Introduction – Creative methods in the geography

teaching-learning process

Geography is a complex scientific discipline, and with its interdisciplinary approach,

geography encourages studying in an unconventional manner. Therefore, learning

geography is creative and can inspire interest about the world that involves a curiosity

about nature. However, a learning experience does not necessarily have to be rooted in

a traditional way of learning based on, for example, handbooks.

In principle, creative methods of learning (CML) refer to the process when students

work together in a real situation trying to determine a variety of proposals, but at the

same time, they create an open dialogue and mutual cooperation (Duch et al. 2001). In

this teaching-learning process, particularly at the stage of problem-solving, the role of

teacher is limited. The teacher is a mentor, a tutor, a supervisor, who does not transfer

knowledge but is responsible for monitoring the actions of creating the knowledge by

students; however, any type of certain instruction on how to solve a problem is given by

the teacher (Barrows 1996). In other words, the role of instructor is to encourage

students to discover the principles by themselves, yet, one of the most important

matters is to create opportunities for active dialog (i.e. Socratic learning). Furthermore,

the instructor’s main task is to reformulate information to be learned into a format

appropriate for a learner’s current state of understanding. A student’s learning is

continually building upon what skills and knowledge he/she already has.

The CML are focused on searching for original and innovative solutions to a certain

problem. Thus, a self-giving answer is not the most important part of the learning

process, but the options for motivation for looking at the problem in different

perspectives (Young 2014). The application of the CML in higher education has led to a
reformulation of teaching practices. Only a short time ago, traditional lectures in
auditoriums – simplified instructors’ monologues for passive students – were the basis

for higher education, but currently new university teachers are increasingly required, or

at least recommended, to have knowledge in teaching methods as well. The question is

available learning outcomes. Learning is seen as an active process in which learners

construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current and past knowledge. A

learner selects and transforms information, constructs hypotheses, and makes

decisions by relying on a cognitive structure to do so. Cognitive structure (i.e. schema,

mental models) provides meaning to experiences and allows an individual to go beyond

the information given (Stringer et al. 2010).

When compared the CML with comprehensive school systems in the European higher

education, it turns out that CML was put into practice relatively delayed (Hawley

1992, Biggs, Tang 2011, Lambert 2014, Wijnia et al. 2015). Traditionally, university

students are assumed to be self-directed in their studies, and activities provide them

opportunities for hands-on practice for learning. They construct their own understanding

of learning, its meaning according to the context, and the ways to acquiring it (Gibbs

1992, 1999). One of the unwritten assumptions of higher education has been that

universities are repositories of information, and it is the students’ duty to select and

process detailed information for their own purposes.

Among the theories, which in the learning process take into account creative approach,

should be listed the following: Constructivist Theory of Learning (CTL) (Jonassen

1991, Steffe, Gale 1995, Hmelo-Silver, Barrows 2006), Problem-Based Learning (PBL)

(Barrows 1996, Schmidt 1983, Boud, Feletti 1997, Yew, Schmidt 2012), and

Experiential Learning (EL) (Dewey 1938, Kolb, Fry 1975, Boud et al. 1985).

As for the experiential learning, this theory considers the individual learning process and
is rooted in learning about the theory presented within the book, including student-
 centered teaching and learning as well as freedom of experience (Breunig 2009). Knapp

(1992) explains that experiential learning consists of several aspects:

1. –active students involvement in a meaningful and challenging experience;

As Roberts (2006) mentioned in the experiential learning process, students are involved

by active observation and reflection, when learning can involve laboratory classes, field

trips, problem-solving. Breunig (2009) confirms that many experiential educational

initiatives are based on this learning approach.

In addition, experiential learning is an abstraction that does not offer any exact methods

and models to teaching pupils or students any better than before. The instructor is

needed to select workable and reasonable teaching and learning methods in relation to

the subject and the core of a study module. In practice, eligible learning outcomes and

the content of the course are directing the selection of study methods.

It needs to be said that the modern theory of experiential learning draws on John

Dewey’s work (Breunig 2005). Dewey (1938) insisted that the learning process should

be relevant and practical, not passive and theoretical. For this reason, one of the main
tasks of experiential learning is learning things by doing them. This manner was

adopted by us, and named as the learning by doing (LBD) method that was tested

during the Intensive Project (IP).

