. C., & Trolian, T. L. (2018). How collaborative learning enhances students’ openness to diversity. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(6), 935-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1442638

Marvier, M. (2014). New conservation is true conservation. Conservation Biology, 28(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12206

Panitz, T. (1999). Benefits of cooperative learning in relation to student motivation. In Theall, M. (Ed.) Motivation from within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to excel, New directions for teaching and learning. Josey-Bass Publishing.

Sandbrook, C., Fisher, J. A., Holmes, G., Luque-Lora, R., & Keane, A. (2019). The global conservation movement is diverse but not divided. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 316-23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0267-5

Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience, 35(11), 727-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310054

Soulé, M. E. (2013). The “new conservation”. Conservation Biology, 27(5), 895-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12147

The Future of Conservation (n. d.). About the debate. Retrieved from https://futureconservation.org/about-the-debate.

 

What We Learn From Our Neighbours: Measuring How Outcomes Are Met On Overseas Study Trips

cdtlsd Paper Presentations , , , , ,

Lynette TAN Yuen Ling*, LI Jingping, and TAN Lai Yong
Residential College 4
*rc4lynette@nus.edu.sg

 

Tan, L. Y. L., Li, J., & Tan, L. Y. (2023). What we learn from our neighbours: Measuring how outcomes are met on overseas study trips [Paper presentation]. In Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, 7 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/what-we-learn-from-our-neighbours-measuring-how-outcomes-are-met-on-overseas-study-trips/

 

SUB-THEME

Communities and Education 

 

KEYWORDS

Learning outcomes, out-of-classroom learning, study trips, experiential learning, community engagement

 

CATEGORY

Paper Presentation 

 

ABSTRACT

In the trajectory of effort in implementing out-of-classroom activities, overseas study trips are likely placed at the zenith—they often incur high costs, heavy faculty teaching commitment, and onerous administrative support. Whether the student learning gained is commensurate with the time and financial costs of such trips has yet to be established definitively. In particular, little empirical research exists on learning outcomes associated with overseas study trips of short duration. A study that examined the impact of a two-week study tour on the perceptions of American college students concluded that a longer exposure would likely have a more substantial impact on learning (Carley & Tudor, 2010). Even when there is a more prolonged exposure, such as in study-abroad programmes, there are still concerns about evidencing student learning and development (Dwyer, 2004). In a system-wide research initiative on study-abroad learning outcomes across the University System of Georgia (comprising 34 public institutions), Sutton and Rubin (2004) compared the self-reported learning outcomes of study-abroad participants and non-participants and concluded that while studying abroad does add value to students’ academic achievements, further studies are needed.

 

At the National University of Singapore (NUS), overseas study trips have been a staple programme of the Global Relations Office—whether through the long-term student exchange experience (with over 300 partner universities in more than 40 countries) or the Study Trips for Engagement and EnRichment (STEER) (National University of Singapore, n.d.). In AY 2022/23, a new kind of overseas study trip was launched—the Southeast Asia Friendship Initiative (SFI).

 

The SFI was designed to increase NUS students’ exposure to neighboring Southeast Asian (SEA) countries through experiential learning. Students are given opportunities to engage with local communities and partner universities, local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and enterprises in destined Southeast Asian (SEA) countries to gain first-hand insights into the nuances and challenges the local stakeholders face when they tackle various aspects of sustainable development. The common academic theme of the SFI programmes is linked to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or innovation and enterprise. Ranging from 7-10 days, the SFI aptly fits the category of the short-duration study trip, and it has several generic learning outcomes. These include gaining intercultural intelligence of the SEA country and deepening knowledge of key SDG(s) within it, as well as expanding the student’s social and professional networks to aid their future prospects in the region.

 

This study seeks to investigate if the SFI trips meet these generic and specific learning outcomes, and the extent to which those learning outcomes are met via student perception surveys as well as questions that test student knowledge administered just before and immediately after the trip. Held during the Special Term, the first SFI trip comprised 21 students and the second 20, with both trips also including one student teaching assistant and two staff from Residential College 4, NUS. The location was Indonesia, with half the trip in Lombok and the rest in Pulau Sumba.

The survey questions were grouped within four constructs:

  1. Exposure to SEA countries
  2. Knowledge on SDGs and their local solutions
  3. Understanding of collaboration between Singapore and targeted SEA countries
  4. Understanding leadership at the fringe (specific learning outcome of the course)

 

Results from the surveys indicate that the intended learning outcomes were met. The study trip increased students’ exposure to SEA countries and local communities: the results show that students had a better knowledge of local language and geography features, and also developed a deeper understanding of local challenges and solutions from the perspective of SDGs through the trip. Moreover, exposure to the local communities had a positive impact on students’ willingness to engage in work and business opportunities in SEA countries, which might strengthen the collaboration between Singapore and SEA countries at the individual levels.

 

The significance of the study is twofold—firstly, and more generally, it supports the SFI as a value proposition that it does indeed merit the time and financial costs incurred. Secondly, the study serves as a measure of how short-term study trips can meet learning outcomes based on community engagement, leading to intercultural growth and a change in attitudes of students towards our SEA neighbours.

. 

