Introduction
One of the expected learning outcomes for ECOT3101 (Principles of Ecotourism) is the demonstrated "ability to work effectively and cooperatively as a member of a small group". This has been a challenge in the past from three points of view: (1) assessment (how do we accurately measure evidence of cooperation in a group); (2) conflict of interest among group members (some students aim for high distinction, others are satisfied with a pass); and, (3) time and resources needed to mediate conflicts between groups (which were common) rather than working effectively as a team to produce a high quality product. Groupwork is particularly relevant to third year ecotourism students, as application of this student centred learning technique facilitates the development of "skills to critically research, interpret and present thematic material for a non-specialist audience". This lies at the core of successful ecotourism practice. Interpretation of the natural world involves many steps and includes: identifying core knowledge relevant to a particular theme; identifying the intended audience; synthesizing the relevant information; communicating the information via stories or sub-themes (called thematic interpretation with layers of meaning); and, preparation of brochures/materials/signs/reports to disseminate the information non-verbally. Additional aspects of the course, also identified as learning outcomes, are the preparation of a business plan and a web page in relation to the student's identified group project.

Review of Group Learning Challenges
Group project work has several advantages to facilitate expected learning outcomes, including the application of multiple approaches that allow for in depth coverage of the topic from different perspectives, and identification of strengths and weaknesses at the individual and group level which may be optimised to achieve the goals of group (involving critical reflection, identification of key resources, planning, modified outcomes in relation to existing resources). Problems that arise from groupwork are related primarily to assessment and to potential differences in the equality of tasks in the group. Groupwork is considered good preparation for the reality of working life, as most professionals engage in group level interactions and social commitments of some kind.

How I addressed learning challenges in ecotourism
Based on interviews and discussions with students and colleagues over four months after my arrival at Flinders University, I identified the following challenges that I needed to address to increase the effectiveness of groupwork to achieve the desired learning outcomes of the course:

• The equality of the distribution of tasks in the group
• Identifying areas of individual versus group assessment
• The ability to remain responsive to students while also giving clear guidelines of expected outcomes

Phase 1: Mental preparation for what lies ahead
At the end of second semester in year two, I foreshadowed to all students (in a lecture with a follow-up email) that third year ecotourism (two semesters) would involve creating and executing a group project of their choice (under specific stated guidelines) with the group members of their choice (2-5 members). I further advised students that they would be forming mock consulting groups, and that the criteria they should use to select their group members should not be based on friendship, but on the mix of skills and interests they would need to complete their identified task.

Phase 2: Introducing the methods
At the beginning of first semester, we brainstormed all project ideas and identified as a class the different skills that would be required to complete each task successfully. Students were left to choose their groups independently of the lecturers. I then introduced the concept of the Terms of Reference (ToR).

At the end of semester 1, each group hands in a combined group ToR (15% of the total assessment) and each member hands in an individual ToR (15% of the total assessment). The ToR contains: the objectives of the project (goals); the strategies to achieve the goals; expected results; activities in relation to the expected results; and, budget. Each student is asked to plan and commit herself/ himself to particular activities in relation to particular results. One semester is enough time to determine, on average, the relative expectations of each group member in relation to the group. If expectations differ greatly between students, then they are requested to modify the relative contribution of each individual (those with high expectations will commit to doing more activities than those with low expectations for example). Students also have the option to determine the weighting of the other assessable components of the course, including the business plan (10%) and web page (10%) (so, individual students could opt to contribute equally or allocate a bulk of the work to particular individuals). In addition, I ask students to include in the ToR as a strategy "effective and cooperative groupwork", and to provide expected results and activities that demonstrate mechanisms for achieving this particular result. Students are marked on an oral group presentation (10%) at the end of first semester, and are asked to keep a diary of all interactions and thoughts which may be used as supplemental material in the case of disputes. Groups are asked to hold five meetings per semester with their group assessors (two per group) to discuss the progress of the group.

Students are given feedback on their work. Students submit the draft ToR three weeks before the due date and receive feedback on their draft before the final submission for assessment. Students receive feedback for their project development as part of the monthly meetings with their assessors (two academic staff that are chosen by the students at the beginning of the topic). Students may schedule as many meetings as necessary. Students are required to organise the meeting and create the agenda.

Phase 3: Evaluation
In second semester, I ask students to conduct a mid-year evaluation of where they are in relation to the original ToR from first semester, and to make adjustments where necessary. These can be added as amendments to the original ToR if necessary. The aim of this exercise is to evaluate how effective the students were at planning, and to examine if the ToR was en effective planning tool in their estimation. At the end of second semester, the project is evaluated (40% of the total assessment) in relation to the ToR submitted at the end of first semester and in consideration of the amendments in second semester. In addition, we ask students to mark each other in relation to group cohesion based on five criteria (5% of the grade), while assessors also mark the group on group cohesion (5%).

Phase 4: Outcome
My colleagues inform me that the group process is much more effective using this method than it had been in previous years. This is reflected in fewer and more easily resolved disputes among group members, much greater transparency of individual tasks in relation to the group project (which improves the accuracy of assessment), and high responsiveness of the lecturers to student needs while allowing sufficient room for flexibility and creative learning. The Student Evaluation of Teaching (SETs) results are very positive for both the topic and for my lecturing contribution, with students commenting on the high learning impact of groupwork particularly in relation to their perceived future jobs. Students complete the course with the skills to create work contracts, negotiate tasks, plan and organise complex events, and work cooperatively together despite a multitude of personalities, approaches and expectations. The quality of some of the groupwork has surpassed my expectations, and in some cases has been implemented by industry partners.