Methods, Materials, Case Study

The aim of the article is to get a closer overview of the non-instructional methods of the
teaching-learning process of geography. To achieve this goal, the results of an
 international project (Intensive Project, IP) Borderland: Border Landscapes Across

Europe (undertaken in 2012 and 2013, within the framework of Lifelong Learning

Programme-Erasmus) were presented. Three universities participated in the project:

University of Eastern Finland (Joensuu, Finland – the Project Coordinator), University of

Girona (Spain – a Project Partner), and Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Poland

– a Project Partner).

The IP was based around constructivist learning methods, which hold that learning can

happen most effectively when people are active and creating tangible objects in the real

world. During the IP, the learning by doing LBD method was achieved by testing

different aspects, e.g. by organising workshops with local stakeholders and study visits

in a specifically-selected case study. Additionally, sessions and conferences with

experts were organised as well as field excursions. However, a significant part of the IP

was working in thematic groups and brainstorming. In this aspect, the emphasis was on

the students’ own activities: the students were encouraged to engage in discussion and

criticism.

The main idea was to put students in different rather than traditional conditions of

learning and observe their reaction on:

1. How did they feel/find LBD as a new way of learning?

In this way, it was possible to test the LBD method in multinational environment. To get

the feedback from students’ reactions, each edition of the IP ended up with a
 questionnaire where all students presented their opinions, comments and

recommendations and these are presented in the results section.

As for the methodological background of the IP, the main aim was to strengthen

students’ knowledge of the landscape concept implemented in practical borderland

questions. In particular, the IP was focused on the following questions:

1. How do the local, regional, national and EU-level administration and policy create
different kinds of borders?
2. In which way do borders and local land use systems create different landscapes?; and
conversely
3. Do landscapes have an active role in the constitution of different kinds of borders?

The knowledge and experience that students would gather during the IP could be

helpful to have a vision of how the concept of landscape can be used as a tool for local,

regional and national environmental and land use planning. In addition, the course

aimed to motivate students to use landscape as a fundamental geographical concept in

their studies.

Methodologically, the IP was a combination of existing approaches from landscape

ecology (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań), regional and geographical information

systems (GIS) – based landscape research (University of Girona) and cultural-oriented

landscape research (University of Eastern Finland). Even operating inside the

landscape geography (one subfields of geography), the methods and viewpoints used

were linked to the other disciplines (e.g. ecology, history and social sciences) and

created a strong interdisciplinary atmosphere for the IP.

The first edition of the IP was organised in 2013 and took place in Catalonia in the

border region between Spain and France, and also in Andorra. The second edition was

organised in 2014 in Poland at the Polish–German border. The third one was planned to
be organised at the Finnish–Russian border; however, due to the closing LLP-Erasmus,
it was not possible to complete the final edition. The choice of the research areas was

affected by historical, social, political and cultural factors that significantly influenced the

perceptions of these border landscapes.

In each edition of the IP, 6 instructors participated (2 from each university). The

instructors (academic teachers) were specialists in different disciplines in the field of

landscape research. This combination was perfect to expand the conceptualisation of

landscape and to offer new methodological viewpoints. All the instructors gave lectures

within their field of specialisation and all of them also supervised group work.

Additionally, in the IP, other academic partners were involved: border and landscape

researchers from the host universities who presented lectures and joined in field

excursions. Furthermore, numerous external experts representatives of local

government and non-governmental organisation (NGO) presented the issues of local

culture, society and socio-economic background.

Students were selected during recruitment process, where special attention was paid on

the applicant’s existing level of internationalisation. In other words, students who had no

chance to experience, or had not participated in multinational courses, were prioritised

for the proposed IP. In the project, an equal number of students from each university

was chosen: 10 students from each unit (in total, 30 persons). The students were

divided into groups of 6: in each, a maximum of 2 people from the same university

worked together. The official language of the course was English.

At the beginning of the course, students were informed about the LBD method that was

going to be tested during the IP. At the same time, they were told how to use the

theoretical viewpoints and group work dynamics to prepare final group presentation and

group report. Additionally, they were provided with explicit criteria for grading; however,
the final grades were discussed (supported by email and Skype) and determined when

all the group reports had been submitted.

As for the tools used, GIS tools, interviews, and a questionnaire survey should be

mentioned. A variety of social media supported news dissemination of the IP:

Homepage, Facebook, and Google+. The results of students’ work were published on

the special webpage created for the project1.