 

REFERENCES

Carley, S., & Tudor, R. K. (2010). Assessing the impact of short-term study abroad. Journal of Global Initiatives: Policy, Pedagogy, Perspective. 1(2), Article 5. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jgi/vol1/iss2/5

Dwyer, M. M. (2004). More is better: The impact of study abroad program duration. Frontiers (Boston, Mass.), 10(1), 151–64. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.139

Sutton, R. C., & Rubin, D. L. (2004). The GLOSSARI project: Initial findings from a system
-wide research initiative on study abroad learning outcomes. Frontiers (Boston, Mass.), 10(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.36366/frontiers.v10i1.133

National University of Singapore. (n.d.). Student Exchange Programme. https://www.nus.edu.sg/gro/global-programmes/student-exchange

 

Unpacking Students’ Development of Empathy And Skills in the Informal Curriculum of a Residential College in Singapore

cdtlsd Poster , , , , , ,

Lavanya BALACHANDRAN*, Sue CHANG-KOH, and LIM Xin Yi
College of Alice & Peter Tan (CAPT)

*lavanyab@nus.edu.sg

 

Balachandran, L., Chang-Koh, S., & Lim, X. Y. (2023). Unpacking students’ development of empathy and skills in the informal curriculum of a residential college in Singapore [Poster presentation]. In Higher Education Campus Conference (HECC) 2023, 7 December, National University of Singapore. https://blog.nus.edu.sg/hecc2023proceedings/unpacking-students-development-of-empathy-and-skills-in-the-informal-curriculum-of-a-residential-college-in-singapore/ 
 

SUB-THEME

Communities and Education 

 

KEYWORDS

Service-learning, community engagement, student-led, empathy, skills, learning outcomes

 

CATEGORY

Poster Presentation 

 

ABSTRACT

Service-learning has been identified as an effective pedagogy for students across various age cohorts (Steinke & Fitch, 2007) with many benefits such as cognitive development and personal growth (Everhart, 2016), including empathy development (Gordon et al., 2022). This is because service-learning programmes provide the platform to engage with various communities and real-world issues where students gain ‘ground-up’ knowledge and acquire skills (Prentice & Robinson, 2010).

 

In Singapore, service-learning pedagogies have been incorporated into the curriculum of public schools and institutes of higher learning (IHLs) (Service learning and greater flexibility for incoming undergraduates at NUS, 2021; Tan, 2009). Additionally, some IHLs have also incorporated them into living and learning programmes (LLPs), which are residence-based programmes that focus on specific academic themes, through formal and informal curricula (Inkelas, 2008; Mukhopadhyay & Tambyah, 2019).

 

This poster presentation draws from a qualitative research study conducted in a Singapore undergraduate residential college (henceforth referred to as the college) that has community engagement (CE) and active citizenship as its core ethos. In particular, it examines the impact of student-led CE programmes in the informal curriculum focusing on how empathy and skills—two out of the four intended learning outcomes (ILOs) of the CE programme in the college—are perceived to be developed, enhanced and sustained for students.

 

This study is based on in-depth interviews with 19 students over their two-year residency in the college. The interviews were conducted in three phases, spanning the residency period to track the students’ aspirations, expectations, and perceptions of their CE experiences. Thematic coding was conducted using NVivo to analyse the interview data.

 

Findings from this research suggest that:

(a) CE programmes effectively facilitate the development of empathy in students when grounded in curated, intentional learning experiences. Meeting and engaging with the various communities experientially catalyse affective empathy development, especially when augmented by other learning modalities, including pre-engagement and post-reflection activities.

(b) the type of student involvement results in differentiated pathways in skills acquisition. Leaders and non-leader participants have different tasks and expectations of their engagements. Hence, their varied experiences in these CE programmes result in the acquisition of different skills.

 

This research sheds light on how the adaptation of service-learning in the informal curriculum of a residential college, particularly when reconfigured into student-led programmes, significantly impacts on student learning. It also highlights the importance of focusing on experiential learning and providing opportunities for role variety in these programmes, as they enhance the development of empathy and skills in students. This study also provides suggestions to expand on these findings to explore how students should leverage different CE opportunities and explore various participatory roles to maximise their learning outcomes.

 

 

REFERENCES 

Gordon, C. S., Pink, M. A., Rosing, H., & Mizzi, S. (2022). A systematic meta-analysis and meta-synthesis of the impact of service-learning programs on university students’ empathy. Educational Research Review, p,37, 100490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100490

Everhart, R. S. (2016). Teaching tools to improve the development of empathy in service-learning students. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 20(2), 129-54. https://openjournals.libs.uga.edu/jheoe/article/view/1281

Inkelas, K. K. (2008). Innovative directions for living-learning programs research and practice. Journal of College and University Student Housing, 35(1), 8–13.

Mukhopadhyay, K., & Tambyah, S. K. (2019). Where freshmen aspirations meet reality: Factors Influencing the learning outcomes of a living-and-learning program in an Asian university. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(5), 1015–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1598337

Service learning and greater flexibility for incoming undergraduates at NUS. (2021, February 26). NUS News. https://news.nus.edu.sg/service-learning-and-greater-flexibility-for-incoming-undergraduates-at-nus/

Prentice, M., & Robinson, G. (2010). Improving student learning outcomes with service learning. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535904.pdf

Steinke, P., & Fitch, P. (2007). Assessing service-learning. Research & Practice in Assessment, 2, 24–29. https://www.rpajournal.com/assessing-service-learning/

Tan, K. P. (2009). Service learning outside the U.S.: Initial experiences in Singapore’s higher education. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(3), 549–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/s104909650909088x

 

Skip to toolbar